HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


    130 North Franklin in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #601  
Old Posted Today, 12:27 AM
rivernorthlurker rivernorthlurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
IMO, you overstate this "deadening" effect of the east and west facades. Form follows function does it for me in this case. This is hardly some lamentable blight on the city's skyline in my eyes.


Source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...hase-tower/779

But you seem pretty hung up on it, so probably time for us to to agree to disagree. If you can think of a better major office tower built in Chicago post-1980, I'm all ears.

Fun fact found in looking deeper into this building: it was the 6th tallest skyscraper on the entire freaking planet back when it was built in 1969!
This building was really wild for 1969. Totally different world and city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #602  
Old Posted Today, 12:38 AM
rivernorthlurker rivernorthlurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker View Post
This building was really wild for 1969. Totally different world and city.
For context. Chicago in 1969.

(a little OT but there's been no real news for this building lately so I think it's fine lol)

Also holy crap Marina City Towers are turning 60!

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #603  
Old Posted Today, 1:51 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 25,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker View Post

Also holy crap Marina City Towers are turning 60!
I suspect the SSP database is wrong on that one.

CTBUH says they were completed in 1964. I believe that is the correct year of completion.
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #604  
Old Posted Today, 2:06 AM
rivernorthlurker rivernorthlurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
I suspect the SSP database is wrong on that one.

CTBUH says they were completed in 1964. I believe that is the correct year of completion.
Ah thx. SSP has this super nice search tool but a lot of the data is a bit sketch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #605  
Old Posted Today, 5:37 PM
2PRUROCKS!'s Avatar
2PRUROCKS! 2PRUROCKS! is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
chicago has built 17 major office towers so far this century. here's how they shake out on height and square footage.


1. Salesforce Tower --- 2023 - 850' - 1.6M SF
2. 110 N Wacker ------ 2020 - 817' - 1.5m SF
3. 300 N LaSalle ------ 2008 - 785' - 1.3M SF
4. BCBS Tower -------- 2010 - 744' - 1.6M SF
5. River Point --------- 2017 - 732' - 1.0M SF
6. BMO Tower --------- 2021 - 727' - 1.5M SF
7. 150 N Riverside ---- 2017 - 724' - 1.2M SF
8. 111 S Wacker ------ 2005 - 681' - 1.5M SF
9. 71 S Wacker ------- 2005 - 679' - 1.8M SF
10. UBS Tower ------- 2001 - 652' - 1.4M SF
11. 155 N Wacker ---- 2009 - 638' - 1.2M SF
12. 353 N Clark ------ 2009 - 623' - 1.2M SF
13. Citadel Center --- 2003 - 580' - 1.5M SF
14. One S Dearborn - 2005 - 571 - 0.8M SF
15. CNA Center ------ 2018 - 517' - 0.8M SF
16. 191 N Wacker --- 2002 - 516' - 0.7M SF
17. 540 W Madison -- 2003 - 453' - 1.1M SF

source: SF figures are approximate and are pulled from a variety of online sources. height figures are CTBUH.


all of the above are 21st century variations on the "form follows finance" theme.
That is weird, I thought 150 N. Riverside is 752ft? It certainly appears a little taller than Riverpoint at 732ft.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #606  
Old Posted Today, 5:53 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS! View Post
That is weird, I thought 150 N. Riverside is 752ft? It certainly appears a little taller than Riverpoint at 732ft.
Yeah that height for 150 N. Riverside is wrong on CTBUH so is the height listed in SSP diagrams. That's the height before they decided to add a floor or two midway through construction. I actually asked for the height figure on the SSP diagram to be changed once but nobody would change it without me finding an authoritative source and I didn't have time to search. The forum thread has it listed at the correct height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:34 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.