New Chicago skyscraper to be tallest in US

[Placebo]

A new skyscraper being planned for the lakefront of Chicago will be the tallest building in the United States, developers said.

While approval from the city is still pending, developers are hopeful that the striking design of renowned Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava will sway both bureaucrats and buyers.

At 115 stories with a 500-foot (152-meter) spire, the proposed residential tower would rise beyond the world's largest complete building -- the Taipai 101 in Taiwan -- and be bested only by the 167-story Burj in Dubai when it is completed in 2008 and the Center of India Tower in Katangi, India, which could reach 224 stories.

The 2,000-foot (609-meter) Fordham Spire will also be taller than the 1,776 foot (541-meter) Freedom Tower proposed for the grounds of the World Trade Center in New York that was destroyed by terrorists on September 11, 2001.

More...

To my city I say: Please build this beautiful structure! :)

[Placebo]

1. MORE PHOTOS:

[DS1]

31. Looks like a giant drill bit coming out of China

:shrug:

[Placebo]

33. hrmph

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1656236&mesg_id=1656405 :)

[tanyev]

43. It does!

:rofl:

[True_Blue]

45. ROFLMAO!

:rofl:

[snooper2]

74. It is a giant drill bit, for a giant whole...

A whole large enough so China can get their products to WalMart without shipping them.

[tanyev]

90. Fiendishly clever.

Of course, they would never lower prices if they really could do away with the shipping costs. No, those savings would get passed right up to the poor, needy, shareholders.

[Roland99]

63. "Tower of Glass" - Robert Silverberg

:)

[Nevernose]

2. Chicago's such a great town

It ranks highly in my "Top Five Places I'd Rather Live Than Here" list.

[ConfuZed]

3. When you stick a tall antenna on a building it shouldnt count

[Placebo]

5. Even without the spire...

it's taller than the Sears Tower and the "Freedom Tower" proposal.

[wakeme2008]

4. I wonder how much the condos will cost

"residential tower" and is trump in on this.

[Placebo]

6. Trump is PISSED about this tower proposal.

The article from the Chicago Tribune is much better than the AFP article, but here is an excerpt:

"In this climate," said Trump, whose tower might compete with the new skyscraper for luxury condominium buyers, "I would not want to build that building. Nor would I want to live in that building.

"Any bank that would put up money to build a building like that would be insane," he said.

• • • • • 

Even though it would be taller than the Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago, the Fordham Spire would have far fewer units--about 200 hotel rooms compared with 286 for Trump, and between 200 and 250 condos compared with 472 for Trump.

Carley said formal marketing will not begin until September, and construction will not start until there are sales agreements for about 40 percent of the units. He wants to break ground in March and finish in 2009.

Prices at the Fordham Spire must average $650 a square foot just for Carley to break even, sources said, making the project one of the most expensive in the city and approaching Trump's, where the prices are said to average $750 a square foot since marketing began. That translates, roughly, to condos valued at between $6.5 million and $7.5 million.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0507260175jul26,1,2356701.story?coll=chi-homepagenews2-utl

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. every 3-4 yrs there is a new proposal

but they never get built.

In fact, across from the courthouse, the most expensive, underused piece of real estate still boggles the mind. Washington to Randolf, Dearborn to State street. For 17 yrs they have tried to "re" develop it, only to find that all the razed buildings were actually prefered to any box they might build.

[Placebo]

11. No reason to give up hope.

This one might have legs, and the spot where they want to build it is just open grass and stuff.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. please, let us have MORE open grass and space

that, and our river and lake fronts are what make this city to fine.

[xultar]

24. Dear Mr. Trump please kiss my sweet brown milk chocolaty ASS.

I love Chicago He's just JEALOUS!

[XemaSab]

7. Article on Sundial Bridge in Redding

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-4568.html

Metaphorically, at least, the bridge, which links a new natural sciences museum with an arboretum and a 32-mile network of trails along the river, has spanned troubled water. At a cost of $23.5 million, it has been financed almost entirely by the private McConnell Foundation in Redding, which persuaded Mr. Calatrava — who at the time had designed no major structures in the United States — to visit the town.

With a $344 million endowment, the foundation wields tremendous clout in civic affairs and has been controversial here, partly as a result of a perception that its projects, including the bridge — whose delays and rising costs have been chronicled in detail in the local press — are elitist. In an area where the child poverty rate is 21 percent, almost five percentage points higher than the national average, many agree with Mr. Nash, who calls the bridge "the epitome of waste — you can't even drive a car on it."

Many people would have preferred something more folksy, like a covered bridge. "It doesn't fit in with the natural surroundings," said Tom Keffer, an archaeologist biking along the river recently. "You could build a decent bridge with 55-gallon drums for 500 bucks."

Ken Murray, the former mayor, said: "What the malcontents fail to realize is it ain't our money. Fortunately, we had a blank check. What we got was a piece of art. But personally," he said of Mr. Calatrava, "I wouldn't hire that dude for anything."

[Placebo]

14. It's so beautiful.

[nookiemonster]

25. I LOVE BRIDGES and it is spectacular!

Of course, I'm kinda partial to this one. Clark Bridge, Mississippi River. It's really incredible at night!

[Placebo]

27. FLIPPIN' SWEET!

Suspension bridges...damn, there's something about them. And all of the modern ones just keep looking better and better. That one is superb! :thumbsup:

[stlsaxman]

49. I've crossed the Clark Bridge 20 times in the last two weeks...

and it's splendor STILL strikes me every time!

[XemaSab]

30. Have you been to it?

It's pretty cool in person. I actually snuck on it before it was done, but I got chased off by the guards.

[Placebo]

32. I wish.

I've only ever been to Los Angeles and San Diego.

[XemaSab]

34. I promise you

it's the only thing worth seeing in Redding, and if you're ever passing through town, it's a block off the freeway, so you can take 1/2 hour out of your drive to check it out.

[Rich Hunt]

64. that looks like Calatrava

Anything of Calatrava's is a real treasure.

[XemaSab]

8. And is it just me

or does this not look like the Ivory Tower in Neverending Story?

(In the book it spirals a bit more)

[Placebo]

10. People say it looks like a big birthday candle.

:)

[XemaSab]

12. not that there's anything

wrong with that.

:-)

[Deja Q]

15. Only because they're still sober!

[Placebo]

18. . . .

:rofl:

point 1 to the almighty HypnoToad :)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. just please, don't be a target for Saudi members of Wahabism.

it does look pretty, though.

[Im_Your_Huckleberry]

13. and the point of building this thing is...??

call me old fashioned, but to me this looks like a 1) big waste, 2) big bull's eye.
and how much energy will it take to heat and cool this thing?

[mccoyn]

69. A lot less than if each resident had his or her own house. -nt

[karlrschneider]

16. I thought the Petronis tower(s) were the tallest in the world...?Maybe not

now...
This Chicago thing doesn't push my esthetic buttons, I think it's a pretty ugly design. But I'm a grumpy old phart. :D

[Placebo]

17. Yes you are.

:)

[karlrschneider]

21. And there ain't shit you can do about it! LOL

;-)
Or me either...

[Placebo]

22. I wouldn't want to.

;)

[Penance]

23. What's that sound?

Is it George Pataki eating his heart out? Is it Santiago Caltrava's middle finger extending towards the people that clipped his PATH station design's wings?

[Gogi]

26. I love this design!

If Chicago says no build it in NYC, it's certainly better than anything they've come up with for the World Trade Center site.

[DuaneBidoux]

29. I don't care what they say, NOTHING is more American than a beautiful tall

building! It represents everything that is great about our country--not that there's been that much to celebrate lately.

[sintax]

35. What about

feeding and housing the poor

what about housing the homeless

what about public transport

Nope, none of that bleeding heart silliness just tall steel buildings for the elites and coliseums for the spectacle.

[Placebo]

36. What about the tourism and tax dollars this project will generate?

It's not like we're just building it to sit there and be an eternal money pit. And besides, this is being funded privately.

[DuaneBidoux]

39. I agree. As long as they're not giving incredible tax breaks that break

the city this is an example of where a great project can help generate much more wealth for all if done properly. And as I mentioned in my other post nobody who builds one of these things makes Walmart wages: they earn damn good working wages of the kind rarely seen anymore anywhere in the American economy. A steel walker (all unionized)can easily earn $70,000 and even more with overtime.

[Placebo]

40. Exactly.

I say: Bring it on! :)

[sintax]

42. Tourism

is an energy intensive and toxic economic non-solution that perpetuates and validates the service (servant) economy, as well as promoting the notion of the leisure class.

As for the tax revenues-jobs angle we have been hearing that for years in every city for every project.

Do we not know where all this is heading?

Do you have a rundown on the REAL costs of the structure such as in how much energy it will take to build, including the acquisition of materials, and how much energy it will take to keep it going?

The true "value" of Space flights and skyscrapers cannot be calculated unless you take into account what is lost.

"Shoe the children with no shoes on their feet"

[mike923]

80. But fun as hell...

and i'm thankful i get to do it three or four times a year.

[stlsaxman]

50. what about solving the god-aweful PARKING problem in Chicago?

[DuaneBidoux]

37. The choice isn't between doing what is right and what is beautiful

There is enough if properly utilized to do it all. Do you know how much a steel walker (all unionized by the way) will bring home to working families building one of these? There is nothing wrong with building big beautiful dramatic things UNLESS it is an excuse to not do what is right.

[Placebo]

28. •••••MORE HIGH QUALITY RENDERINGS HERE•••••

[ovidsen]

38. Ugly. Uglyuglyuglyuglyugly.

I know I'm in the vast minority here, but f**k it. This... this THING is horrendous. It has no synchronicity with the skyline. It has no compatibility with adjacent buildings. It would be a pimple on the ass of Streeterville. Even standing by itself, it's cheap, gaudy, and pretentious.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Chicago. I lived there for years and would move back in a second, winters and all. I'm old enough to remember watching the Hancock Center, The Aon Centre (formerly the Standard Oil Building) and the Sears Tower go up. Those are beautiful buildings.

This is something the dog dragged in.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

41. I'm with you.

Send that thing back to Rivendell, and stick to buildings that look like real people built them.

[architect359]

53. ...and which buildings look like real people built them?

Just being facetious. Sorry. :)

It's just something new and conceptual at this point. One thing to bear in mind is that designs always get refined and tweaked during the phases between concept and construction documents. Even during construction, changes can be made (depending on the budget allowances of course).

Calatrava is one of the better architects out there. Take a look at some of his designs, he has a way with structural expression that is quite unique. I think that when more of the design is fleshed out and presented - it will become more appealing.

I think that it is time to create a new vocabulary for building design. A lot of what we see now were developed in the 1920s and 1930s! As our understanding of structures and materials develop, it allows us to be more fluid and "plastic" in our expression and I believe that we shouldn't be afraid to take advantage of that.

[ovidsen]

60. Plastic for plastic's sake?

Sure, architects and builders can do more now than ever before, but does that make it practical? First and foremost, buildings should be designed FOR people. Their status as "works of art" (whatever art is) is secondary. I agree that Calatrava has come up with some beautiful designs. His Redding, California bridge (discussed and pictured above) is awesome. But there has to be a balance between eye-candy and useful, efficient use of space. IMO his Chicago design fails that test. Just because you can build something that's more fluid and plastic doesn't mean you should.

[Chicago Democrat]

47. Its very phallic...ego driven

I just kindof doubt the Donald can pull it off so don't worry too much.

plus how does it sway if its spiral?

[Placebo]

51. "How does it sway if it's spiral?"

I don't understand the question. :shrug:

The spiral effect is created by every floor being shifted 2 degrees.

[Chicago Democrat]

66. If the exterior lines are in a spiral... Wouldn't it twist in wind ?

like a drill bit?

[Chicago Democrat]

67. Or move in a circle...

and twist instead of back and forth like a blade of glass

[Placebo]

87. Nope.

According to an architect from SOM who is heavily involved with the Burj Dubai and other projects, having it spiral actually reduces wind resistance and makes it safer against a terrorist attack, especially since it has a concrete core.

[entanglement]

92. I agree that it's ego driven.

Tall skyscrapers = testosterone in action / mine's bigger than yours ;)
/hooray for testosterone

[happyslug]

44. Another impractical design

The biggest restriction on building tall buildings is elevators. You must remember that an elevator must go to every floor and you can have only one elevator per shaft. At the same time that elevator has to be able to go to all of its assigned floors fairly rapidly. Thus once you go over about 20 floors you have to set up a new set of Elevators for those additional floors AND TAKE SPACE FROM THE FLOORS BELOW THAT SET OF FLOORS SO THE ELEVATORS CAN SHOOT UP TO THAT SET. If you go over 40 floors you have to have a third set, over 60 four set, over 80 you are Clearly at the level where you are taking up more space BELOW than you are gaining by building upward (Some people say the cut off is 50 not 80).

Tall buildings are built NOT for economics but for someone's ego. The Empire State Building was one of the first to follow this rule, it was finished in 1930 and did not fill itself up till the 1940s (part of this was the Depression but part was do to the cost to operate its elevators). The world Trade center was the same, a lower number of floors would have brought in more office space (by eliminating elevators) but trump wanted his to be the tallest (and the same with Sears and its Tower). Today the big egos have not left America (see the above example) but the egos with the money are overseas and building their egos to the sky.

Some additional Readings on Elevators and Tall Buildings:
http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/Folly.html
http://www.freep.com/realestate/renews/myers20e_20050220.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/news/attack/ap/sep01/ap-attacks-archite092801.asp?format=print


Some background on the biggest office building in the world when it comes to square footage (and it is only six stories tall):
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html

One last comment, the most economical elevators to operate are counter-balance/Hydraulic elevators. These have a large weight attached to the elevator. As the elevator goes up and down the weight goes in the opposite direction. Thus when the Elevator is going up and down the only power being used is to carry the weight of the passengers, the elevator and the counterweight weigh the same so there balance each other out. The problem is this system only works up to about six stories. Once you go over Six Stories you have to use an electrical powered elevator that uses an electric motor to pull the elevator and its passengers up and down. These use a lot more power for the motor has to haul up not only the weight of the passenger but the much heavier elevator itself. Thus you see a lot of six story building and only high price places go above six stories.

Otis Elevator Company:
http://www.otis.com/products/listing/0,1357,CLI1_PRT30_RES1,00.html

Schindler (Since 1989 owes the former Westinghouse Electric Elevator Company):
http://www.us.schindler.com/SEC/websecen.nsf/pages/elev-LR-01

[psychopomp]

48. Very interesting

That info helps me to understand a lot...I always wondered why the majority of the buildings in my city are 6 stories and under.

edit: I like sparkly things as much as the next person but this seems like a colossal waste.

[Placebo]

52. Maybe you can live with buildings 20 stories and under in small cities...

that aren't as popular and crowded, but in cities like Chicago that's just not a possibility.

And besides, there's art involved in architecture, and pride. It's not all about practicality, or we'd all be living in boring little box houses and 20 story box buildings.

[Logansquare]

91. Wrong--Chicago office vacancy rate is almost 19 percent

and going higher, because abt. 70 percent of current new construction is preleased. They can't keep the Sears Tower full, and many other large buildings are suffering the same fate. From an urban planning perspective as well, density (by having more and smaller buildings) is good, because it creates a lot of street-level activity. I'm not talking about 20 story buildings here--40 would be fine.

On another note: It took about five minutes to get from a World Trade Center lobby to the 105th floor--on an elevator. It took nearly an hour for people on the floors directly beneath impact to escape via stairwells, if they were able to survive the smoke.

After 9/11, there's no way in hell I would work in an office above the 50th floor of any building, and I bet I'm not alone.

[architect359]

55. Old debate

in the sense that there has always been a game of balance in the urban setting. Sure the Pentagon is vast and is only only 6 stories tall but look at its footprint; its like a beached whale, no? Going tall is just one strategy. Other strategies involve clustering, or sprawl, or distributed nodes, etc. This all depends on your clients' program and hugely on how deep their pockets go.

When you cite such landmark buildings like the Chrysler tower or the Empire State building - they are meant to stand out, and yes, ego plays a part in this.

In most cities, site is at a premium. Some places like San Francisco for example are bounded by 3 sides with water. The only place to expand is south and there is resistence from established communities. Cities will always by their nature attract people. All those people need places to work, rest and play. You can't go sideways due to constraints. So it's either go up or to some extent, go down.

The inefficiencies of the current elevator systems is part of that game I stated earlier to find the right balanc between all these forces. Some of the best and ambitious architects like Wright, and Le Corbusier have studied and proposed certain urban solutions that remain for the most part on the drawing boards because the community or society for one reason or another would not make it happen.

[ovidsen]

59. "Tall buildings are not built for economics."

I have to agree. I read in one of the articles about the Chicago proposal (please don't ask me to find the link! :)) that the Sears Tower has one of the highest vacancy rates of any building in the Chicago CBD, around 30%. Tall buildings can be awe inspiring, but you get the feeling they are mainly built to satisfy Trump-sized egos.

[AngryAmish]

68. Sears Tower was built to house Sears

It was corporate HQ. 12 or so years ago they moved out to the suburbs. At the time it was designed, they expected Sears to keep growing so they built in extra space for room for expansion. But then Wal MArt happened...

[ovidsen]

79. Correct.

The Sears Tower was built to house Sears headquarters, which is now in the suburbs.

But the exit of Sears doesn't explain the building's high vacancy rate. That's a primo location next to the Loop. Unless the tower is cursed because Sears left carniverous Kenmore appliances, bloodthirsty Craftsman tools or sadistic Silvertone stereos behind...
:evilgrin:

[AngryAmish]

82. True, too many murderous Toughskins are there

Why is it so empty? My guesses are the sluggishness of the rental market downtown right now, the perceived threat and that it kinda sucks to go that high - elevators are too slow compared to a 20 story building.

I have been in the Sear's loading dock once. That was really cool.

[mccoyn]

70. Double elevators.

I remember hearing one of the record towers has two story elevators. The idea is that if you are going to an odd floor you will get on the bottom of the elevator on the 1st floor. If you are gonig to an even floor you will get on the top of the elevator on the 2nd floor. This reduces the amount of space needed because you have two elevators in each shaft. Of course you are now paying double the energy cost when only one person uses the elevator.

Another strategy is to divide the building into sections. A primary set of elevators makes a stop in each section. Within that section passengers have to switch to a second elevator that serves only that section. The section elevators can now be stacked. This is a bit worse for the passenger since that person will now have to wait twice to get to the correct floor.

At any rate it is completly true that the classic elevator design limits building height. That doesn't prevent alternative ideas from reaching higher.

[barb162]

46. I like the design and I don't give out compliments easily

on that. It's unique. But I think after 9/11 a lot of people are afraid of living in landmark tall buildings. I worked on the 95th floor of a landmark building and every day I was there, I wished I wasn't as I considered it a target.

[Phoonzang]

54. I love that design...

We need more of our buildings to have some creativity put into their design (while still being practical). Now if only we could tear down those other boring, rectangular blocks and replace them with more "futuristic" looking buildings... I'm all for dynamic and constantly evolving skylines. Envision a skyline where all the buildings are bright and crystaline like this one. The city would shine like a jewel.

[darkism]

57. My thoughts exactly.

Just as our politics are progressive, so should be our architecture.

And who knows, maybe nicer-looking cities will breed nicer-acting people?

Needless to say, speaking as a Chicagoan, I look forward to seeing this completed.

[Placebo]

85. I totally agree!

One of the things I love about Chicago's skyline is that there isn't a "theme" of sorts and all the buildings look different and have their own distinct personalities. This building would only add to that, and really put Chicago on the map again in a way we've probably never seen before.

[OneBlueSky]

56. betcha a dollar that New York will add enough height . . .

to the WTC replacement building to surpass Chicago . . . Bloomberg and Trump will make sure of it . . .

[ovidsen]

62. betcha a dollar it won't!

Judging by history, anyway. Chicago's Sears Tower was planned and built at the same time the Port Authority was building the Twin Towers in NYC. The PA could have added a few floors to make the Towers #1... but didn't!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

58. Nice to see that architectural cocks aren't passe.

[Hosnon]

61. I know nothing about Chicago but that might make it a town I want to move

to. Chicagoans, give me some info on your fair city.:hippie:

[Rich Hunt]

65. lots of good points here

"Who would live in it?" is a good question, however, I always felt that the high-rise was underused as a residential building, since it saves space. There are a lot of cultural benefits to people living downtown as well - I believe this was the idea behind Marina City. Energy is saved and traffic problems are also mitigated when people live closer to where they work (and play). The real problem in cities right now is that too much land is being cleared for mammoth two- or three-story condo buildings that look like fortresses, and these things are spread out all over the city. You want to talk about traffic problems - there are many streets on the north side of the city that are just not built to handle the traffic they are saddled with now. Those places were originally more geared to foot traffic. Just look at where many of the accidents in the city are, and the real congestion and parking problems are on the north side.

[Karenina]

71. Architectural masturbation.

THAT IS ALL.

[tblue37]

72. Hey, Chicagoans,

I have a question. How do you feel about the red skyscraper in Chicago? (I have a personal reason for asking.)

[AngryAmish]

73. I like it when it is not killing people

[tblue37]

75. Please explain.

[sabra]

76. windows have fallen from the building and killed people below...

very sad.

[tblue37]

77. Hmmm---

I remember reading about such things happenign with some skyscraper many years ago. Is this the only skyscraper that it happened with? Has it happened since the building first went up and they discovered the problem?

[tblue37]

81. Actually, I just read that the John Hancock building in Boston

had a problem with falling windows like that.

[Rich Hunt]

88. yeah

That did happen once. I remember that, because I was on my lunch hour and headed in that direction at about the time it happened.

[katty]

78. o great let's have another megacosting sitting duck tower

[mike923]

83. Silly....

If i'm on a hi-jacked flight, they'd have to kill me before i'd let them fly it into a building while i sat in my seat. I'm sure there would be 80 or 90 others on any flight with my same view point.

Terrorist will never ever be able to duplicate what they did on 9/11. Unless they flew their own passenger-less plane.

[Placebo]

84. Do you live in Chicago?

[MadJohnShaft]

86. I sit kitty-korner to the Sears tower all day long

This new one is at least a little more daring than that ugly Trump thing. Maybe those spirals will let a hijacked airplane spin right around it? Plus, we can call it 'the screw'.

[Rich Hunt]

89. hmmm...

I guess a lot of that would depend on how slender and lightweight the tower would be on the upper floors. Less weight, less impact, I would guess.

[HuckleB]

93. Nice.

It's about time that architecture made some serious strides with skyscraper design. Chicago would be a proud home to such a building, IMHO.

[Rich Hunt]

94. I wasn't bowled away at first

...but the Trib ran a more detailed drawing (I think that's all there is at this stage) and it looked less sparkly and futuristic than the rendering above and more substantial and artistic.

Unlike a lot of tall buildings, this one is going to look great up close.