CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Alliance]

Corps pay to broadcast their signals in high-def.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Seems to violate the spirit of ' free and clear ' open lakefront on what is semi public land. I'm sure the anti XO people and ald fioretti won't torpedo this proposal, will they now?

[modkris]

Can someone post a side by side comparison of this and the Beitler "tweezer"? The location of this one down by itself next to McCormick Place is far better for this type of structure.

[Untitled]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Corps pay to broadcast their signals in high-def.

Right, I figured, but is that enough to cover construction costs? I mean, I guess someone expects it to ...

Would this be dramatically cheaper to build than the Spire?

EDIT: Found a link showing the "tweezer" design: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?threadid=90005

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Untitled

Would this be dramatically cheaper to build than the Spire?

Absolutely cheaper. Very similar economics as the Beitler "tweezer", by comparison the said tower was only to cost $300 million, probably 1/8 the total cost of the Chicago Spire. This one will eliminate around 80 floors that would be very expensive to build otherwise. It would also rise much faster than a total building of similar height which would add to the cost savings by itself.

This is why most tall TV towers are empty space in the middle. What the TV people need is pure height. Think CN Tower in Toronto. I wonder if that one has paid for itself or if it is currently bringing home the bacon for the owners?

Great job Loopy.

[DHamp]

Better location than the Beitler Telecom. Observation towers need a bit of breathing room to really look good in my opinion; trying to stuff one in Streeterville is a non-starter in my opinion. I'm not necessarily sold that the design is any better than Pelli's tower though. If Chicago is going to do an observation tower, it needs to be a home-run. This is more like a base hit.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

Seems to violate the spirit of ' free and clear ' open lakefront on what is semi public land. I'm sure the anti XO people and ald fioretti won't torpedo this proposal, will they now?

Considering its neither on the lakefront or even close to X/O there's no reason to assume anyhting.

Originally Posted by modkris

Can someone post a side by side comparison of this and the Beitler "tweezer"? The location of this one down by itself next to McCormick Place is far better for this type of structure.

The Beitler Tower is dead. Its NOT by McCormick and that would be a horrible place for an observation deck if you actually want people to go there.

Originally Posted by Untitled

Right, I figured, but is that enough to cover construction costs? I mean, I guess someone expects it to ...

Would this be dramatically cheaper to build than the Spire?

Depends. If its just a tower and not an actual building (as I imagine it would be), its relatively cheap, considering its over 1450' and could easily be the tallest structure in Chicago.

[Knightwing]

Originally Posted by Untitled

Right, I figured, but is that enough to cover construction costs? I mean, I guess someone expects it to ...

Would this be dramatically cheaper to build than the Spire?

EDIT: Found a link showing the "tweezer" design: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?threadid=90005

Absolutely

[Para]

Great work everyone. Awesome, awesome, tower.

[10023]

If Chicago does one of these, especially along the lake (which I don't think is a good idea), it should be something other than the played out form of a big pole with a pod at the top.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by 10023

If Chicago does one of these, especially along the lake (which I don't think is a good idea), it should be something other than the played out form of a big pole with a pod at the top.

Thats what all these pointless towers are. Pelli's design for beitler was remarkably original and possibly even acceptable.

I hate towers.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by 10023

If Chicago does one of these, especially along the lake (which I don't think is a good idea), it should be something other than the played out form of a big pole with a pod at the top.

As stated previously the form and structure is economical therefore a potential starter.

BTW This tread at this time is almost as fast as a chat room right now.

[Para]

Originally Posted by Loopy

Also from:

Goettsch Partners
Selected and Current Works
Images Publishing, 2007

These need more love.

Also, in the vein of Chicago needing to get a tower, I really like this design. I think all of us would rather see a full on supertall building, but if we are to get a tower, I really think this is a great design to go for.

[Alliance]

OMG! Its BEITLER MEETS 7SD!

It just needs to be recessed a bit more from the lake...towers to the back of the line please.

And that think is AT LEAST 2000', with the crappy antennas.
(Which should be ditched btw for Pelli's)

[Untitled]

I'm currently reading through the Beitler thread (where the fudge was I in 2005?), but anyone want to spare me the trouble of discovering why it was canceled?

[CenIL_LA]

Yeah it definately crosses a boundary on the free and open lakefront regulations, but it is far less imposing than the old convention center building the mayor has wanted to take down. Id think if a compromise was made to give one for the other that many people would be likely to accept the new for the loss of the old. I regretfully would trade this tower myself for the burial of the old lady. I guess what hooks me on this design are the programing of the top and its location for views. There are few locations that could be as inspiring. I question though if something this big should be so brutalist. I am a person that loves brutalism but I do feel something with more design to it could do even better.
Chicago has been a city that always embraced structural beauty. There certainly could be more added, even if useless expression, to the tower. Even imagining the elevator ride up I would like to see structure dancing lightly around me, nothing too busy as to limit views. I think details should be given to excite every aspect of a persons experience and make it an adventure with more than one thrill. It could have the worlds fastest elevator but what about those that are just as excited about the speed and find illusions and form just as interesting? I find speed interesting, but even driving the worlds fastest car down the same short speedway gets boring. There are many towers of this sort around the world, what else besides the view and the worlds fastest elevator can be done to make it truly unique? All the other things shown have been done before.

[VivaLFuego]

Interesting. Revenue streams from leasing agreements with broadcasters, an observation deck operator, restaurant etc could all combine for some significant borrowing power to get the thing built. I wonder if they're soliciting potential lessees, or if this is still a pie-in-the-sky fantasy project? Or if they're in negotations with City Hall to get approval for the location, and if so, would they need to convince any alderman to approve it? And if they did, what could they do to sweeten the deal and get the votes they need? Very ambitious undertaking, alot of approval and business steps to get it done...

I like it overall, though the location is rather inaccessible, unless it gets its own shuttle bus or the Metra Electric gets more frequent service and real, full-length permanent station at 18th Street. Or if the downtown distributor/circulator system get's built....

[Alliance]

Goettsch was rather unoriginal.

Beitler's antennas were sleeker and the top made more sense...but Goettsch's colors or better and I like the glass floor.

[Untitled]

So the old Beitler thread quotes a Trib story that has the Sears Tower making $10 million a year from its antennas.

I imagine high-def antennas would draw more than that ...

[Wild Onion Mike]

Just two words: weak....uninspiring