CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[TransitEngr]

This may have already been posted. (too much to read)

A caisson crane has been assembled on theWit Hotel site.

[schwerve]

I know everyone's getting excited about the idea of a huge building at wolf point but that site would need a lot of work to make it manageable for a high density. The only road to the site is orleans and would thus require a bridge across the north branch of the river to really make it a feasible site for super high density. If they took down the building adjacent so it had access to kinzie as well then maybe...

[DHamp]

Originally Posted by GregBear24

I'd prefer something around 2400ft for wolf point. I think a 3000ft building is somewhat of an impractical gimmick. I don't think people who like to live that high up or pay to live that high up, and most businesses wouldn't pay for that either. Keep it more realistic at 2400ft, and stop trying to be like dubai. The "world's tallest building" is just a name and has nothing to do with quality, practicality, or staying within context of the surrounding city. This sort of thing works in countries with cheaper labor, insane growth, and a need to be "known." We invented the skyscraper and have always had the WTB up until recent years, and just because other people around the world need to compensate for something while they build cities from scratch doesn't mean we have to trump them- not donald. I love chicago because of how everything fits so well with diversity, varying heights, and locations- even sears doesn't take over the skyline- there's balance. A 3000 footer in any city in the world is ridiculous- you can't even appreciate a building that tall in its entirety unless you're almost a mile away from it. Let another city have it and let them put it next to 700 - 800 ft buildings- it'll look absurd.

How is 2400ft more practical and less gimmicky than 3000ft? Does it really make that much of a difference at that point?

I know everyone's getting excited about the idea of a huge building at wolf point but that site would need a lot of work to make it manageable for a high density. The only road to the site is orleans and would thus require a bridge across the north branch of the river to really make it a feasible site for super high density. If they took down the building adjacent so it had access to kinzie as well then maybe...

A few of us, including myself, mentioned earlier that it would be good to knock down that building (Apparel Mart) and make better use of the space if something big were to be built.

[honte]

^^ Actually, as has been pointed out (by ChicagoShawn, I believe), the Kennedys own the Apparel Center and hence there is access to lower Kinzie via their existing rights of way. There is a drive to the west of their property, and the whole thing was built up on air rights anyway.

In addition, if the city's circulator plan ever comes into existence, we would have mass transit running right next to the site in the Carroll right of way.

[Ecker]

The Elysian & Ten East Delaware


50 East Chestnut






They started painting the concrete this week. Compare for yourself...


The Clare at Water Tower






600 North Lake Shore Drive










Site of The Peshtigo


Park View West












The Tides




The Chandler


Avenue East, 550 St. Clair & The Fairbanks


Avenue East


550 St. Clair


Does anyone one know why this one has been stalled for such a long time?


600 North Fairbanks












340 on the Park

[denizen467]

^ Fabulous set of photos.

[denizen467]

Recently observed:

Streeter II >> site prep

[TowerGuy37]

This building looks so out of place and overwhelming! Maybe that or it will change as it grows taller? Anyone agree ? Also, whats with the prison windows, so ugly, Ive noticed those same kind of windows on the lower lower floors of 50 East Chestnut. Is this some new trend in windows, they appear to be glass with a chain link fence in between

[chicubs111]

they appear to be on the lower levels...probaly just the parking garage and not all the way up the building.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

^^ Actually, as has been pointed out (by ChicagoShawn, I believe), the Kennedys own the Apparel Center and hence there is access to lower Kinzie via their existing rights of way. There is a drive to the west of their property, and the whole thing was built up on air rights anyway.

In addition, if the city's circulator plan ever comes into existence, we would have mass transit running right next to the site in the Carroll right of way.

The Kennedy sold the Apparel Center to Vornado Realty Trust when they sold the Merchandise Mart. However, I've heard that the Kennedy own a lot of stock in Vornado, so...

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by TowerGuy37

This building looks so out of place and overwhelming! Maybe that or it will change as it grows taller? Anyone agree ? Also, whats with the prison windows, so ugly, Ive noticed those same kind of windows on the lower lower floors of 50 East Chestnut. Is this some new trend in windows, they appear to be glass with a chain link fence in between

It'll be fine, one of the smaller buildings (height wise) in the area. It's a block from Hancock and 900 N. Michigan.

[honte]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The Kennedy sold the Apparel Center to Vornado Realty Trust when they sold the Merchandise Mart. However, I've heard that the Kennedy own a lot of stock in Vornado, so...

Yeah. When he says "any new use at Wolf Point must complement the Apparel Center," I think that's a pretty clear indication that the two are linked.

If I recall, Chris Kennedy was (is?) the VP for Vornado after the merger, in charge of the Mart Properties and perhaps other things.

[the urban politician]

That photo update was sick

[jjk1103]

....what is wrong at 550 St Claire ?? The building structure is complete and there isn't a single pane of glass installed ??? ..........inquiring minds want to know !!

[chicagostyx]

Could someone in the know please post a travel route from I-55 or I-290 that would take me past some of the big buildings being built in Chicago? Thanks.

[Mr Man]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

14 CFR 77.13

(c) A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions of this part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground, or an alteration that will make an existing structure exceed that height, must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued.

Thank you for posting. You know, I don't think a real estate developer has ever submitted the necessary paperwork to the FAA for going above 2000ft. However, guyed masts have in the past and been approved by the FAA. When this regulation was written, it was highly unlikely any skyscraper would be built exceeding 2000ft. Now that it's becoming more common-place, it is possible for regulations to be changed. Also remember, the 2000ft imposed limit is not a law, so their is no need for an act of congress. Theoretically, all it would take is a few letters to the FAA from developers complaining the limit is a hindrance on their bundle of rights.

The only people who care about this regulation are us skyscraper nuts, a few radio broadcasters, and possibly the recent addition of Garrett Kelleher.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Man

Thank you for posting. You know, I don't think a real estate developer has ever submitted the necessary paperwork to the FAA for going above 2000ft. However, guyed masts have in the past and been approved by the FAA. When this regulation was written, it was highly unlikely any skyscraper would be built exceeding 2000ft. Now that it's becoming more common-place, it is possible for regulations to be changed. Also remember, the 2000ft imposed limit is not a law, so their is no need for an act of congress. Theoretically, all it would take is a few letters to the FAA from developers complaining the limit is a hindrance on their bundle of rights.

The only people who care about this regulation are us skyscraper nuts, a few radio broadcasters, and possibly the recent addition of Garrett Kelleher.

Seeing as Daily wants a no-fly zone over downtown anyway, I don't see why he wouldn't push for a tower exceeding the 2,000' mark.

[honte]

^ Yeah, I think so too. Very Daley-ish reasoning: "Let's build a bigger target, to get the Feds to agree to protect our targets."

[Mr Man]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Seeing as Daily wants a no-fly zone over downtown anyway, I don't see why he wouldn't push for a tower exceeding the 2,000' mark.

If Disney World (to prevent aerial advertisers) and Mount Vernon, VA (to prevent vibrations) have a no-fly zone, why not downtown Chicago or any area with a concentration for tall buildings (to prevent planes from accidentally or intentionally crashing into them).

I swear it seems like the government logic can either be bought or just non-existent at times.

[F1 Tommy]

Unless you have F16s in the air 24 hours a day flying around the city
a no fly zone doesnt protect .Its a stupid idea.They could not respond fast enought to do anything.Now missile batteries might do the trick!!