CHICAGO | Aqua | 858 FT / 262 M | 87 FLOORS

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by honte

Yeah, exactly. I want to dance the night away under 10' trusses, not a dropped ceiling.

But I forget in the fire code - you might be able to get away without fireproofing the ballroom steel, since it's one story above a concrete frame. Does anyone know off-hand?

It all depends on the separation from the main tower. If the parking & ballroom structure is separated by a fire wall then the type of construction and thus fire ratings can differ between the ballroom and the tower. Fire walls are a structural division whereby which one side of the building could be removed and the other remain in tact. From a code standpoint, this allows you to pretty much treat each building as a separate building, allowable areas and all. The tower is most assuredly type I-A construction (the most restrictive, highest fire ratings). If the parking garage and ballroom are separated as stated above then they could probably get away with Type II construction (no basic fire ratings necessary, but the structure must be made of non-combustible material, i.e. concrete & steel). Without seeing a set of plans or doing the code search yourself, it is pretty tough to guess what they have to do in terms of fire ratings. But regarding intumescent paint... it is very expensive, especially because it needs to be applied on site.

[EarlyBuyer]

Eventually...Chicago: Thanks for the explaination



harryc: Thanks for the photo update

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by harryc

At U of I every semester you see the army of CE students march out to the Quad to do their surveying work, so it's fun to see the surveyor at work in the real world.

[Lecom]

That ballroom will make for quite an impressive interior space. How will it interplay with the park? Anyone got park plan images, or some program diagrams of the complex?

One of the reasons I live Chicago, or at least its center core, is for its multiple levels and their interaction - roads one on top of another, different street levels created by multi-level roads, complexes such as these connecting the whole system together, and as the result you get things like a large ballroom, overlooking a sizable park, sandwiched under yet another park. To me, this is quitessential urbanity.

[EarlyBuyer]

The parking garage whose roof will become the "connector" road from upper Wacker Drive to Aqua

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 1/6/08

Awesome January temps in Chicago today: 59 degrees!




First (Ground) Level



Second Level

[EarlyBuyer]

From a distance, I initially thought that I was looking at racks of windows, on closer look I realized it was sheet metal.

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 1/6/08

[harryc]

Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer

The parking garage whose roof will become the "connector" road from upper Wacker Drive to Aqua

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 1/6/08

Awesome January temps in Chicago today: 59 degrees!


Second Level

Awesome shots thx

[honte]

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago

But regarding intumescent paint... it is very expensive, especially because it needs to be applied on site.

Yep. And if you scratch it, ooops, have to come back and fix it. Just a little fantasy of mine - I am sure it's not in the project budget.

Now that you can see all of the trusses in one place, it seems that leaving them exposed might actually be a bit overbearing.

Thanks for the reply. I hate fire code. Necessary, but .

[Alliance]

[EarlyBuyer]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Great shots Alliance! What corner is this one of?

[Alliance]

Northwest.

[EarlyBuyer]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Northwest.

Thanks.

[Ecker]

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by honte

I hate fire code. Necessary, but .

You know, it really is easy to have that approach but when you consider that if it weren't for codes architects would have to determine what acceptable egress distances and widths are, appropriate fire ratings, acceptable heights and things it would be a mess. The lawyers would have a field day.

Personally, i'd rather spend my time designing rather than worrying about those things. The codes do the worrying for me!!

anyways... great pictures again!!!!^^^^^^

[McStructures]

I know it very early in the construction, but if you get the chance to see this in person, check it out. It is amazing. And we havent even come close to the most extreme cantilevered balconies. This is going to be awesome!

[honte]

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago

You know, it really is easy to have that approach but when you consider that if it weren't for codes architects would have to determine what acceptable egress distances and widths are, appropriate fire ratings, acceptable heights and things it would be a mess. The lawyers would have a field day.

Yes, clearly. That's why I wrote "necessary." I should have written that I "don't like THE fire code", not fire code in general. I just don't find it pleasant. Other codes are much clearer IMO.

[dropdeaded209]

a little off-topic, but does anyone know what the second-tallest building designed by a woman is? this is the tallest, but i've been unable to track down the runner up--anyone know off the top of their head?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209

a little off-topic, but does anyone know what the second-tallest building designed by a woman is? this is the tallest, but i've been unable to track down the runner up--anyone know off the top of their head?

I would guess something by Zaha Hadid. She has at least one or two skyscrapers in Dubai.

[spyguy]

I would have to think that Zaha Hadid's Dancing Towers are taller than this - at least above 1000 ft.

[aaron38]

It was Aqua photo overload yesterday.