CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS - Page 72

Goose Island Guru · #**1421** Posted **Apr 17, 2019, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Is it cheaper to build two 700-900 ft skyscrapers than one 1,200-1,500 ft supertall of the same total square footage? I would think the latter is cheaper than the former.

Merging the two buildings into a supertall would be great news!

Construction costs start rising exponentially as you get above about 850 feet. If you're building the same square footage, it is no doubt cheaper to build two shorter buildings in most cases.

Where it may become less expensive is the physical shape of the towers - you need an efficient facade to floor area ratio to make it worthwhile.

This is partially why you tend to see more rectangular and straight towers in resi settings than square or with many ins/outs. The other reason is unit layouts, but facade area ratios are important from a building cost standpoint.

HomrQT · #**1422** Posted **Apr 17, 2019, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goose Island Guru

Construction costs start rising exponentially as you get above about 850 feet. If you're building the same square footage, it is no doubt cheaper to build two shorter buildings in most cases.

Where it may become less expensive is the physical shape of the towers - you need an efficient facade to floor area ratio to make it worthwhile.

This is partially why you tend to see more rectangular and straight towers in resi settings than square or with many ins/outs. The other reason is unit layouts, but facade area ratios are important from a building cost standpoint.

It's interesting that laying an extra foundation, adding a new set of mechanical and utilities floors, dedicating more space to a separate entrance floor, putting a separate roof, and building a second tower that will partially obstruct views and take up land space that could be used for tenant activities and leisure is cheaper than adding more floors going up.

Goose Island Guru · #**1423** Posted **Apr 17, 2019, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

It's interesting that laying an extra foundation, adding a new set of mechanical and utilities floors, dedicating more space to a separate entrance floor, putting a separate roof, and building a second tower that will partially obstruct views and take up land space that could be used for tenant activities and leisure is cheaper than adding more floors going up.

You have to consider that for each floor you pour, you have to fill the "slick line" full of concrete to the elevation of the floor. This is the line from the concrete pump that pushes the concrete up to the pour. Say the line is 8" diameter and 1400' high. The volume of that line is about 1 concrete truck. When you finish the concrete pour, you have to pump that line full of grout to clear it out and you pour all that grout into a disposal container and throw it away.

At high heights, every piece of material you have to pull up the building with the crane takes that much longer - durations stretch, etc.

At higher heights, the occupancy count of the building increases - this adds elevators which reduces floor area.

Foundation costs for one taller building are only slightly less than for two smaller buildings. You have twice the load coming down and so much more lateral to account for.

Mechanical cost comes from floor area, not count of plants. You still have the same area to heat and cool. With a single taller building, your shafts will grow larger as you approach your makeup air unit / exhaust fans, etc. You lose a lot of floor area because of this as Zerton mentioned.

With equal areas, the cost to build the 90th floor is not equal to the cost to build the 2nd floor.

Some neighborhood groups would tell you they'd rather have two shorter towers than one tall one - those people are a complete crapshoot!

Skyguy_7 · #**1424** Posted **Apr 18, 2019, 1:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goose Island Guru

You have to consider that for each floor you pour, you have to fill the "slick line" full of concrete to the elevation of the floor. This is the line from the concrete pump that pushes the concrete up to the pour. Say the line is 8" diameter and 1400' high. The volume of that line is about 1 concrete truck. When you finish the concrete pour, you have to pump that line full of grout to clear it out and you pour all that grout into a disposal container and throw it away.

I’ve never considered the slick line! Say it’s the first pour of the day at 7am.. How long does it take the concrete to reach 500’? I have to imagine Every bit of 15 minutes.

I can’t imagine the complexity of a pump that pumps liquid sand paper and rocks without wearing out.

Goose Island Guru · #**1425** Posted **Apr 18, 2019, 4:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

I’ve never considered the slick line! Say it’s the first pour of the day at 7am.. How long does it take the concrete to reach 500’? I have to imagine Every bit of 15 minutes.

I can’t imagine the complexity of a pump that pumps liquid sand paper and rocks without wearing out.

In theory it’s not all that different than the ejector pump in your basement that pumps out all your sewage waste from your basement bathroom - human waste, wads of toilet paper, etc.

I have no idea how these things work but they get the job done!

But you’re right, the slick lines are subjected to immense friction from the aggregate in the concrete over time and do indeed wear out. Keep in mind these are almost always PVC. There are videos online of free flowing concrete down stairwells when a slick line gives out.

harryc · #**1426** Posted **Apr 25, 2019, 3:27 AM**

April 23 2008

Chicago Spire by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Hourstrooper · #**1427** Posted **Apr 25, 2019, 3:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc

April 23 2008

Chicago Spire by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Darn recession! Always makes me wish we had it and water view, Chicago would be a different city because of those projects that's forsure

But thankfully in a few months this will be occurring here yet again!

chicagodeckerdude · #**1428** Posted **Apr 25, 2019, 3:38 PM**

so if I remember correctly they want them to lose the hotel portion from these towers?
In most cases like this when you remove the hotel portion do they usually shorten the tower...or try to create more units for sale/rentals to maintain the building height/design as it is?

spyguy · #**1429** Posted **Apr 27, 2019, 4:30 PM**

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commerci...icago-real-estate-game-and-often-winning

Quote:

These watchdogs are playing the Chicago real estate game—and often winning

...But many do. Community groups can play a constructive role in the development process, suggesting changes that often make their projects better, says Chicago developer Curt Bailey. "You really want to listen to them because they know the neighborhood better than anyone else," says Bailey, president of Related Midwest, which wants to build two skyscrapers on the Chicago Spire site, at 400 N. Lake Shore Drive.

Related Midwest removed plans for a 175-room hotel in one of the buildings after SOAR and residents of nearby buildings raised concerns about the increased traffic that would result. Reilly, who did not return phone calls, told the developer to go back to the drawing board. Related Midwest plans to present a revised proposal in the next few months.

r18tdi · #**1430** Posted **Apr 27, 2019, 5:46 PM**

Shame to lose the hotel/event/restaurant spaces. They were sort of quasi-public. Now this site will be only for residents. Oh well.

F1 Tommy · #**1431** Posted **Apr 27, 2019, 5:51 PM**

Nothing will match the Spire(the original Fordham was the best), but I liked the Related proposal. Now with the hotel gone I wish they would just put both towers together as one and bring the height up.

Chicago_Forever · #**1432** Posted **Apr 27, 2019, 7:06 PM**

Can we please lock this thread until some actual news? I'm tired of the same few people speculating and bitching about the same things over and over again.

The fact is, no one knows for sure what the revised plans will look like. Removing the hotel component doesn't necessarily mean the taller tower is going to shrink. Just look across the damn river for example! Magellan had to remove the hotel component from site I and still ended up with an ever taller building. They removed the 300 hotel rooms and just added 300 more condos for a total of 600 condo units. I don't see why Related couldn't do the same thing. Related wasn't building that many hotel rooms to begin with. Even if they only added another 50 condos the taller tower would probably still remain a supertall. As for the 850ft shorter tower, it's all apartments so they could just leave as is or add a small amount of apartments to it in order to maintain the current height.

Lastly, Related should have known from the start that a hotel was not going to fly at that location. I guess many of you weren't here when the Fordham Spire was proposed before it became the Chicago Spire. A hotel was a no go then which is why that proposal ended up with 1196 condos instead.

Steely Dan · #**1433** Posted **Apr 27, 2019, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago_Forever

Can we please lock this thread until some actual news?

Great idea!

Steely Dan · #**1434** Posted **Oct 7, 2019, 6:50 PM**

finally, a semi-update:

Quote:

But another developer with plans for two big towers on the former Chicago Spire site has scrapped that proposal and gone back to the drawing board, Reilly said.

.....

In May 2018, the developer proposed a project there with two towers, one rising 1,100 feet, the other 850 feet. But last October, Reilly said he wouldn’t support the proposal without major revisions. He nixed plans for a hotel in one of the buildings and told Related Midwest to reduce the size of a podium on which the towers sit, among other changes.

Related Midwest recently asked the Chicago Department of Planning and Development to stop reviewing its plans so it could “make some adjustments,” Reilly told Spielman. He said he didn’t know what changes the developer is considering.

“We probably won’t be engaging with Related Midwest for another couple of months, until they come back with a new set of plans,” Reilly said.

source: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commerci...d-tallest-tower-very-close-alderman-says

lakeshoredrive · #**1435** Posted **Oct 7, 2019, 6:59 PM**

RIP to the design. I liked them and I hope the new proposal will be better to make up for the loss of the original proposal.

maru2501 · #**1436** Posted **Oct 7, 2019, 7:46 PM**

"make some adjustments" doesn't sound like scrapping

Steely Dan · #**1437** Posted **Oct 7, 2019, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501

"make some adjustments" doesn't sound like scrapping

yeah.

Reilly either knows more than we do, or he's just making an assumption.....

RedCorsair87 · #**1438** Posted **Oct 7, 2019, 8:26 PM**

The last bit of information we heard before this article was Related had until May 2020 to break ground so there is still time.

rgarri4 · #**1439** Posted **Oct 7, 2019, 8:30 PM**

Hopefully only the design of the base changes.

MorganChi · #**1440** Posted **Oct 7, 2019, 9:39 PM**

Not to bring any negativity to this chat though but I’m afraid the old spire site will be nothing more than a park . We waited for this land to be develop within that last 11 years and nothing more than that has happened. It would of been nice to see the developer combined the two towers to make one whole tower ( 1,900ft ) but anything can happen within the next coming months.