Talk:Chicago Spire/Archive 1

message: It's a nice building, and impressive, but I wish it wasn't just another tall building for the ultra-rich to live 1000 feet off of the ground.  Such a large and iconic building representing such a small percentage of the city's population is, to me, objectionable.  If the building served some useful purpose as a commercial or office buidling that would employ thousands, I would feel differently, but as it currently only all residential, I hope it's never built.
And for those of you who say that it will be built, don't jump the gun.  It's approved, but that means nothing about it being offically built.  
As for the area of the tower (questioned below), it's supposed to have 920,000 square feet; the Sears Tower has nearly 5 times the area at 4.5 million square feet.
:*It's your opinion I know, but I don't really understand. All (at least a majority) of the new units these day are being touted as luxury condos. Do you care about Trump being a luxury building? Waterview Tower? The new Mandarin Oriental? How about those one unit per floor buildings?
:Second, an office tower would make little sense at all. Forget about the fact that the vacany rate is already pretty bad in Chicago and there are plenty of new office towers coming up still. The location is horrible for an office tower - in the middle of a residential area and with no proximity to good public transportation.
:Not only that, an office tower's floor plans would make a curvying tower very difficult to build. Even if they did manage to get it to work, the cost to do so would scare away any tenant.
:On the other hand, it is easy to find a bunch of rich suburbanites to pay well over $1000 a sq. ft. for the most prestigious building in the metro area and absorb the costs.
:Just saying...
:*I imagine that if it were just an empty sculpture like the Washington Monument or the Eiffel Tower or that baseball bat on end in the West Loop, the above poster wouldn't have such a problem with it.  But this is going to be privately funded and serve a purpose in addition to its artistic value.  Oh my, I guess that's a bad thing.  --Kalmia 06:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice building, but bad purpose

message: I added a template, and it had a place for the "official name".  I just put in "Fordham Spire" because I didn't see any alternatives.  If anyone knows if the official name is different, then change it to that.  If the official name is Fordham Spire, and you're sure of it, then please remove my HTML comment in the template.-PlasmaDragon 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name 

message: How are they going to clean the windows?
:With.. window washers? --Golbez 06:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Window cleaning 

message: Hideous!!! It looks like a giant suppository/dildo!!! What was Richie smoking when the City board approved this grotesque monstrosity???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.108.159 (talk • contribs) 
:It's a lovely curving form like many of Calatrava's designs.  --Kalmia 07:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Utterly without artistic merit

message: From what I have heard, the new design will feature the removal of the spire/ antenna and the residential floors will actually go up to the top instead. It will remain at the same height as first proposed. I believe this was actually stated in a news article, which one I dont have a clue. Sorry. - Erebus555 19:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of antenna