Tribune East Tower (Chicago, Manhattan, Grant Park: rent, condo, hotel)

[KoNgFooCj]

Do you think they should make it a tiny bit taller? Why not just make it the tallest in the city I guess is what I'm wondering.

[DavePa]

Just opinion.... No one really wants to surpass the Sears (Willis Tower) by a small amount. Just to claim the tallest. Trip's Tower is the only one I would have liked to see taller. I understand it originally was to be. I think the to level rise to the spire.... clearly looks like it was chopped off a bit. Nothing to do with Trump or political views whatsoever.

I just saw that the 4-year ongoing announcement of Jahn's 1000M Tower on S Michigan has announced it will break ground next week. It too had a hair-cut (as it is called ) from originally, 86 to 74 floors. But its IMPACT on the Skyline really will solidify the Southern end of Grant Park nicely.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/10/1...groundbreaking

The Tribune East Tower probably still a year or two off or more? Though it was said after the original Trib Tower overhaul is completed ..... then more will come on the New East Super-Tall. I don't see a increase in height happening either. But never say never. Generally, modest decreases come. Though the New Vista I believe did get a modest increase.

I also want the final third building at the Chicago river split by the Merchandise Mart to be a Super-Tall. Great Location got impact. But won't pass Sears.

I was looking forward .... to the Related Towers in the Spire sight approved as it was. Now they must reveal their new changed No-Hotel plans (wanted Changed by the Alderman) in the next few months. So that I look forward to over the Tribune East Sleek but seems less Chicago to me for some reason? Not saying it is a bad thing though ....

I just still think that any surpassing of the top floor of the Sears .... will only be if a more substantial Tower got built. Mega-Talls generally are impossible to be profitable as one smaller. I understand Dubai's Burj Khalifa Tallest Mega-Tall (with a Chicago architectual firm SOM) was built knowing its cost would not be recovered. But the developers made money from smaller towers around it.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Do you think they should make it a tiny bit taller? Why not just make it the tallest in the city I guess is what I'm wondering.

Nobody's going to confuse me with an architect, but I think the prevailing thought is that somewhere above 1000', towers become inefficient due to their need for more elevators to service the higher floors. So unless you're building simply to "take a shot at the title", it's more efficient to get additional square footage by expanding the footprint somewhat than it is to go taller. Maybe that's why the Willis is staggered, such that the higher you go, the less square footage there is to service with elevators. But being a "supertall" brings with it a sense of exclusivity and architectural prestige, so maybe that's why they keep building thousand- footers.

When I was a kid in the 70's, I remember being mesmerized by the skyline as Hancock, Standard Oil, and Sears towers were built. Today, I couldn't draw a decent representation of the skyline (by memory) if my life depended on it. I recall a reverse-painting (on glass, backlit from the rear) of the Chicago skyline from the 1950's or 60's, where the Prudential Tower dominated the skyline, behind the bar in Marzano's Miami Bowl on Archer and Pulaski. Miami Bowl is long gone, but I have to wonder if that painting survived, and where it is now?

[Chicago_Person]

This is the U.S. This is Chicago. Where land pricing isn't that crazy.
No one really needs towers that big unless it's for bragging rights. And people want to make money, not brag.

Only person that came close is trump. Was going to the tallest until "terrorist fears" came into play

[IronWright]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

Nobody's going to confuse me with an architect, but I think the prevailing thought is that somewhere above 1000', towers become inefficient due to their need for more elevators to service the higher floors. So unless you're building simply to "take a shot at the title", it's more efficient to get additional square footage by expanding the footprint somewhat than it is to go taller. Maybe that's why the Willis is staggered, such that the higher you go, the less square footage there is to service with elevators. But being a "supertall" brings with it a sense of exclusivity and architectural prestige, so maybe that's why they keep building thousand- footers.

When I was a kid in the 70's, I remember being mesmerized by the skyline as Hancock, Standard Oil, and Sears towers were built. Today, I couldn't draw a decent representation of the skyline (by memory) if my life depended on it. I recall a reverse-painting (on glass, backlit from the rear) of the Chicago skyline from the 1950's or 60's, where the Prudential Tower dominated the skyline, behind the bar in Marzano's Miami Bowl on Archer and Pulaski. Miami Bowl is long gone, but I have to wonder if that painting survived, and where it is now?

Nothing personal against you but this argument for super-talls being too expensive to build relative to usable space due to increased elevator space makes no sense to me but it's a widespread explanation. Using that logic it would be a race to the bottom as 700' would be more efficient than 900' and 500' more efficient than 700' and 300' more efficient than 500'for the exact same reasons and on and on.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by IronWright

Nothing personal against you but this argument for super-talls being too expensive to build relative to usable space due to increased elevator space makes no sense to me but it's a widespread explanation. Using that logic it would be a race to the bottom as 700' would be more efficient than 900' and 500' more efficient than 700' and 300' more efficient than 500'for the exact same reasons and on and on.

No offense taken, it's not my conclusion, I'm only repeating what I read somewhere years ago. Land in downtown Chicago may not be at Tokyo or Manhattan levels, but it is expensive and is probably a reason they don't build more buildings that look like the Merchandise Mart, height is the only way to get the density that urban cores now demand. That, and the fact that pretty much every occupied space needs a window, and that prevents buildings from being a "cube", which would probably be the most efficient way to get square footage. Plus, views sell, and a condo on the 90th floor is likely worth much more than one on the 30th, some of these newer places are going in the tens of millions. Personally, if money were no object (and if I didn't put dog ownership in such high regard), I would love to live near the top of Lake Point Tower, that's one of the prettiest buildings in the city, IMHO, and has most everything you need contained within or near it. I likely wouldn't even own a car, just Uber it everywhere, and rent for trips. But being an Average Joe, and now that I'm retired, I'm going much more rural (and warmer) than Chicago, provided I can land near reasonable medical. Chicago is a great place to live if you have enough money to purchase exclusivity.

[KoNgFooCj]

This Tower would look awesome and dominating as the city's tallest building. What if they made it bigger than Central Park Tower in New York! It would be the country's tallest building, unless of course you count the 1776 foot spire on the WTC.


https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?