CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS - Page 93

Skyy · #**1841** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^

Miami and San Francisco is next.

That's exciting. I'm from SF originally and hoped YIMBY would branch out there when I first heard about Chicago

Skyy · #**1842** Posted **Sep 7, 2020, 12:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Dont worry the Chicago group of ssp will definitely let you know what we/they think about yimby. just check back here daily.

Sounds good

Zapatan · #**1843** Posted **Sep 8, 2020, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard

I don't think so. They are simply too short:

Overall yes, but because they're so close to the water they'll have a huge impact in that area without being hidden.

My hope is that they build the first tower, then after whatever traffic study they do, boost the height of the second tower, that's far enough down the line that I'd imagine nothing is set in stone yet.

Busy Bee · #**1844** Posted **Sep 8, 2020, 10:20 PM**

^ I'd take that

maru2501 · #**1845** Posted **Sep 8, 2020, 10:30 PM**

agree the spot is more conspicuous than anything.

I'd rather have a little shorter with great materials in this design

JK47 · #**1846** Posted **Sep 9, 2020, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

My hope is that they build the first tower, then after whatever traffic study they do, boost the height of the second tower, that's far enough down the line that I'd imagine nothing is set in stone yet.

This absolutely won't happen.

JK47 · #**1847** Posted **Sep 9, 2020, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501

I'd rather have a little shorter with great materials in this design

It's already shorter and the verbiage around terracotta is now as an "accent" material...which I'm sure is foreshadowing a reduction in its use. So the quality isn't going to be as great and with the current height it'll basically blend in with its neighbors.

So it went from being a signature piece to basically something rather pedestrian that'll blend in with the background.

Zapatan · #**1848** Posted **Sep 9, 2020, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK47

This absolutely won't happen.

Oh it's totally wishful thinking and you're probably right, but why "absolutely"? It's far enough in the future no one knows.

...

r18tdi · #**1849** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Oh it's totally wishful thinking and you're probably right, but why "absolutely"? It's far enough in the future no now knows.

Listen guy, they're building the north tower (taller) first on top of the existing foundation designed for a 2000-foot building.

So it would be very silly (and extremely unlikely) for Related to make the second phase 2 south tower taller after sacrificing the Spire's foundation for the north tower. It's not happening.

rlw777 · #**1850** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Listen guy, they're building the north tower (taller) first on top of the existing foundation designed for a 2000-foot building.

So it would be very silly (and extremely unlikely) for Related to make the second phase 2 south tower taller after sacrificing the Spire's foundation for the north tower. It's not happening.

That's not silly... That was literally Related's first proposal.

Zapatan · #**1851** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Listen guy, they're building the north tower (taller) first on top of the existing foundation designed for a 2000-foot building.

So it would be very silly (and extremely unlikely) for Related to make the second phase 2 south tower taller after sacrificing the Spire's foundation for the north tower. It's not happening.

So? They can just change the second foundation (which doesn't even exist yet) if there's a stronger market 5 years down the road. Neither tower will be anywhere near 2000 feet so building a new foundation for a 765' vs 9-1000' tower wouldn't make that much of a difference.

maru2501 · #**1852** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 7:58 PM**

not enough posts around here begin with "Listen guy..."

Zapatan · #**1853** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

c'mon now...this would be a serious redesign, upgrade, and materials increase - there is a very reason so many new towers top out around 750 instead of 950, diminishing returns

I know, I even said myself it was likely just wishful thinking, but my point was that a foundation difference of a building of 700-1000k feet is incomparable to the existing 2k foundation (which I'm not sure is fully completed).

Quote:

not enough posts around here begin with "Listen guy..."

Seems kinda rude honestly, though it's the internet, go figure.

rgarri4 · #**1854** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 9:20 PM**

Biggest reason why the first design didn't go over well was worries about the traffic. Shortening the towers provided a better traffic study and is why this finally is moving forward. For them to go back and make one of the towers taller would probably result in the project being canceled.

Zapatan · #**1855** Posted **Sep 15, 2020, 11:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgarri4

Biggest reason why the first design didn't go over well was worries about the traffic. Shortening the towers provided a better traffic study and is why this finally is moving forward. For them to go back and make one of the towers taller would probably result in the project being canceled.

Right, I'm not an expert on the area but it seems like an illegitimate concern (traffic due to a high-rises in the center of a huge city).

I think it would be cool at least if they could be 875' twins. They'd be the highest twin towers in the USA.

pianowizard · #**1856** Posted **Sep 16, 2020, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I think it would be cool at least if they could be 875' twins. They'd be the highest twin towers in the USA.

Huh, I never thought about that! I just confirmed that you are correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_twin_buildings_and_structures

I think when 400 N LSD consisted of a 1100 footer and an 850 footer, the sizable mismatch in height looked cool -- scroll back to the opening post to see renderings. But now that the heights have been reduced to 875' and 765', the smaller mismatch doesn't work as well. I agree that making them 875' twins would be an improvement, not just in terms of setting a new US record but also in terms of visual appeal.

HomrQT · #**1857** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 12:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Right, I'm not an expert on the area but it seems like an illegitimate concern (traffic due to a high-rises in the center of a huge city).

I think it would be cool at least if they could be 875' twins. They'd be the highest twin towers in the USA.

Highest? As in altitude? Or do you mean tallest?