Talk:Chicago Spire/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Redesign: 150 or 160 Stories?

I've seen lots of conflicting information out there on this. Since the redesign of the spire I've seen some sites & news outlets still list the new story count at 150. I think the developer said it was 150 stories a week before the most recent release.[1]

Because of this I've seen some edits here changing 160 to 150.

Well, here is my take. Most sources and Shelbourne themselves say the building will be 160 stories . So based upon the source counts and the statement directly from the horses mouth, I'm going to assume, for now, that 150 is incorrect.

Sources at 160 stories:

Sources at 150 stories:

January 15th story declares its 150

I just wanted to state that according to a Chicago Tribune article on January 15th, they have said Kelleher is now declaring it will be 150 stories. I will be changing everything and referencing. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-070115spire,1,1024654.story?track=rss Chupper 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That story came from a meeting where Kelleher showed some of his plans on 15 January 2007. I was at that meeting. The design he showed was an older design, and Kamin of the Chicago Tribune questioned him about this, as Kelleher had shown a different and more updated model at a meeting at IIT. This was 2 weeks prior to the meeting on 15 January. The drawings shown on 15 January were from early December of 2006. When questioned about the details, Kelleher and his assistants phrased their answers as refering to this current model shown at the meeting (the early December 2006 model).
After much critisism in the press of Kelleher's presentaion, he and Calatrava showed some modified drawings to Kamin which were made public. These are lacking in detail, and Kelleher said that the design is still a work in progress. He also said the design may continue to evolve after the caissons are set. He stated that he is ordering caissons soon.
I have site plans, an example floor plan and the most current render of the building. I could upload these, but I hope they won't get tagged for copyright violation. --Kalmia 11:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Main image

I've requested from Shelbourne Development that they let us use one of their copyrighted renderings here on Wikipedia. You are allowed to use them on Wikipedia if you can't find any noncopyrighted decent renderings and you have the company's permission. If I get permission and a higher res photo, I'll upload it right away. Chupper 05:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Newspire.gif cannot be used in the article. It has no copyright tag and will be deleted soon. Please only use images that are fair use. I have requested a copyrighted image with permission from Shelbourne, but I'm not pushing it as the building is, again, being revised. Sorry TVManiac. I totally understand that image looks better than the empty field, but until we get an image from Shelbourne or a rendering that someone else wishes to donate to Wikipedia, we are stuck with it. Chupper 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The current images are of the original design for the Fordham Spire. The tower has currently undergone two redesigns since then which saw the number of floors raised to the height of the antenna. The antenna has therefore been removed. The first redesign had a flat roof and it did not taper towards the top however this did do so in the second redesign. - Erebus555 18:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well this image is the only one we currently have, and its much better than having an image of a blank lot... even though its not the updated version for the building. I'll add a caption station stating that it is for the old design.—dima/s-ko/ 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New image coming soon

I just got off the phone with Shelbourne's PR firm. They said they will be e-mailing me a current design rendering and permission to use the image. The image will be copyrighted, but it is allowed if you have permission from the copyright holder and no other free equivalent is available. (See the image for the Freedom Tower). As soon as I get it I'll upload it and switch the image. Chupper 22:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded two versions of the image provided. I included the larger image in the middle of the article. I hope it is not out of place there, but the rendering looks so nice. I also added a cropped version of the rendering to the infobox. Thoughts/Comments/Questions? Chupper 23:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Spire site plans / example floor plan

Here are some images that I just uploaded. If you can come up with a better copyright tag then let me know.--Kalmia 05:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:400 N LSD floor plans.jpg

Image:400 N LSD site plan.jpg

Expansion per peer review

I've made some initial changes to prepare to expand the article once again. My most recent edit to the article really improved some stuff but also ruined the flow of the article too. I originally put in a development status & development history section which I liked, but I pulled it out after worries it may have turned into proseline. I have put it back though. I found myself putting development information all over and the dates were getting out of order. I hope everyone likes the current design.

I've also set it up this way...

  1. for ease of future edits. Like before, new information goes into status, and we move older info to history.
  2. to make the article easier to read. The reader should now have the option to read just certain sections, i.e. height, Development history, or can read the article in its entirety, but either way will read it chronoligically and it will make sense.
  3. to prepare for future expansion. Per the peer review I've been looking into more information on the history of the site & specifics of the design. I have checked out some books about skyscrapers and am waiting for my library to trace a book someone recommended that deals with wind, force and skyscrapers.

I'm no architectual buff, so if you know stuff about the design, feel free to add it in there. I've put in tags to help encourage this. I've also thrown in a tag to encourage expanding the site section. I really can't find information on this, but will be digging deeper and deeper these next few days. Chupper 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I will be submitting this article for GA status. I left my most recent comments at the article's entry for peer review. Dependent upon what they say decides whether or not I'll nominate for FA status at a later time. Chupper 22:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thorium

Has any thorium been found on the Spire site? I asked Shelbourne's lawyer (Murphey) about contaminated soil, and he said that some barrels were found, and they were sent out to be tested to determine the contents, but he didn't say the site was contaminated. He did say that they didn't know that the foundations from the previous factory were there. I have a picture of the factory, but I don't think it would be fair use for Wikipedia. --Kalmia 16:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The guys who are peer reviewing the article told me to find out as much site information as I could. I felt mentioning the adjacent park was revelant, and the fact that it was contaminated revelant. Although it is worth mentioning, I don't think it's a big deal to the building itself, and I tried to portray that in that section.
  1. I couldn't find any information online on site surveys for the location of the building itself.
  2. Even if the location for the building was contaminated, according to the references, it would be relatively easy to clean up. The park, however, is another story. With the park you aren't moving out dirt and putting in concrete... Instead you are leaving the dirt there and growing stuff in it. Tackling that problem would be much harder.
If anyone knows where to look up info on previous site surveys and maybe scan it in or something that would be helpful. It's probably at some government building, but unfortunately, I'm not local to Chicago at the moment.
In the meantime I've been trying to dig up more information on the actual architecture of the building. Kalmia, if you know anything about architecture or engineering, feel free to add in what you have. Even if it's not referenced thats ok - I can handle that once a smart person puts in something. Chupper 19:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Cleaning up land is called remediation in the UK - I know nothing about radioactive remediation, but the usual solution for toxicity is to typically scrape about 500-1500mm of topsoil off the site and remove it (to somewhere else - there's increasing cost for where you move it to in the EU these days) and replace the soil with a capping layer. I'd have thought, though don't quote me, that if the radiation source is just emitting alpha radiation, this would be sufficient. If that's the case, it's not really hard - just costly. --Joopercoopers 01:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Joopercoopers. Do you have any sources I could use that talk about what you just described? Chupper 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA

Very well referenced, excellent article. Suggest a peer review to flesh out more problems. Of course, keep on top of news to update as necessary. It's a very cool project, incidentally :) DoomsDay349 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wind resistance

The article explanation of why the spiral structure is expected to reduce the adverse effects of wind is inaccurate fluid mechanics viewpoint. It should be improved to increase the quality of the article . The text in question is:

...the curved face of the exterior will minimize wind forces. In rectangular buildings, a fluid wind flow puts pressure on the windward face of the building, while as air moves around it, a suction is applied to the leeward face.

I would say that curved surfaces cause a more even distribution of the aerodynamic stresses. Sharp corners tend to increase drag and concentrate aerodynamic stresses. Another point of contention is that according to the drawing the cross section of the building does not appear to be curved but consist of a stack of rectangular surfaces. In that case the sharp corners will still cause stress concentrations. Here's a potentially useful reference on the subject: Numerical prediction of unsteady pressures on a square cylinder with various corner shapes, T. Tamura*, T. Miyagi and T. Kitagishi , Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics

Volumes 74-76, 1 April 1998, Pages 531-542 Emitozzi 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

New Image - Image:Chicagospire.jpg

This image will soon be deleted because it's licensing is not sufficient for it to be used on Wikipedia. However, it's a great image and I'd like to get some more information if anyone has it.

  1. Where did this image come from?
  2. Is this really the new external design of the building?
  3. If so, I thought Shelbourne wasn't releasing any images, yet, to the public...?

If this is a real image of the new design I may request another High res image from Shelbourne's PR firm. I'd use the same copyright on the existing pictures in the article (Copyrighted, but with permission). Chupper 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Spire

Does anyone else notice the similarity of the Chicago spire and Frank Lloyd Wrights Mile High Illinois skyscraper project of 1956? 69.130.91.226 03:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it is tall, but the Spire looks more round to me... I guess the building site might have been kinda the same. What features did you find similar? Chupper 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_Spire/Archive_2&oldid=1049850251"