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

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

I kept stressing that on the Aqua thread, I am honostly amazed how they cut corners by building the worlds shortest 83 floor building. I can completly understand why Shangri-La would make that decision and give them credit for it.

Don't get me wrong, Aqua has a really cool design and concept, but what ruined it for me was how short they built it for has many floors it has. I am suprised that they pulled out of the Waterview Tower, that truely is a shame.

8'6" or whatever floor-to-ceiling doesn't seem all that short too me. Maybe that's because I'm only 5'4" Or were the ceilings in Aqua only 8'?

[CHAPINM1]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

8'6" or whatever floor-to-ceiling doesn't seem all that short too me. Maybe that's because I'm only 5'4" Or were the ceilings in Aqua only 8'?

I guess comparing it to its neighbor the Aon Center, it really seems weird IMHO. Even if the ceiling heights in Aqua were 9 feet (which appears to be the minimal standard for any project, not just luxury these days), I still think its weird with even a residential building built today averaging just barely 10 feet from floor to floor. I'm kind of a geek though since I always look at and crunch the numbers with every project. I myself am not the tallest person in the world, but its just what I think.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

I guess comparing it to its neighbor the Aon Center, it really seems weird. Even if the ceiling heights in Aqua were 9 feet (which is the minimal standard for luxury these days), I still think its weird with even a residential building built today averaging just barely 10 feet from floor to floor.

AON is an office tower.

Office buildings always have a greater floor-to-ceiling ratio than residential buildings or hotels.

[CHAPINM1]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

AON is an office tower.

Office buildings always have a greater floor-to-ceiling ratio than residential buildings or hotels.

True, but for a residential tower its still short, I think anyway. If it were in the range of 900 feet or so it wouldn't seem unusual. I'd stay 10.5 feet anywhere is the least I'd expect today and an average of somewhere from 11 to 12 something. Then again I am taking the projects including The Musium Park Towers that are under construction and yet proposed, the Waterview Tower, the Chicago Spire, the Trump Tower, and compared them as well. I'll figure some out and post them.

Trump Tower 1,171'/96 = 12.20 average feet floor to floor
Waterview Tower 1,035'/89 = 11.63 average feet to floor.
Chicago Spire 2,000'/150 =13.33 average feet floor to floor.
One Musium 735'/65 =11.22 average feet floor to floor.
The Legacy at MP 819'/71 = 11.54 average feet floor to floor.
The Elysian 686'/60 = 11.43 average feet floor to floor.
Waldorf=Austoria 1,200'/107 = 11.21 average feet floor to floor.
Intercontinental North Tower 850'/71 = 11.97 average feet floor to floor.
375 East Wacker 840'/76 = 11.05 average feet floor to floor.

Not one of them goes even below 11 let alone 10.5 feet on average, thats why I guess I think it's a little weird regarding Aqua which technically goes below 10 at 822/83 = 9.90 average feet floor to floor.

However despite of all the facts and figures, I am glad the project was built and is a very unique addition to Chicago. I hope to before too long see the completed product for myself.

[ChicagoChicago]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

8'6" or whatever floor-to-ceiling doesn't seem all that short too me. Maybe that's because I'm only 5'4" Or were the ceilings in Aqua only 8'?

8'8" in the residential units.

[EarlyBuyer]

Chapinm1:

The economics of maximizing the number of units in a new construction and thus keeping ppsf for buyers lower makes these buildings sell. The "lower" ceiling allows more floors (and more units) into their maximum approved building height.

Buyers aren’t typically thinking cubic feet when reviewing pre-construction floor plans; instead it’s square feet.

While Magellan does typically have 8 foot 8 inch ceilings in its condo towers found in LSE, the buildings sell successfully. If they were not selling due to buyer objection to ceiling heights, they'd make a revision. The 375 East Wacker future project (Magellan) proposed ceiling heights may be a turn in a new direction due to previous/potential buyer feedback or a move to tap into a new buyer segment. With the exception of 375, it has thus far not been necessary and the towers in Lakeshore East are a sellout hit.

Take a look at the list of (higher ceiling) buildings you've outlined: Trump is facing significant financial challenges, Waterview is essentially over, Chicago Spire is on indefinite hold, and the Intercontinental replacement tower is a dream at this point (unless Strategic sells the hotel) as their stock is presently 94 cents and they’re in all-out cash hording self preservation mode.

In a nutshell, like it or not, the Magellan "formula" works and they have one financial success after another.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer

[Thymant]

Construction on this building to me seemed fast, each time I went to downtown it always looked taller.

[the urban politician]

Early Buyer, your Aqua/LSE updates just rule so damn much

[CHAPINM1]

Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer

Chapinm1:

The economics of maximizing the number of units in a new construction and thus keeping ppsf for buyers lower makes these buildings sell. The "lower" ceiling allows more floors (and more units) into their maximum approved building height.

Buyers aren’t typically thinking cubic feet when reviewing pre-construction floor plans; instead it’s square feet.

While Magellan does typically have 8 foot 8 inch ceilings in its condo towers found in LSE, the buildings sell successfully. If they were not selling due to buyer objection to ceiling heights, they'd make a revision. The 375 East Wacker future project (Magellan) proposed ceiling heights may be a turn in a new direction due to previous/potential buyer feedback or a move to tap into a new buyer segment. With the exception of 375, it has thus far not been necessary and the towers in Lakeshore East are a sellout hit.

Take a look at the list of (higher ceiling) buildings you've outlined: Trump is facing significant financial challenges, Waterview is essentially over, Chicago Spire is on indefinite hold, and the Intercontinental replacement tower is a dream at this point (unless Strategic sells the hotel) as their stock is presently 94 cents and they’re in all-out cash hording self preservation mode.

In a nutshell, like it or not, the Magellan "formula" works and they have one financial success after another.

I will say if I were moving to Chicago and if I had the doe, I'd definetly consider buying a condo there. It really is quite affordable for downtown IMHO.

Also bear in mind, it's only usually geeks like me who pay attention to the iddy gritty details that most people wouldn't.

[simcityaustin]

I think ceiling height is going to depend on a number of things....such as your target market, your location, (giving a unit higher ceilings to compensate for a lacking location) building design, etc.

While I don't think EarlyBuyer's attempted correlation is true (Higher ceilings = failed buildings...If I took the time I'm sure I could find just as many succesful buildings with high ceilings) I do think if it makes economic sense, aka increase your ROI by lowering the ceiling a bit, why not?

[EarlyBuyer]

Update released from Magellan today:

3/4/09

"...Today at approximately 4:00 p.m. McHugh Construction and Magellan Development will witness the final concrete being pumped and poured on floor 82 of Aqua..."

[CHAPINM1]

Originally Posted by simcityaustin

I think ceiling height is going to depend on a number of things....such as your target market, your location, (giving a unit higher ceilings to compensate for a lacking location) building design, etc.

While I don't think EarlyBuyer's attempted correlation is true (Higher ceilings = failed buildings...If I took the time I'm sure I could find just as many succesful buildings with high ceilings) I do think if it makes economic sense, aka increase your ROI by lowering the ceiling a bit, why not?

I guess it really does depend on the market. Office OR residential, I am kind of obsessed and rank buildings by their floor to floor height. As I said before that's just me. In any case, the 83rd floor here in this case is nowhere near the 83rd floor at the Trump Tower which is of avarage height, and I am biased toward Trump in that regard.

Regarding the final pour, that's great to hear! With this project among others nearing topping out, the Chicago threads will be pretty dead for a while.

[Romero]

Does someone know what the official height is of Aqua? This site lists it as 822 feet. Emporis lists it as the same exact height of Legacy or 819 feet. Which one is right? Thank you.

As a side note. Now that Aqua is topped out, Emporis lists Chicago with 100 buildings that are 500 feet or taller that are either built or topped out.

Tony in Woodacre

[CHAPINM1]

It was once rumored that The Legacy was 822 feet but turns out its 819 feet, you must be thinking of that. It was mentioned on here a while back that the confirmed height for this one is 822 feet.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Taken today:

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer

Update released from Magellan today:

3/4/09

"...Today at approximately 4:00 p.m. McHugh Construction and Magellan Development will witness the final concrete being pumped and poured on floor 82 of Aqua..."

[EarlyBuyer]

GREAT shot hydrogen!

[Jibba]

This evening: