Association fees in downtown Chicago are be more than $700 / month in some condos.Chip NoVaMac said:I was hoping for no more that $120 in condo fees
Association fees in downtown Chicago are be more than $700 / month in some condos.Chip NoVaMac said:I was hoping for no more that $120 in condo fees
Rod Rod said:Association fees in downtown Chicago are be more than $700 / month in some condos.
Rod Rod said:The background on this is that before September 11, 2001, Trump had been planning to make his development here taller than the Sears Tower. Trump's comment is more about sour grapes - maybe his investors were the deciding factor in shortening his building. Besides, of course, such a building would be tough competition for his, as the proposed building is in a much better location.
Rod Rod said:Association fees in downtown Chicago are be more than $700 / month in some condos.
It's something like $0.50/sq.ft. to $0.70/sq.ft. in some buildings.. I'll get the exact figure from my friend who follows these things closely.wrc fan said:you're joking, right? that is crazy!
I agree. He's a good person to get a quote from for the purpose of that story, for all those reasons.Xtremehkr said:Sour grapes that lead to him making a cheap shot. I don't see any difference. Either way, the premise of his statement strikes me as being disingenuous and petulant.
Just sayin', either way, it seems like a silly statement for Trump to have made.
wrc fan said:you're joking, right? that is crazy!
Chip NoVaMac said:You are right on that! They better take and provide twice weekly maid service and do my laundry for that kind of money. And if they want an Xmas "bonus", they better be prepared to wipe my you know what!
Rod Rod said:It's something like $0.50/sq.ft. to $0.70/sq.ft. in some buildings.. I'll get the exact figure from my friend who follows these things closely.I agree. He's a good person to get a quote from for the purpose of that story, for all those reasons.
Rod Rod said:It's something like $0.50/sq.ft. to $0.70/sq.ft. in some buildings.. I'll get the exact figure from my friend who follows these things closely.
I was speaking with the engineer signing off this Dubai project for the insurers and he had some pretty amazing facts and figures to do with its construction.Rod Rod said:...That link doesn't show the tower they're building in Dubai which is supposed to be complete in 2007 and have a total height of well over 2,000 feet....
interesting stuff. i've seen the renditions and its pretty amazing.mpw said:I was speaking with the engineer signing off this Dubai project for the insurers and he had some pretty amazing facts and figures to do with its construction.
- The piles that make the foundation aren't that deep considering the height, about 30m IIRC
- The sructure is so strong laterally, having been design for high wind loading and having been designed to take two hits from the new Airbus A380, that it could hold its self horizontally if attached to a wall by the foundations.
- Just in case someone comes along and annouces their building a taller tower before it's finished the design allows for another 25% to be added to the top to trump them.
- Count out 15secs to yourself and try to recall as much about your life in that time. Seems like quite a long time doesn't it? I bet you had plenty of happy memories to take in. That's how much time you'd have before hitting th ground if you decided to take a dive from the top!
also another project by calatrava in malmoe, the "turning torso" already tested the concept. it's not finished yet, thoughmpw said:Someone asked who would've thought to included torsional stiffness in the design? Norman Foster did in his 'Erotic Gherkin' in London, although a much shorter building which leaks like a sieve because of the twisted windows I hear and no one to rent it cause of the round floors.
Don't panic said:interesting stuff. i've seen the renditions and its pretty amazing.
also another project by calatrava in malmoe, the "turning torso" already tested the concept. it's not finished yet, though
Rod Rod said:It was a 707, and as you say, they considered its impact but not its fuel. Had the fuel been taken into consideration, perhaps the fireproofing could have been applied in a way that it would adhere to the metal supports better, and of course the walls around the stairwells could have been thicker than drywall.
Chip NoVaMac said:LOL!
I was hoping for no more that $120 in condo fees. As to the Xmas "staff bonus", they better well earn by doing more than their job. When is the last time you tipped your "retail" worker?
emaja said:Maybe I am missing the emphasis, but Chicago already has the nation's tallest building in the Sears Tower.
Yup, and another issue is that in the late 60s / early 70s they didn't have the computer modeling to simulate what all the fuel and fire could do to the building's structure.Chip NoVaMac said:it shows that planners never thought that a jet taking off from Newark, JFK, or LaGuadia could pose harm to the WTC.
Rod Rod said:edit: another link, this one with only existing buildings:
http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/wo/
SiliconAddict said:Dude why don't we get it over with and just start working on a space elevator?
Abstract said:The design is nice, but why does it have to be so big? Why not just make it 900 ft? That would still make it a tall, beautiful building, and be more feasable.
It doesn't always need to be a d**k waving contest.