Why wasn’t One Chicago not a supertall

[insidediamond]

It was so close to the height, what a shame for the river north skyline. Also thoughts on Chicago’s next supertall?

[Steely Dan]

If memory serves, it was originally proposed to be 1,002' tall, or something like that.

And then came the VE hatchet.

"Lop off 30' and we'll lop off millions of dollars on the contract"

The developer said: Yes, please! I like money!

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

If memory serves, it was originally proposed to be 1,002' tall, or something like that.

And then came the VE hatchet.

"Lop off 30' and we'll lop off millions of dollars on the contract"

The developer said: Yes, please! I like money!

It doesn't matter as it is prominent given its location. Some supertalls, especially in NYC, like the NYTimes, 53W53, and One57 are not that prominent, and even beloved Chrysler is no longer prominent in the NYC skyline... And the supertall designation is just a designated marker. It could have been set at 900 ft or in the future it may be raised to 1200 ft.

[Notonfoodstamps]

9.5/10x developers could care less about skyscraper/supertall designation.

Buildings are built around ROI and if that ROI puts their height into skyscraper/supertall range than it's normally a byproduct of function, not the principle goal of form.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

It doesn't matter as it is prominent given its location... And the supertall designation is just a designated marker. It could have been set at 900 ft or in the future it may be raised to 1200 ft.

Yeah, the whole "supertall" thing is just stat nerd wonkery.

One Chicago is plenty tall enough to stand out in its immediate area.

No, its not exactly skyline redefining overall, but it wouldn't be such if it was 3% taller either.



https://twitter.com/barrybutler9/status/1431738861609226241