CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 198

harryc · #**3941** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

No, piles are a "friction" foundation. So long as you get enough "stick" into the ground, the friction will resist gravity loads. I think they deliberately set them to fan out from what will eventually be the base of a column.

I didn't realize they set so many so close together, though. And 95 feet should be almost to bedrock!

Looks like 5 feet or so was cut off, example of the footing poured over old wood pilings ( from 353 N Clark )

SamInTheLoop · #**3942** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 10:13 PM**

Breaking News

Giles has finally filed the X/O lawsuit.
Crain's reports that Fioretti will issue a statement shortly.

Jaroslaw · #**3943** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 10:54 PM**

I'm happy that I was SO wrong... long live X/O!

wrab · #**3944** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 11:18 PM**

The Trib has an article on the X/O lawsuit also:

South Loop developer sues 2nd Ward alderman
By Susan Diesenhouse | Tribune staff reporter
5:02 PM CDT, October 26, 2007
The developer of a $300 million South Loop condominium has clashed in court with the neighborhood's newly elected alderman, charging that the official is improperly blocking the development's progress.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-071026condosuit,0,6219067.story

ardecila · #**3945** Posted **Oct 26, 2007, 11:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

No, piles are a "friction" foundation. So long as you get enough "stick" into the ground, the friction will resist gravity loads. I think they deliberately set them to fan out from what will eventually be the base of a column.

I didn't realize they set so many so close together, though. And 95 feet should be almost to bedrock!

Is the decision not to use caissons a result of long waiting lists at Case, Revcon, etc?

spyguy · #**3946** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 12:42 AM**

565 Quincy - just in time for Halloween

Take one last look before it's gone

honte · #**3947** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 3:06 AM**

^ Grrr.. How hard would it have been to work around that tower? Tell me some ultra-hip loft could not have incorporated it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

No, piles are a "friction" foundation.

They are not always governed by friction, but yes, typically.

Mr Downtown · #**3948** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Is the decision not to use caissons a result of long waiting lists at Case, Revcon, etc?

I've been wondering that also. I don't ever remember hearing a piledriver in Chicago until last year, and now they're everywhere. Roosevelt Collection and even Lakeshore East I can somewhat understand, given that those areas used to be under water, but it doesn't seem like a few feet of (geologically) not-very-old river or lake should really affect what happens 30 feet below the surface. But AMLI900, Burnham Pointe, and Wells/Franklin wouldn't really have that excuse.

rascacielos · #**3949** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Is the decision not to use caissons a result of long waiting lists at Case, Revcon, etc?

Can't be absolutely positive but I think all of the CMK projects have used piles only.

rascacielos · #**3950** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 2:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

^ Grrr.. How hard would it have been to work around that tower? Tell me some ultra-hip loft could not have incorporated it?

They are not always governed by friction, but yes, typically.

Are you talking about the 565 Quincy project? If so, they are preserving the existing building.

Chicago Shawn · #**3951** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I've been wondering that also. I don't ever remember hearing a piledriver in Chicago until last year, and now they're everywhere. Roosevelt Collection and even Lakeshore East I can somewhat understand, given that those areas used to be under water, but it doesn't seem like a few feet of (geologically) not-very-old river or lake should really affect what happens 30 feet below the surface. But AMLI900, Burnham Pointe, and Wells/Franklin wouldn't really have that excuse.

Walsh has an in house pile crew, so they can eaisly work on foundations at one end of the site at the same time as other parts of the building going vertical on other sections of the site, as could be seen with The Columbain as well as now at the Roosevelt Collection. AMLI900 is another Walsh job. Soil conditions factor in as well. In really mucky soil, caissons need extra steel for the liners to hold back the fairly fluid soils, increasing the overall cost of the job, and time as well if the water table situation is really difficult. Size and structure of the building also is a factor. Taller and heavier buildings here must go in on caissons, but for shorter structures, especially those of steel (lighter) construction, piles will do the job just fine. Combine all of those together, and you get the decison.

Dan in Chicago · #**3952** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 3:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rascacielos

Are you talking about the 565 Quincy project? If so, they are preserving the existing building.

Honte's referring to the small tower at the northwest corner of the roof, which is being demolished now.

Soil conditions in the South Loop and Near South Side are more favorable to piles. On any given building either one could be used, but soil and economics and, I suppose, the mass of the building are all factors.

At least one CMK building - The Contemporaine - used caissons. I think 630 North Franklin did also, but I'm not sure. Anybody know? I also don't have any record of the foundation type for Vue20.

Jaroslaw · #**3953** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 5:54 PM**

CMK's 1620 S Mich used piles, but 1720 was caissons.

chicubs111 · #**3954** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 7:28 PM**

I was looking at the website for the St Clair and they have a video posted about the building and residences...The guy who talks about the building mentions a building height of 450ft...not the 570ft that we had for the longest time...I know thos cityfront plaza heights we got are from a long time back.

spyguy · #**3955** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 7:39 PM**

IBM BUILDING WARD 42
330 N. Wabash Avenue

Proposed rehabilitation of office building, to include conversion of floors 2-14 into a 300-room hotel and floors 15-45 to remain office.

10023 · #**3956** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 9:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

IBM BUILDING WARD 42
330 N. Wabash Avenue

Proposed rehabilitation of office building, to include conversion of floors 2-14 into a 300-room hotel and floors 15-45 to remain office.

Hope this gets defeated. Would be better to leave 300 rooms of hotel capacity to new developments like the Waldorf, rather than convert already built space. It's got great floorplates as offices and could still be solid Class A space. Especially for companies that want a Chicago satellite office, with hotels to the north, east and west for visiting employees.

brian_b · #**3957** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 10:41 PM**

I walked by the 155 N Wacker site this afternoon and Case was disassembling and removing their caisson drill as well as their crane. There were also some concrete trucks on the site and pouring was going on in the northwest section of the site.

honte · #**3958** Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 11:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

Hope this gets defeated. Would be better to leave 300 rooms of hotel capacity to new developments like the Waldorf, rather than convert already built space. It's got great floorplates as offices and could still be solid Class A space. Especially for companies that want a Chicago satellite office, with hotels to the north, east and west for visiting employees.

Sure ... but I think this misses the point. The point here is that the IBM building is almost certainly going to be landmarked!!!

Incredible moment for a City that consistently undervalues its Modernist heritage. Now, even if they put in the hotel or whatever else, the IBM cannot be marred by terrible window changes, bad lobby reorganization, tacky bellhop on the plaza, etc.

Too bad the landmarking didn't happen sooner. They have already ruined the beautiful old IBM signage, and the lobby has "trendy" new light-up indicators for the elevators (as though anyone got lost looking for the right elevator in a Mies building?).

I also want to note that this is the third major Modern building that has been landmarked by the city this year. That figure might be a record.

I do see your point - I would rather they not put the hotel in either. IBM is still a great office location. However, if they don't ruin the building itself, the space can be reconverted to office just as quickly as it left.