editor Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 This article just appeared on Chicago Architecture Info. It talks about a proposed super tower on Lake Michigan that would be over 2,000 feet tall. There's an article in tomorrow's New York Times, too. --------- T he city where the skyscraper was born just can't get enough of these supertowers. The Fordham Spire is the latest in a series of super-tall projects proposed since the mid 1990's. Some, like the Trump International Hotel and Tower, come to fruition. Others, like 7 South Dearborn, do not. Just how far this project will get remains to be seen. But the real estate and political climate in which it is proposed put the odds in its favor. This is the first Chicago project for Spanish architectural superstar Santiago Calatrava, though he has graced the shores of Lake Michigan before with the Milwaukee Art Museum's Quadracci Pavilion. Its position at the point where the Chicago River drains Lake Michigan puts it in the center of the city's skyline, and out in front of any of the thousands of photographs taken by tourists cruising the lake each day. In form, this building lives up to its name. It truly is a spire with a tapering form topped by a needle. In a New York Times article about the building, it was compared to a drill bit, a blade of grass, and a tall twisting tree. Others have compared it to a lighthouse, which could end up being its nickname because of its location. The inability to quickly categorize the construction is what you come to expect from a Calatrava design -- something both geometric and organic. Something that take a simple form and twists it in the wind like so many of his other bridges and buildings. Initial plans call for the bottom 20 floors to be occupied by a hotel, while the rest of the building is filled with luxury condominiums. The main obstacle to completing this building may be zoning. The parcel of land selected is only zoned for as 540-foot tall building and a 350-foot tall building. However, zoning variances are not all that hard to come by in Chicago, and if Mayor Daley wants it, it will happen. > This building was commissioned by the Fordham Company. > The building is designed to be made primarily out of concrete. > The twisting exterior is designed to deflect wind. > The building is designed with two emergency stairwells, in response to the 9/11 attacks in New York. Quotations "Nobody is saying it has to be the highest building in the country. The idea was to build a very slender, elegant building in this skyline." -Santiago Calatrava, New York Times, July 25, 2005. "I don't think this is a real project. It's a total charade." -Donald Trump, New York Times, July 25, 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Observer Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 "I don't think this is a real project. It's a total charade." -Donald Trump, New York Times, July 25, 2005.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I might have to go with Trump on this one making him 3 for 4 in my book:1. He married a supermodel.2. He wants to rebuild the ORIGINAL WTC.3. He thinks this is bogus.4. Unfortunately, he still hasn't fixed the hair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Here's the NY Times article.By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVOPublished: July 26, 2005CHICAGO, July 25 - In a city known for its skyscrapers, in an era when tall buildings have become targets, can the skyline handle one more that stretches the limit? In Chicago, it seems, the answer may be yes - if the architect is a "starchitect" like Santiago Calatrava.Mr. Calatrava, a Spaniard who lives in Zurich, has designed what would be the country's tallest building for Chicago. The developer, Christopher T. Carley, plans to announce the $500 million project on Tuesday.The structure would be called the Fordham Spire and is proposed to be built at North Water Street and Lake Shore Drive, near where the Chicago River meets Lake Michigan. It would be 115 stories, topping out at 1,458 feet to its roof. A spire on top would reach about 2,000 feet, making the building the country's tallest.The Sears Tower, at 1,729 feet, is now the tallest when antennas are included. The Burj Tower in Dubai, under construction, is said to be planned at 2,300 feet, which would make it the world's tallest.Link to the article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I'm curious about the zoning laws. Are the height restrictions meant to preserve the lake views of existing buildings? Even a building that's 'only' 540 feet (!) would have a commanding presence on the lakefront. Do FAA regulations enter the picture? Or does Chicago want to confine its megascrapers to one district?Hope this proposal goes through; it's time for America to have a 21st century superskyscraper, and the design is inspiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YakuzaIce Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Yeah, I saw this on SSP. This is awesome that the US seems to be getting back into the superscraper business. And Calvatrava is a great architect. And where did you get those pics, because I think it was you who posted it on SSP. Found some more pics.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 it looks like a unicorn's horn.however, it is elegant and graceful (as one would expect for calatrava). too bad houston is not considering buildings as significant as this will/would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YakuzaIce Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 it looks like a unicorn's horn.however, it is elegant and graceful (as one would expect for calatrava). too bad houston is not considering buildings as significant as this will/would be.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yeah, it would be nice if we could get something like this. I don't even think it has many units. I think it is around 250 plus a 20 story hotel.It is also funny how trump is reacting. He is probably just mad this his building has barely gotten above the ground and a nicer taller building is already proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 *winces slightly*It resembles the new WTC design a bit too much. This one is nicer, but, I still react negatively to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Observer Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Like it or not, the Chicago downtown shots are nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Looks like my electric toothbrush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Normally I like Calatrava's buildings, but the twisting doesn't really work for me. That being said, it beats the new Freedom Tower imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ V Lawrence Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I'm not really sure how the designs of Fordham Spire or Freedom Tower spruces up the skylines of their city. It sounds like a bragging rights race for the tallest building with no thought as to exactly WHO would want residence there. No saying there won't be any, but what companies do these developers already have lined up to take the office spaces of these buildings?I hope developers builds MANY more skyscrapers in the downtown Houston area especially, but also in the Uptown area as well. They don't have to be the tallest in the world, but at least around the height of Williams Tower and up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YakuzaIce Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I'm not really sure how the designs of Fordham Spire or Freedom Tower spruces up the skylines of their city. It sounds like a bragging rights race for the tallest building with no thought as to exactly WHO would want residence there. No saying there won't be any, but what companies do these developers already have lined up to take the office spaces of these buildings?I hope developers builds MANY more skyscrapers in the downtown Houston area especially, but also in the Uptown area as well. They don't have to be the tallest in the world, but at least around the height of Williams Tower and up.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well it is residential, so they don't have to worry about office tenants. Freedom tower is a different story though. From what I have heard Fordham only needs to sell 40% to begin and apparently people have already tried to contact the developer about purchasing units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 I'm curious about the zoning laws. Are the height restrictions meant to preserve the lake views of existing buildings? Even a building that's 'only' 540 feet (!) would have a commanding presence on the lakefront. Do FAA regulations enter the picture? Or does Chicago want to confine its megascrapers to one district?Hope this proposal goes through; it's time for America to have a 21st century superskyscraper, and the design is inspiring.540 feet is pretty small for a building in that neighborhood these days. There are about 30 skyscrapers under construction in Chicago right now, and if you're not over 60 stories, you don't even get a mention in the paper.Chicago does what it can to make sure the tallest buidlings end up along the lakefront, but it's tallest buildings (Sears Tower, Aon Center, Hancock, Trump) are all over the place. This new one will be in the center, if it's built.When the wind is off the lake, which is very common, jets from O'Hare airport take off over the skyline. It's pretty disturbing. Most international flights come in over the lake and cross the skyline to land at O'Hare. I have some pictures of jets that look like they're barely clearing some of the skyscrapers. I'm sure it's an optical illusion, but I don't think I should be able to see details on a jet as it soars overhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 Here's an example. I have others that are much closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skwatra Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 that is scary, and cool. though it looks to be a 747 - large airplane and it looks pretty small. i'm sure its 1000's of feet away.and one of our pilot posters probably knows the FAA regulations on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I am a pilot, but no architect. Think of controlled airspace as an upside down wedding cake. You have to build REALLY close to an airport for it to be a problem. I have never heard of the FAA limiting height restrictions for buildings. People say this is true for Dallas but I think it's all urban legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownKid Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 I like it but its like they are cheating with that huge spire on top just so they can be the tallest at one angel it looks like the John Handcock center height with that dumb spire on top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YakuzaIce Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 I like it but its like they are cheating with that huge spire on top just so they can be the tallest at one angel it looks like the John Handcock center height with that dumb spire on top<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well the renderings are a little misleading. The roof height is 8 feet above sears, so there won't be the same petronas arguments this time. But it would look much better with 100ft more of building and 100 ft. less of spire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontroseNeighborhoodCafe Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 A computer image shows the 115-story Fordham Spire to be built in Chicago. Plans for nation's tallest building trump Trump The Donald describes tower as 'a total charade' Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle News Services Houston Chronicle Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Having a spire is not cheating. Tallest buildings are measure on different scales. There is an internation group that catalogues this data and has with and without spires.The roof top is the usual measurement for tallest skyscraper. If the spire is included, they throw the building into the tallest structure catagory where no one to date beats the radio tower in North Dakota.Towers such as the CN tower in Toronto also get classified separately from skyscrapers.In the end, it all depends on the benchmark that is used and the rules that are being applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YakuzaIce Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 The roof top is the usual measurement for tallest skyscraper. If the spire is included, they throw the building into the tallest structure catagory where no one to date beats the radio tower in North Dakota.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Spires are not in the same category as antennas, that would be pinnacle height. An example of this is the WTB back when Petronas was built. The roof was lower than Sears, but their spires brought it slightly higher. Decorative spires count in height, antennas do not. (at least for WTB status) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banking214 Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Yeah, it would be nice if we could get something like this. I don't even think it has many units. I think it is around 250 plus a 20 story hotel.It is also funny how trump is reacting. He is probably just mad this his building has barely gotten above the ground and a nicer taller building is already proposed.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I agree with you. The Donald is not getting press, so what does he do, snap back with a negative remark. Shocker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontroseNeighborhoodCafe Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 At 1,667 feet, Taipei 101 tower in Taiwan is the world's tallest building. At about 2,000 feet tall, the Fordham Spire would be the tallest building in the United States when all building elements are counted. The Desire for Tallest Building Persists July 27, 2005 The Desire for Tallest Building Persists By ROBIN POGREBIN N.Y. Times Article Merged - existing topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Observer Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Its slightly depressing to go to SSP and not see the WTC on the top ten world's tallest buildings list anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trophy Property Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Having a spire is not cheating. Tallest buildings are measure on different scales. There is an internation group that catalogues this data and has with and without spires.The roof top is the usual measurement for tallest skyscraper. If the spire is included, they throw the building into the tallest structure catagory where no one to date beats the radio tower in North Dakota.Towers such as the CN tower in Toronto also get classified separately from skyscrapers.In the end, it all depends on the benchmark that is used and the rules that are being applied.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Do you have any idea which is the largest Building in the US in terms of Net Rentable Area. I would think that Sears is close to the top with over 3 million SF. Any other ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 Do you have any idea which is the largest Building in the US in terms of Net Rentable Area.  I would think that Sears is close to the top with over 3 million SF.  Any other ideas? At one time, another Chicago building called the Merchandise Mart was the world's largest building in terms of square feet. 4,200,000. It was surpassed by the Pentagon with 6,500,000 square feet. I don't know if that's been beaten yet. Of course, you can't rent space in the Pentagon, but office space is office space. The Merchandise Mart has a pretty good track record for occupancy. It's usually near 90% or better until recently when the Chicago Transit Authority moved out because there wasn't any more room for it to expand. It's not unusual for large Chicago buildings to have their own post offices (Hancock Center, Aon Center, etc...) or grocery stores (Hancock Center, Park Tower, and others...) but Merchandise Mart is the only office building other than the Pentagon that I know of that has its own ZIP code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I know the WTC, which included the two towers and other building on the complex was around 12 or 15 million square ft. The building above probably still surpassed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trophy Property Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I know the WTC, which included the two towers and other building on the complex was around 12 or 15 million square ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talbot Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I actually like it quite a bit, though it looks like a big drill bit sticking out of the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.