What type of steel was used in Trump Tower's framework?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Contemporary reporting and building databases indicate Trump Tower’s primary structure relies on reinforced concrete—described as a concrete tube or concrete core with outriggers—rather than an all-steel skeletal frame; at least one encyclopedic entry says the project used 45,000 cubic yards of concrete and about 3,800 tons of steelwork [1]. Some technical sources characterize the Chicago Trump International Hotel & Tower as using concrete core/outrigger lateral systems; the SkyscraperCenter notes a concrete core and outrigger arrangement while also describing “all‑steel” systems in other entries, showing variation in how databases summarize systems [2] [3].
1. Why the question matters: steel vs. concrete changes how a skyscraper behaves
The material used for a tower’s framework governs construction speed, stiffness, vibration, fireproofing needs and seismic or wind performance; contemporary coverage on Trump Tower emphasizes that it was built with a massive concrete base and deep caissons and that its designers chose a concrete superstructure, calling it more rigid and easier to build under a fast-track program [3] [1]. Sources reporting on architect Der Scutt’s comments frame concrete as the cost- and schedule-driven choice compared with a full steel frame [4] [1].
2. What the sources actually say about “type of steel”
Available sources do not specify a steel grade (e.g., A36, ASTM A572) or supplier for the building’s columns, trusses or reinforcing bars. Wikipedia states the building “used 45,000 cubic yards of concrete and 3,800 tons of steelwork,” implying steel was present but not the primary structural material [1]. The SkyscraperCenter entry for the Chicago Trump tower says the lateral system consists of a concrete core and outrigger system, which points to concrete as the main vertical/lateral element and suggests steel was used in secondary roles [2]. None of the supplied documents name a steel type or mill (not found in current reporting).
3. How reporting frames the steel that does exist: supportive, not primary
Multiple items portray the project as a concrete tower that still required steel: Wikipedia and archival reporting stress a concrete superstructure contrasted with “many other skyscrapers…built on steel frames,” and they quantify steelwork tonnage without specfying steel type [1]. A political advocacy piece draws on architect quotes to highlight the decision to use concrete instead of Pennsylvania steel for cost and delivery reasons; that article’s focus is political critique rather than technical steel specification [4].
4. Conflicting summaries in technical databases and why that happens
The SkyscraperCenter and related CTBUH-style summaries sometimes label buildings “All‑Steel” or list steel-based floor systems for comparable towers, but their Trump entry explicitly cites a concrete core and outrigger lateral system for the Chicago tower—this shows databases can use standardized categorizations that don’t always match older narrative accounts [2]. The discrepancy underscores that shorthand labels (“steel” vs. “concrete”) can mask mixed systems: many tall buildings combine concrete cores with steel floor framing or steel outriggers.
5. Practical interpretation: what “3,800 tons of steelwork” likely means
When sources record a quantity such as 3,800 tons of steelwork without a grade, they usually mean structural steel members, curtain-wall framing and miscellaneous metalwork rather than the primary load-bearing frame. Given repeated descriptions of the tower as a concrete superstructure with a concrete core and outriggers, the sensible reading is that steel was used for secondary framing, connections, façade elements and mechanical supports—not as the primary structural material [1] [2].
6. What remains unknown and why reporters can’t confirm it
None of the supplied documents provide mill certifications, structural drawings, contractor procurement records, or specifying standards that would identify the steel alloy, grade, or supplier; therefore the exact “type of steel” is not verifiable from available reporting (not found in current reporting). For that level of detail one would need original contract specifications, shop drawings or structural engineer records, which are not in the supplied sources.
7. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas in the sources
Architect quotes and trade-oriented entries stress construction efficiency and rigidity to justify the concrete choice [4] [3]. Political commentary (American Bridge PAC) uses the concrete/steel distinction to advance a narrative about Trump’s purchasing choices; technical databases (SkyscraperCenter) present neutral structural descriptions but can be misread if truncated into “all‑steel” labels—readers should note these differing missions when weighing the evidence [4] [2].
Bottom line: available reporting consistently describes Trump Tower’s Chicago structure as primarily reinforced concrete (concrete tube/core and outriggers) with several thousand tons of steelwork used in supportive roles, but none of the provided sources name a specific steel grade or supplier [1] [3] [2].