CHICAGO | One Chicago | 971 FT & 574 FT | 78 & 49 FLOORS

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ What's wrong with Chicago's "track record"?

What, a couple of pipsqueaks couldn't pull off a few supertall towers a decade ago? Come on, they were amateurs. They were in way over their head and we all know it, although Waterview was not nearly as bad of a long shot as the Spire was.

I guess, I can see the Chicago Spire being a bit over ambitious (but not really, 2000 footers exist in the world today so why can't Chicago have one?) but the Waldorf was probably one of the biggest disappointments. The Waterview Tower wasn't really that special IMO so not much of a loss.

I did a bit of research on Golub & Co and I guess they seem more legit. I'm less worried about the other two (LSE and 400LSD)

[left of center]

Bummer on the height change. That said, building heights only matter to skyscraper geeks like ourselves. This project will still feel incredibly massive to pedestrians on the street level and tourists in the Sears/JHC obs decks. It will to wonders to push the skyline further northwest, in a part of town where the skyline skews heavily east along the lakefront and Michigan Ave.

That said, I'm with RandomGuy34. Someone needs to get a 6 ft flagpole...

[BVictor1]

This developer has increased the height of a previous proposal before.

Once it's under construction... I'll wait and see.

[BonoboZill4]

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit disappointed(although the height could still change as others have pointed out). I know the difference of 50 feet is almost nothing, but 1000 just sounds better

[Steely Dan]

wolf point south posts moved to the wolf point south thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=217949

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit disappointed(although the height could still change as others have pointed out). I know the difference of 50 feet is almost nothing, but 1000 just sounds better

Yeah.... Only us skyscraper dorks care about breaking the "super tall" threshold. Normal people won't know the difference. Regardless I'm a little bummed.

[Steely Dan]

^ correct. this "loss" of a super-tall is only disappointing to the several dozen of us nerds who can actually be bothered to care about minutiae like this.

to the other 99.99% of humanity, it is of absolutely no consequence what-so-ever.



and for my fellow number geeks feeling the sting of falling short of the 1,000' mark, let me remind you of just how rare towers over 900' are in the US (outside of NYC).

US 900+ foot towers completed & U/C:

NYC - 27
chicago - 8
philly - 3
houston - 3
LA - 2
SF - 2
atlanta - 1
cleveland - 1
seattle - 1
dallas - 1

[gebs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ correct. this "loss" of a super-tall is only disappointing to the several dozen of us nerds who can actually be bothered to care about minutiae like this.

That's the problem with knowing what could have been. For example, I used to be a fan of 111 W Wacker until I saw renderings of the Waterview Tower. That led to immediate (and perennial) disappointment. But to the average person, or even the architecture enthusiast, ignorance is bliss.

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ correct. this "loss" of a super-tall is only disappointing to the several dozen of us nerds who can actually be bothered to care about minutiae like this.

to the other 99.99% of humanity, it is of absolutely no consequence what-so-ever.



and for my fellow number geeks feeling the sting of falling short of the 1,000' mark, let me remind you of just how rare towers over 900' are in the US (outside of NYC).

US 900+ foot towers completed & U/C:

NYC - 27
chicago - 8
philly - 3
houston - 3
LA - 2
SF - 2
atlanta - 1
cleveland - 1
seattle - 1
dallas - 1

Exactly. Not only are 900 footers tall but they also enhance the dynamism of varying peaks in the skyline.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and for my fellow number geeks feeling the sting of falling short of the 1,000' mark, let me remind you of just how rare towers over 900' are in the US (outside of NYC).

Right, and in the world (outside of Asia). Most countries don't have a 900 foot building at all.

The US has the second or third highest amount of 900 footers outside of China, mostly because of NYC.

[maru2501]

the main benefit (for those of use that won't live in a luxury highrise) is that it will thicken the north end of the skyline and help balance things out aesthetically

and it does need to interact with the street. At least it will dramatically alter the feel of that area

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Right, and in the world (outside of Asia). Most countries don't have a 900 foot building at all.

The US has the second or third highest amount of 900 footers outside of China, mostly because of NYC.

I would have to imagine that when excluding China we have by far the most 900 footers just because of our sheer mass. Yes there are cities like Dubai that have a lot of big ones, but they are the only place with big ones in their country.

To be honest, I wouldn't be **that** surprised if we had more 900+ footers than China. They have tons of supertalls that are ridiculous in height, but we have more balanced skylines across the board. When it comes to 1100+ though, yeah we are blown out of the water.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I would have to imagine that when excluding China we have by far the most 900 footers just because of our sheer mass. Yes there are cities like Dubai that have a lot of big ones, but they are the only place with big ones in their country.

To be honest, I wouldn't be **that** surprised if we had more 900+ footers than China. They have tons of supertalls that are ridiculous in height, but we have more balanced skylines across the board. When it comes to 1100+ though, yeah we are blown out of the water.

Wrong on all counts. And between China and the US, it's not even remotely close anymore.

Number of 900+ foot skyscrapers completed and U/C:

China: 201 (30 in shenzhen)
UAE: 52 (44 in dubai)
USA: 49 (27 in NYC)



Anyway, lets not drag this thread anymore off topic with a global discussion of which country has more X of Y. I posted the stats of 900+ foot towers in the US simply to show that buildings of this height are in fact pretty damn rare in the US outside of NYC. Even at 978' tall this tower will still be the 15th tallest in the nation outside of NYC. Not too shabby at all.

[marothisu]

900+ foot buildings complete or U/C. I'm sure there's a few missing, but you get the point. Of all the ones below, China has 158 (counting Hong Kong) while the US has 51, which is less than Dubai alone.

Dubai: 57 (23 are U/C)
Shenzhen, China: 29 (12 are U/C)
NYC: 28 (16 are U/C - or 57%)
Guangzhou, China: 14
Chongqing, China: 13
Shanghai: 13
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 11 (7 are U/C)
Shenyang, China: 11 (9 are U/C)
Abu Dhabi: 9
Tianjin, China: 9 (6 are U/C or 67%)
Wuhan, China: 9 (6 are U/C or 67%)
Busan, South Korea: 8
Chicago: 8
Hong Kong: 8
Jakarta: 8 (6 are U/C)
Nanjing, China: 8
Moscow: 7
Changsha, China: 6
Mumbai: 6 (all U/C)
Bangkok: 5
Dalian, China: 5
Doha, Qatar: 4
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: 4 (all U/C)
Kuwait City: 4
Riyadh: 4
Seoul: 4
Singapore: 4
Suzhou, China: 4
Toronto: 4
Beijing: 3
Hangzhou, China: 3
Houston: 3
Istanbul: 3
Panama City: 3
Philadelphia: 3
Wuxi, China: 3
Xiamen, China: 3
Zhengzhou, China: 3
Changzhou, China: 2
Chengdu, China: 2
Hanoi, Vietnam: 2
Huzhou, China: 2
Jinan, China: 2
London: 2
Los Angeles: 2
Melbourne, Australia: 2
Nanchang, China: 2
San Francisco: 2
Ankara, Turkey: 1
Astana, Kazakhstan: 1
Atlanta: 1
Cleveland: 1
Dallas: 1
Detroit: 1
Fuzhou, China: 1
Gold Coast, Australia: 1
Hefei, China: 1
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: 1
Incheon, South Korea: 1
Jersey City, NJ: 1
Johor Bahru, Malaysia: 1
Kaohsiung City, Taiwan: 1
Makkah, Saudi Arabia: 1
Osaka: 1
Pyongyang, North Korea: 1
Qingdao, China: 1
Santiago, Chile: 1
Seattle: 1
St. Petersburg, Russia: 1
Taipei: 1
Warsaw, Poland: 1
Wenzhou, China: 1
Yokohama, Japan: 1


Tokyo: 0
Miami/Miami Beach: 0

[left of center]

Wow... I never realized just how many buildings Dubai has built in the last decade or two. That's pretty damn impressive!

Glad to see Chicago is a very strong 2nd place in the US.

[Zapatan]

Yea, a ~980 foot building is a great addition to any city. Chicago already has one of the world's best skylines so it'll just be extra

Even ~600 feet (the shorter tower) is nice for that area

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea, a ~980 foot building is a great addition to any city. Chicago already has one of the world's best skylines so it'll just be extra

Even ~600 feet (the shorter tower) is nice for that area

Yes, and if you look at the list you realize that Chicago is really not that far behind cities like Shanghai, Chongqing, and Kuala Lumpur..and is barely behind cities like Wuhan, Tianjin, and Abu Dhabi. If a few more get built then Chicago could surpass those last 3, depending on what they do of course.

I wonder what a list of 600+ footers would look like

Originally Posted by left of center

Wow... I never realized just how many buildings Dubai has built in the last decade or two. That's pretty damn impressive!

Glad to see Chicago is a very strong 2nd place in the US.

I stopped paying so much attention to Dubai, so I am surprised that it's #1 like that. That's pretty impressive.

The US is not that great when talking about 900+ footers. NYC is good, but nearly 60% of those are currently U/C. Taking the number for Chicago independently it doesn't look that impressive, but when you look at it compared to other cities around the world, you realize it's actually pretty decent.

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by sox102

I have the latest architecturals dated 10/12/18 (addendum 5) on my desk. The height of Tower A shows 977'-8" to the top of the crown. The height of Tower C shows 593'-4" to the top.

Is there a little birdy that could tell us when construction will start?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

Is there a little birdy that could tell us when construction will start?

I last heard first quarter 2019, but maybe that's changed/don't quote me on it

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by IronWright

I never knew 70' was the difference between profitability and financial ruin. I wonder who calculated the margins. I think we are at the point where the majority of tall projects in Chicago will receive a height reduction, if not from public pressure than developer conservatism.

Right, more space = more money, even though it's a bit expensive to build taller.

And I really hope that isn't true. I'm trying to convince myself Chicago's skyscraper days aren't numbered and that we will see another 400+ meter building

The current projects are still pretty impressive though, especially Vista