HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1881  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 4:23 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelacey45 View Post
Honestly they should look at another developer, I don’t get why this city is the birth place of the skyscraper but yet we ain’t cracking the top 5 or 10. They’re putting two buildings that’s 875 and 765ft , why just have one mega building 2,100ft in the air. It will sell. You’re pretty much getting the whole view of Chicago. And the building location is in the mouth of the Chicago river
I assume it's because the developers can build one of the smaller towers, start to get revenue, and depending on the results, make further decisions on the second tower. A single big tower is a much larger risk and much more time consuming to build and get money coming back to the developer.
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1882  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 4:28 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
A single big tower is a much larger risk and much more time consuming to build and get money coming back to the developer.
and much more expensive to build in the first place.

two ~800 footers are far less expensive to construct than a single 1,600 foot tower of equal net square footage.

going supertall costs a lot of extra money on a PSF basis.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1883  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 5:58 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
In no city on earth (even NYC) is a 2000 footer necessary. Even Shanghai Tower is basically a failure, though give it a decade or two and maybe it'll fill up.

Kinda surprised Tribune East Tower got as far as it did, the developers could easily build two much smaller towers (provided the site is big enough).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1884  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 6:01 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
and much more expensive to build in the first place.

two ~800 footers are far less expensive to construct than a single 1,600 foot tower of equal net square footage.

going supertall costs a lot of extra money on a PSF basis.
I've heard that many times, but I've often wondered why. With a single tower you'd only have a single slab and the working crews would be focused on the single project rising - instead of two separate foundations and two individual buildings with all the additional things that come with having a new, second building. Intuitively it "feels" like a single giant tower would cost more per sqft but I simply don't understand the mechanisms responsible for that.
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1885  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 6:45 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
I've heard that many times, but I've often wondered why. With a single tower you'd only have a single slab and the working crews would be focused on the single project rising - instead of two separate foundations and two individual buildings with all the additional things that come with having a new, second building. Intuitively it "feels" like a single giant tower would cost more per sqft but I simply don't understand the mechanisms responsible for that.
Apparently engineering costs skyrocket just that much after a certain height (300 or so meters). Smaller buildings are much easier to engineer to the point that even with just two of them, it's still more economical.

Quote:
Honestly they should look at another developer, I don’t get why this city is the birth place of the skyscraper but yet we ain’t cracking the top 5 or 10. They’re putting two buildings that’s 875 and 765ft , why just have one mega building 2,100ft in the air. It will sell. You’re pretty much getting the whole view of Chicago. And the building location is in the mouth of the Chicago river
Chicago still cracks the top 5 or 10 globally when it comes to most skyscraper superlatives, just not individual buildings.

I'd be happy with a 1600 footer though, 2100 seems unnecessary.

Thompson Center anyone?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1886  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 6:56 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
Does anyone know if this will start in 2021?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1887  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 7:30 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Apparently engineering costs skyrocket just that much after a certain height (300 or so meters). Smaller buildings are much easier to engineer to the point that even with just two of them, it's still more economical.
yeah, that's what i was getting at.

years ago i attended a lecture by adrian smith (who knows a thing or two about designing very tall buildings), and he said something to the effect of "once a building gets taller than about 900', engineering costs really start to soar", at like 1.5x the cost per vertical foot, or something like that.

very tall projects in chicago are primarily built for vanity, not sound economic principle. our land, even in core areas, simply ain't THAT valuable.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1888  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 10:21 PM
Briguy Briguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 162
They’re using part of the spire foundations for the north tower, that’s why it will be the taller of the two. If you noticed, the redesign chopped height from the S but left the N pretty much unchanged. I wonder if ~900 feet must be about the limit of the foundation. (I know the spire was taller, but I’m sure there’s some issues with reusing the foundation or something).

From a design perspective it would make sense for the taller of the two to be the S on, like the original plan. I’m hoping they build the N tower, then by the time it’s done they revise the S tower to be taller.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1889  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 10:32 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
very tall projects in chicago are primarily built for vanity, not sound economic principle. our land, even in core areas, simply ain't THAT valuable.
Even in the 19th century, the height of Chicago’s skyscrapers was not as notable as their city block-sized footprints.

For people back then, it was as if they went to NYC, saw 432 Park Avenue, and said, “The height is impressive, but the proportions are off.” Then they came to Chicago, saw NEMA, and said, “Wow, that looks enormous despite being shorter.”

“As the elephant (or rather megatherium) to the giraffe, so is the colossal business block of Chicago to the sky-scraper of New York. There is a proportion and dignity in the mammoth buildings of Chicago which is lacking in most of those which form the jagged skyline of Manhattan Island. For one reason or another-no doubt some difference in the system of land tenure is at the root of the matter-the Chicago architect has usually a larger plot of ground to operate on than his New York colleague, and can consequently give his building breadth and depth as well as height.”
William Archer, America To-Day, London: William Heinemann, 1900
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1890  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2021, 10:45 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
I've heard that many times, but I've often wondered why. With a single tower you'd only have a single slab and the working crews would be focused on the single project rising - instead of two separate foundations and two individual buildings with all the additional things that come with having a new, second building. Intuitively it "feels" like a single giant tower would cost more per sqft but I simply don't understand the mechanisms responsible for that.
A bigger building is cheaper to build per SF when you're talking about a warehouse or shopping mall, or even office sometimes (Merch Mart/OPO). You can make the building fatter/broader and you get more indoor square footage with less enclosure, relatively.

A residential tower needs access to daylight, so it can only get so fat. It can be long and skinny, or tall and skinny, but that's about it. You don't get the same economies of scale with regard to the skin of the building (which is a huge cost driver). Also, the taller a building gets the more elevators it needs. Elevator shafts eat up space on every floor but they generate no income.

Taller buildings also, as Steely notes, require more advanced engineering. Higher strength concrete and reinforcement, advanced wind load calculations/mass dampers, advanced elevator systems, etc.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1891  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2021, 12:15 AM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
A bigger building is cheaper to build per SF when you're talking about a warehouse or shopping mall, or even office sometimes (Merch Mart/OPO). You can make the building fatter/broader and you get more indoor square footage with less enclosure, relatively.

A residential tower needs access to daylight, so it can only get so fat. It can be long and skinny, or tall and skinny, but that's about it. You don't get the same economies of scale with regard to the skin of the building (which is a huge cost driver). Also, the taller a building gets the more elevators it needs. Elevator shafts eat up space on every floor but they generate no income.

Taller buildings also, as Steely notes, require more advanced engineering. Higher strength concrete and reinforcement, advanced wind load calculations/mass dampers, advanced elevator systems, etc.
Extremely helpful and sensible. Thank you.
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1892  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2021, 5:54 AM
Dylan Dude Dylan Dude is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Kinda surprised Tribune East Tower got as far as it did, the developers could easily build two much smaller towers (provided the site is big enough).
as far as it did? What does that mean? Has tribune been killed off or is it still gonna happen?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1893  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2021, 2:18 PM
Mikelacey45's Avatar
Mikelacey45 Mikelacey45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 92
Dylan Dude as far as it did? What does that mean? Has tribune been killed off or is it still gonna happen?


The tribune tower is still on as far as i know, I read something weeks ago stating that after the the tribune tower is done they are going to start on tribune east asap. They are almost done so I guess we find out this summer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1894  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2021, 2:28 PM
pianowizard pianowizard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SE Michigan, US
Posts: 938
I am pretty sure that Zapatan meant "as far as it has".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1895  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2021, 4:33 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianowizard View Post
I am pretty sure that Zapatan meant "as far as it has".
Correct, should've worded that better. I was referring to how far along it is in the approval process / is a serious proposal at its height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1896  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2021, 4:14 PM
ChiPlanner ChiPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Lakeview East Chicago
Posts: 173
Heard some rumblings that this could start construction by Q1 2022
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1897  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2021, 5:09 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPlanner View Post
Heard some rumblings that this could start construction by Q1 2022
From who? We've known it could start in Q4 2021 or Q1 2022 for a while now, unless this is a new update from a different source

Hope it's true
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1898  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2021, 7:22 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPlanner View Post
Heard some rumblings that this could start construction by Q1 2022
if this one, or 1000M, or LSE I can actually pop before salesforce finishes up, then the streak of continuous 800-footer construction dating back to OBP's kick-off in May 2016 will be kept alive!

it's been a great run, let's hope it rolls on
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1899  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2021, 8:46 PM
ChiPlanner ChiPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Lakeview East Chicago
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
From who? We've known it could start in Q4 2021 or Q1 2022 for a while now, unless this is a new update from a different source

Hope it's true
Starts with an "R" and ends with a "d." They're working on financing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1900  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2021, 9:06 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPlanner View Post
Starts with an "R" and ends with a "d." They're working on financing
Related has always been planning around that timeframe. What I was inquiring was whether there was new news confirming it or not. Sometimes developers don't stick with a timeframe and construction gets pushed back.

Quote:
if this one, or 1000M, or LSE I can actually pop before salesforce finishes up, then the streak of continuous 800-footer construction dating back to OBP's kick-off in May 2016 will be kept alive!

it's been a great run, let's hope it rolls on
Throw Tribune East in there as well, I'd say NEMA II but that seems visionary.

Hopefully all four can rise at the same time
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:00 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.