CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS - Page 5

maru2501 · #81 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 3:49 PM**

you have to wonder how damaged that foundation could be

Zapatan · #82 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501

I have written this off as a supertall

Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't but what makes you say that? It could be... the location is perfect.

Zapatan · #83 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

Related would rather dig up the foundation than build something interesting.

I like One Museum Park, didn't Related Midwest build that?

I guess I won't get my hopes up too high for this one since there seems to be the general consensus that it will end up short and ugly, but why not seize the opportunity to build something amazing?

LouisVanDerWright · #84 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501

you have to wonder how damaged that foundation could be

By what? They are designed to be in the ground and have been in the ground the entire time, I doubt there is any damage at all. They've been pickled in 55 degree mud since they were laid.

Kumdogmillionaire · #85 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I like One Museum Park, didn't Related Midwest build that?

I guess I won't get my hopes up too high for this one since there seems to be the general consensus that it will end up short and ugly, but why not seize the opportunity to build something amazing?

Don't say that too loudly. People hate OMP on here. I like it too, I think when Viñoly and Jahn buildings come in they'll be complimented and not look as out of place.

Kumdogmillionaire · #86 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

By what? They are designed to be in the ground and have been in the ground the entire time, I doubt there is any damage at all. They've been pickled in 55 degree mud since they were laid.

You don't think it's possible all that sitting water, freezing and unfreezing could have done damage? While I'd bet on the foundation being fine since it has to hold up to immense pressures anyway, I would not be surprised to see them tear it up and replace it

jc5680 · #87 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

You don't think it's possible all that sitting water, freezing and unfreezing could have done damage? While I'd bet on the foundation being fine since it has to hold up to immense pressures anyway, I would not be surprised to see them tear it up and replace it

What about it's current condition is any different than if there was a building resting on it?

You have made more than a few contradictory statements in several Chicago threads now. Please enlighten us with the facts and knowledge you are using to arrive to your conclusions.

BVictor1 · #88 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I like One Museum Park, didn't Related Midwest build that?

I guess I won't get my hopes up too high for this one since there seems to be the general consensus that it will end up short and ugly, but why not seize the opportunity to build something amazing?

No, that wasn't Related, the was Forest City/Jerry Fogelson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

You don't think it's possible all that sitting water, freezing and unfreezing could have done damage? While I'd bet on the foundation being fine since it has to hold up to immense pressures anyway, I would not be surprised to see them tear it up and replace it

No. No damage to the caissons because of this. Who says there's a general consensus that it'll end up short and ugly?

ithakas · #89 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

"You can see that Manhattan is booming, so we have a number of opportunities and leads there," Schumacher said. "We have more work in Miami, we have a second tower underway there, we're competing in Chicago, we've looked at opportunities in LA, and these are all pretty much booming."

So perhaps Hadid is in the mix? The only other big commission I think they might be competing on is the Macerich site on Wabash.

http://www.dezeen.com/2015/07/15/zah...-architecture/

Steely Dan · #90 Posted **Feb 17, 2016, 11:03 PM**

^ hmmmmmm...........

intriguing.

Zapatan · #91 Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 12:48 AM**

I'm dreaming but a 450 meter Hadid tower here would look amazing.

I would think that Wanda being constructed a few blocks away and the presence of AON in the area as well would push them above 400 to make a statement, but then again it all comes down to demand and $$$. We shall see..

rlw777 · #92 Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

By what? They are designed to be in the ground and have been in the ground the entire time, I doubt there is any damage at all. They've been pickled in 55 degree mud since they were laid.

LOL yeah unless someone has been secretly trying out a new jackhammer in the spire pit I think the foundation is just fine.

Zapatan · #93 Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

LOL yeah unless someone has been secretly trying out a new jackhammer in the spire pit I think the foundation is just fine.

It'll probably be fine but it has been more exposed than foundations that have buildings covering them... I'm sure that makes quite a difference. They even capped 2WTC's foundation in NY for that reason but the Spire's has been exposed to air for a decade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Who says there's a general consensus that it'll end up short and ugly?

Just commentary over the past year or so, I'm not saying people are right but no one seems to have faith in Related Midwest or think that Chicago's Market is strong enough for a 400+ building.

nomarandlee · #94 Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 3:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

So perhaps Hadid is in the mix? The only other big commission I think they might be competing on is the Macerich site on Wabash.

http://www.dezeen.com/2015/07/15/zah...-architecture/

Any possibility you can give a hint where you heard that Hadid or any other firms were working on the Macerich project? It's probably on my radar more then any other and yet its the least I hear about. That would be encouraging news if Hadid or any other big name was involved.

ithakas · #95 Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 4:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Any possibility you can give a hint where you heard that Hadid or any other firms were working on the Macerich project? It's probably on my radar more then any other and yet its the least I hear about. That would be encouraging news if Hadid or any other big name was involved.

Unfortunately I have no intel to share. All I recall was a comment on this forum writing about various architecture teams meeting with the development team. (Even then I'm not 100% sure this was for Macerich.) Just speculation that it might, theoretically, be an alternative to Hadid presenting for the Spire site.

harryc · #96 Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 4:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

You don't think it's possible all that sitting water, freezing and unfreezing could have done damage? While I'd bet on the foundation being fine since it has to hold up to immense pressures anyway, I would not be surprised to see them tear it up and replace it

The foundation work is all well below the frost line, the very top of the 70-80' wall being the only exception - and it was designed for that.

The crumbly stuff you see in this shot from last year is the gravel that is poured on top of the caissons (or wall here) to protect the re-bar that is protuding out many feet, but still does not reach ground level..

harryc · #97 Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 4:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It'll probably be fine but it has been more exposed than foundations that have buildings covering them... I'm sure that makes quite a difference. They even capped 2WTC's foundation in NY for that reason but the Spire's has been exposed to air for a decade.

Just commentary over the past year or so, I'm not saying people are right but no one seems to have faith in Related Midwest or think that Chicago's Market is strong enough for a 400+ building.

Not exposed at all - buried deep below the frost line - even in the pit.

In this photo from March of 2008 the drilling rig can clearly be seen poking up out of the hole, that is a full sized crane, once a caisson was drilled, socketed, and poured rebar would be left poking up the thickness of the mat - to allow the drilling rig to maneuver these holes with the exposed rebar would be filled in with the gravel shown in the earlier photo, so the crane could then drive over them. Thus the tops of the caissons are well below the frost line (2-3 ft here) https://climateillinois.files.wordpr...4/02/feb26.gif

LouisVanDerWright · #98 Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 5:49 AM**

God, what a fascinating project that was. The entire downward construction method on that project would have been insane to watch. Still sad we didn't get to see it rise. I can only hope Related grows some balls and builds something worthy on this site. There is significantly less land available in the area now as there was in 2005 when this this was first conceived. Perhaps that will justify at least a moderately tall proposal from Related if they are willing to go to the ~850' range at One Bennett Park not too far from here.

Zapatan · #99 Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Not exposed at all - buried deep below the frost line - even in the pit.

I was mistaken, I thought there was still some steel sticking up, in that case you're right, it should be fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

God, what a fascinating project that was. The entire downward construction method on that project would have been insane to watch. Still sad we didn't get to see it rise. I can only hope Related grows some balls and builds something worthy on this site. There is significantly less land available in the area now as there was in 2005 when this this was first conceived. Perhaps that will justify at least a moderately tall proposal from Related if they are willing to go to the ~850' range at One Bennett Park not too far from here.

If people are excited about 850' here Chicago really has lost it's spark. This city put up a 1,450 foot tower to the roof over 40 years ago. I'm not expecting a new tallest here but 850 feet is not a tall building in Chicago. If the design is amazing it'll be a nice addition sure, but this is the perfect location for a masterpiece.

nomarandlee · #**100** Posted **Feb 18, 2016, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I was mistaken, I thought there was still some steel sticking up, in that case you're right, it should be fine.

If people are excited about 850' here Chicago really has lost it's spark. This city put up a 1,450 foot tower to the roof over 40 years ago. I'm not expecting a new tallest here but 850 feet is not a tall building in Chicago. If the design is amazing it'll be a nice addition sure, but this is the perfect location for a masterpiece.

Is the location that obvious for a masterpiece though? I was always skeptical how much it really is. It isn't that close to the Mag Mile or RN where much of the great shopping/dining is. You aren't that close to the cultural attraction of the Loop or your office if you are a professional. You aren't even getting the best views of the River corridor IMO which run from Michigan to Lake.

Yea, you get great lake views and are close to the lake front path but that isn't that unique. There are +10 miles of shoreline where one can claim that.
For those out on their boats on the lake or driving down LSD yea this is a prime spot but I can think of a handful of others I would think of as more attractive as a potential resident.