Talk:Chicago Spire/Archive 3

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.

---

New developments

As most people are probably aware the Spire has been approved by the city and it looks like Kelleher is going to move as quickly as possible to get this project moving. Chupper 17:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Building status

I've moved the building from "approved" status to "construction imminent" as several papers are now saying construction will begin in a matter of weeks or by the end of the month. Let's move it to an under construction status as soon as they start construction of the actual building. Chupper 17:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a cite for construction status. http://www.newcityskyline.com/TheChicagoSpireisofficiallyunderconstruction.html 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New article layout

Once construction begins I'll relayout the article. The development/political history and status sections will be merged to create a sort of big history section. I'll be working on this layout over at User:Chupper/Sandbox04. Feel free to make changes there until that temporary page is moved here (after construction starts). Chupper 17:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Construction

Crane parts arrived today at the site of the Chicago Spire. A press release is anticipated for release tomorrow. Assuming Shelbourne announces a construction date or announces that construction has begun, the temporary page "construction page" will be moved here at the appropriate time. At that point any referenced additions to the new construction section would be appreciated. Chupper 03:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes and moved the new layout article here. When construction "officially" starts we'll need to switch the tag, update the information in the infobox, and change the first sentence in the lead section. Chupper 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Under construction

The Chicago Spire has crossed the very thin line into an "under construction" status. Someone has photographed caissons being drilled and inserted into the ground. I've referenced a forum which shows that picture and has updated the status to under construction within their own forum. As soon as I get a better reference I'll use it, but that image right now seems to be the best indicator. Chupper 19:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, it looks likes thats not a caisson but it looks like "they need to grout an old freight tunnel." I've also jumped the gun a bit. I've reverted the status update. Chupper 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They have begun construction on the actual building and are no longer just preparing the site. I've updated the status for the article. The Chicago Spire is under construction. Chupper 18:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you find some better source than UC status on some buildings database or messages in forums? Why is nothing on developers website http://www.shelbournedevelopment.com/ ? --Jklamo 22:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I usually consider Emporis pretty reputable. If you feel it is not, feel free to revert the edits. Otherwise no, that is the only source I have. I no longer use "forums" as sources. Chupper 03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. I, to use the phrase "jumped gun", earlier in the month. What about the template box? - thank you Astuishin (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If our source reverted the listing, we did need to change it back. Thanks for staying on top of this guys. I've also switched the templates from under construction back to future building. Chupper 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Jklamo, when construction does officially start according to a reference or two, I doubt it will be Shelbourne. They've stated that they will be holding no official ceremonies until construction is complete. I'm not expecting something from them... Chupper 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a picture of the construction in Friday's Tribune, it had a small caption underneath explaining the construction had officially begun but no accompanying article. Of course I don't if the paper post its pictures online.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just checked out the caption in the Trib. The caption does not clearly state that construction has begun. As soon as we find any other reputale reference stating construction has begun, we can use it. Chupper 03:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As of August 1, it would seem the Spire is under construction as caissons were being drilled.chazman 19:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've used a reference another user tried to add to the page stating it was under construction. I've changed the page now that we have a reference. Chupper 14:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does the status keep being reverted back to construction imminent? The building is clearly under construction. http://www.newcityskyline.com/TheChicagoSpireisofficiallyunderconstruction.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.66.161 (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia needs references. You just provided one here, as did another use in the edit history. All you would have done is switched the status, and used <ref> formatting to add in the reference, and it would have not been reverted. See WP:REF. Chupper 14:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Emporis listing.

User "209.253.119.2" recently reinserted Emporis in as an external link for this article stating "Emporis link restored; no reason not to show a major reference" in the edit summary. I do not feel it should be listed in the external links section for the following reasons:

• Emporis is not a "major reference" for this article. On some of these smaller Chicago building article I could see listing it, even though it sill violates WP:EL, because there is just so little information. However Emporis is only used to reference 1 fact in this article. The other 46 references use web sites, books, and newspaper articles as sources.
• In addition, per WP:EL "Links normally to be avoided", it violates criteria #1 - "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article".
• It is already listed as a reference notes section.

Chupper 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay that's fine, I'll leave it. But Emporis is a good source for images and it's the most authoritative source for exact height information, so I believe the link would be valuable, or at least interesting, to people visiting this page. 209.253.119.2 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Emporis is valuable for any high rise reference. 68.180.38.41 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there something you wanted to actually reference with it? Or do you want to add it to the external links? If it is the latter take a look at the comments above and also WP:EL. Chupper 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

structural engineering of chicago spire

Thornton Tomasetti is the structural engineer for the Chicago Spire. In general we are responsible for major structural aspects of the building including the superstructure design, foundation design, and construction coordination.

I would like to include the structural engineer in the article sidebar as well as referencing it within the article.

As time goes on, I can provide detailed specifics about the building as it is being constructed.

See www.thorntontomasetti.com for a press release under "News & Events"

Cozmojoe 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Any specifics about the building you could provide would be very helpful! Please note though that promoting yourself or using self published sources on Wikipedia is not allowed (See WP:SPS). If you can provide a reference here stating that Thornton Tomasetti is the structural engineer for the Chicago Spire project, it would be appreciated. It can be included in the infobox - but we need a reference first. After visiting http://www.thorntontomasetti.com, there are no press releases related to the Chicago Spire as of 6:53PM CDT 07/31/07. Chupper 23:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See www.thorntontomasetti.com/news November 2006

Also includes important information about the local architect. As I imagine, Perkins+Will will become the architect of record, while Santiago Calatrava will not perform construction administration duties.Cozmojoe 03:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I assumed it was something recent and looked for it somewhere in May, June or July. Shelbourne's press release is already used in this article. I've added the company name in as the structural engineer and used Shelbourne's press release as the reference. Thank you sir, Chupper 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Drill Bit

I've notice some my fellow Chicagoans referring to the Spire as "the drill bit" when discussions of it come up. I wonder if this should be incorporated into the article. hmmm... probably need to wait until the Sun Times/Trib/Chicago Mag does some sort of man in the street piece on the Spire that mentions it. Buster 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is already included. Check the design section, second paragraph, last sentence. Chupper 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Spire diameter

Does anyone know the exact diameter of the base (or widest point) of the tower? Judging by these two pictures [[1]][[2]], it looks like it's maybe just above 200' (~60m). Does this figure seem reasonable? ataricom (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the diameter will be 200 feet, as the height to width ratio is 10:1. So 2,000 feet to 200 feet. DPCBOSS (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Spire Height Comparison

The Chicago Spire is going to be the second tallest building in 2011 so I thought that it would be more relevant if we compared the second tallest building to the first tallest building the Burj Dubai. This makes sense, so we can see the differences in size of the two tallest buildings in the world, and not just buildings in North America.Maldek (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In the USA, possibly the country that has done most to promote the building of skyscrapers, the comparison with other North American landmark buildings is quite possibly more important. However, there is some value in mentioning that the Chicago Spire will be the second tallest after the Burj Dubai. So let's keep both comparisons. Astronaut (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Spire Completion date/ official source?

On this site it says the Chicago Spire will be completed in 2011. I have seen that on the Freedom Tower site it says 2010 and on the site I have listed below it says 2009, so where is the official source that will tell me the completion date for the Chicago Spire. I also have the same problem with the Freedom Tower as I have heard completion dates that have said 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and even 2012. Where is the offical source that I can go to, to see the offical completion dates of the Chicago Spire and the Freedom Tower, because I am so confused now. Here is what I found on the Chicago Spire stating 2009, but I have no idea where the offical source is on either of these towers

Official Name: The Chicago Spire Formerly: The Fordham Spire Designed by: Santiago Calatrava Construction Start: 2007 Construction Completed: 2009 Cost: $2,400,000,000.00 Type: Skyscraper Stories: 150 Maximum Height: 2,000 feet / 610 meters

(including spires, antennae, etc...)

Location: 400 North Lake Shore Drive Area: Near North Side Post Code: 60611 City: Chicago, IllinoisMaldek (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Maldek, the best source is the developer themselves, right? Just click the reference in the infobox and you will find http://www.shelbournedevelopment.com/press_release.php?id=82 - Shelbourne, the developer, flat out says "2011". Chupper (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference formating

Does anyone want .o reformat the references using {{cite web}} so that the title is linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Completion of the Chicago Spire

For quite some time now I have noticed that the completion date for the Chicago Spire is at 2012. Previously I had asked when the Chicago Spire would be completed and I was told that the builders (official company) said 2011. This is when I asked regarding other dates such as 2009, 2010, 2012 etc. Has the date been postponed to 2012? Please let me know. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The building will be topped out at 2,000 feet in late 2011 with the resident move in date of early - mid 2012. DPCBOSS (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

DPCBOSS, we need references - do you have a more authoritative reference than Shelbourne themselves? Shelbourne is saying 2012 in their latest press release - check the reference. If there is another, better source, please post it here or in the article and make the necessary changes; otherwise we can't use editor's thoughts as references. Wikipedia has a strict referencing policy. Chupper (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tallest talk

There seems to be a lot of unreferenced additions lately talking about how tall the Chicago Spire will be compared to a lot of other buildings under construction. I've removed those additions and will stick to tallest all residential building. If that referenced statement also fails to hold up (with other references), then we'll either remove that sentence or change it to tallest building in the United States. We can't keep changing that sentence every few minutes and not use any references. Chupper (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Tallest-all residential building in the world?

Apparently Aedas and Trident International Holdings, the architect and developer of Pentominium, added a 102 m spire to the 516 m residential building to boost the structural height of Pento to 618 m, which is about 8-9 m taller than the Chicago Spire. Pento is scheduled for completion in 2011, or one year before the Chicago Spire (2012). The Chicago Spire will still retain the records of highest roof (610 m) and habitable floor if these completion years are true. See Emporis's entry on Pentominium, SkyscraperPage forum, SkyscraperPage - Pento, and SkyscraperPage - Chi Spire. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 21:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thanks for the info. Let me see if I can't verify that, find a new ref for CS and update the lead and article. Thanks. Chupper (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The 102 m spire does mean that the Pentominium will be the "tallest" residential building. Emporis reference here: [3]. M.Nelson (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Feet vs. meters (or metre)

People keep switching the primary unit for the building's height. Let's keep the unit consistent with the article's subject. This building is in the United States and the english system is used in the US. Use feet. If this building were used in a place with the metric system, then we could use meters. Until the US switches over, lets keep it consistent. Chupper (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "032206ChicagoJournal" :
  • Bush, H. (2006, March 22). The coronation of Calatrava. ''Chicago Journal.'' Retrieved December 11, 2006, form http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=1507&TM=83215.53
  • Bush, H. (2006, March 22). Calatrava Spire Gains Approval of Plan Commission. ''Chicago Journal.'' Retrieved February 6, 2007, from http://www.natarus.com/news/essayitem.aspx?essayid=25

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ninth" tallest in lead section

If we can find a source saying that it will be the ninth tallest, that is fine - lets add it. Otherwise, stop reintroducing this into the lead section.

Also, for the love of whoever your deity is, stop adding in all or some of the buildings ahead of it. The lead section is supposed to act as a summary of the article, not a list of tallest buildings. Chupper (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Spire will NOT be the Second tallest building in the World

I have given a list of all of the buildings that will be taller than the Chicago Spire but people still dismiss all of these buildings. Every building is now claiming to be the second tallest building in the world, while dismissing all of the buildings taller than it. For example people editing Russia Tower are saying that this building is going to be the second tallest building but actually it is going to be the eighth tallest. These projects I have listed are not unlikely. Most of them are already well on their way to completion, unlike the Chicago Spire which is just a hole in the ground. The Chicago Spire is not even likely to be built because of financial problems with the architect, and it is likely to stay as just a hole in the ground. Why do people keep dismissing these projects as unlikely when the Chicago Spire is pretty unlikely itself, considering the Architect is in financial trouble and all work on the building has stopped until the markets improve? The Russia Tower also claims to be the second tallest, so does Shanghai Center and many buildings. Every building is saying it will be second to the Burj Dubai and that is not true. There are about 12 buildings that will be taller than 2,000 feet by 2012 but everyone is dismissing all of these buildings, and I think this bias has to stop. The Chicago Spire is no more likely to be built than any of these other buildings because it is just a hole in the ground right now and all work has stopped on it indefinitely.Maldek2 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Maldek2, the problem is that you keep listing buildings that are not under construction and that have not even received funding. For instance you list the Nakheel Tower, Madinat al-Hareer, Pagcor Tower, Lanco Hills Signature Tower which are nice proposals but are unsuitable for mention in the article about the Chicage Spire. Until they begin construction they should not be mentioned. Also you mention the Incheon twin towers twice. You may think of the Chicage Spire as a "hole in the ground" but the fact that the foundation is done makes is far more likely to be completed than these proposals that you keep adding. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, we should not be mentioning any hypothetical ranks here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thus, the article should not say that the Spire will be the second-tallest building in the world, nor should it say it will be the 8th or the 14th. We do not know for sure when or even if the Spire will be completed, and we certainly don't know the dates of all of the other incomplete buildings, whether they are proposed or under construction. Cheers, Rai•me 03:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Chicago Spire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

1. The article has multiple dead links/redirects that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive may be able to help.
2. Some of the citations only consist of a url. Citations should include author, title, date, publisher, access date, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET may be able to help.
3. Have there been any more recent news since October 2008?

This article covers the topic well. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I addressed all of the above concerns: I fixed all of the deadlinks and redirects in the article, reformatted all citations using citation templates, and added a construction update from March 2009 about possible funding from the AFL-CIO (the only thing I could find). Does anything else need to be done for the article to retain its GA-status? Cheers, Rai•me 03:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Keep up with the progress, and be sure to update any news on the ongoing construction. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:38, 20 July 2009 (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.