CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 202

Tom Servo · #**4021** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Thats great news. (and classy)

...excluding that parking garage.

what's wrong with the garage? it's p+w, i have a feeling ralph johnson knows how to hit a grand slam with a parking garage.
lest we forget:

source: *http://architourist.schtuff.com/contemporaine*

Alliance · #**4022** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 6:52 PM**

Because its still (to my knowledge) killing the streetlife and unlike Contemporaine, there is amlost no integration into the tower (which will likely be fabulous).

Tom Servo · #**4023** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Because its still (to my knowledge) killing the streetlife and unlike Contemporaine, there is amlost no integration into the tower (which will likely be fabulous).

killing what streetlife? have you been over there ever? there is no steetlife to kill. second, i'm a much bigger fan of an honest parking structure than some silly trump tower, cover-it-up-with-glass and 'blend' it in with the rest of the building treatment. if a garage is going to be visible, then let it be what it is.

Alliance · #**4024** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 7:47 PM**

I agree with you on Trump, but I didn't ask for camoflauge, I asked for continuity. Function should have a commanding influence on form. At the same time, a total disconnect really shatters the concept of building one building in the first place.

And if Perkins and Will want to have a successful project in a successful area, they better damned well care about streetlife. Even if you feel there is nothing there, this tower does little to promote it.

honte · #**4025** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 8:16 PM**

^ Would it be OK if we discuss this in the Parking Podium thread?

SamInTheLoop · #**4026** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 9:21 PM**

That had to be one of the quckest caisson jobs ever for a building of this size. The Buck/GP/(I'm assuming MK on engineering) team has been known to maximize efficiency as far as re-using existing foundations....does anybody know the extent to which they are doing this on 155?

spyguy · #**4027** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 10:33 PM**

The Bluewater 5440 redesign

And a larger version of one of the Wacker Plaza renderings

Dan in Chicago · #**4028** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 12:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

What was Emporis' source? Article says old design was 673,000 sq. ft. Which seems more reasonable.

The data was so old that no source was given. It must have been entered in 2000 or 2001. I changed it to the lower figure, since obviously we have a source for that. I also changed the old design to never-built and created a new entry: ID # 312265. There is also a new entry for Bluewater 5440 at ID # 312267.

honte · #**4029** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

The Bluewater 5440 redesign

And a larger version of one of the Wacker Plaza renderings

Wow, we win one and lose one in the same post. I am a bit bummed about the "Bluewater" redesign - it lacks the creativity and grace of the old, although I am pleased that the materials appear to be roughly the same.

harryc · #**4030** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 12:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

That had to be one of the quckest caisson jobs ever for a building of this size. The Buck/GP/(I'm assuming MK on engineering) team has been known to maximize efficiency as far as re-using existing foundations....does anybody know the extent to which they are doing this on 155?

Caissons AND steel piles ... pile driver being assembled today. Some piles put in earlier, but not the clusters as seen at 225 VanB - yet.

Caissons were belled at the hardpan, not rock ( still tested with a "little" O-Cell.

SolarWind · #**4031** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 3:26 AM**

October 30, 2007

rgolch · #**4032** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 3:56 AM**

Hey Steely, on pg 1, you have Grant park tower 4 described as the tower on the far left. I think you meant the far right (unless I gotta stop smoking the good shit).

Steely Dan · #**4033** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

The data was so old that no source was given. It must have been entered in 2000 or 2001. I changed it to the lower figure, since obviously we have a source for that. I also changed the old design to never-built and created a new entry: ID # 312265. There is also a new entry for Bluewater 5440 at ID # 312267.

thanks for clearing that up dan, and for creating the new emporis entires.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgolch

Hey Steely, on pg 1, you have Grant park tower 4 described as the tower on the far left. I think you meant the far right (unless I gotta stop smoking the good shit).

ahhhh, my left hand/right hand dyslexia strikes again. good catch.

SamInTheLoop · #**4034** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 4:46 PM**

Seems to be another lengthy delay in the glass installation at MoMo. It doesn't appear as if any new glass has been installed in maybe 1.5-2 months.......anybody know the story with this delay?

SamInTheLoop · #**4035** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 4:49 PM**

From a distance on Wacker Drive this morning, I could see a mobile crane that appeared to have been at the Kinzie Station Site A location - the new twin-tower rental project.....anyone who goes by the area may want to look for an imminent construction start on this one (or two)...

SamInTheLoop · #**4036** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

October 30, 2007

That's amazing - already beginning excavation! There's something quite beautiful about a super-efficient, streamlined construction project. 155 seems to be a superb example (afterall, this building needs to be delivered July 2009, so it's an incredibly tight timeline here). For an example of the polar opposite, do I hear OMPW anybody?

simcityaustin · #**4037** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 5:22 PM**

Hey guys,

Perhaps you can help me. Today my teacher told my class that in terms of altitude the Sears Tower is not the tallest building in Chicago. He in fact said that it was the Aon building. (Which he called the General Oil Buildinmg or something, but pointed to Aon) Is this true?

Steely Dan · #**4038** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by simcityaustin

Today my teacher told my class that in terms of altitude the Sears Tower is not the tallest building in Chicago. Is this true?

no, your teacher doesn't know what he is talking about. the sears tower is the tallest structure in chicago, measured by both its elevation above grade, and by its absolute elevation above sea level.

in fact, the sears tower might be the highest point of elevation above sea level in all of illinois, but don't quote me on that.

cubbbyblue · #**4039** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

no, your teacher doesn't know what he is talking about. the sears tower is the tallest structure in chicago, measured by both its elevation above grade, and by its absolute elevation above sea level.

in fact, the sears tower might be the highest point of elevation above sea level in all of illinois, but don't quote me on that.

The highest natural point in Illionis is 1,235 ft above sea level at Charles Mound. Chicago is 580 ft above sea level making the Roof of the sears tower Approx. 2,030 ft. above sea level.

j korzeniowski · #**4040** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by simcityaustin

Hey guys,

Perhaps you can help me. Today my teacher told my class that in terms of altitude the Sears Tower is not the tallest building in Chicago. He in fact said that it was the Aon building. (Which he called the General Oil Buildinmg or something, but pointed to Aon) Is this true?

in his defense, it can get confusing with all of the hills here. i think the old chicago highlanders of the federal baseball league played on the bluffs where where the hancock is now located.