CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by JK47

Honestly I don't give a shit if Related is complaining that the hotel component makes this site difficult to develop at a profit. They knew what they were getting into when they picked up the site, with what's been built there and what was planned.

They bought a signature site on the cheap out of bankruptcy and now they're complaining that it's expensive...maybe even unprofitable...to develop? Tough shit.

It'll be ok.

[Northwest]

Disappointing for sure, but its their property and they can do this with it if they want to. I am so tired of expecting and being let down.
Also, I don't think this site is all that magical. Between townhouses and a lame tourist trap, off the street grid and away from the real city, no transit but cars. Its nice in postcard views, but the numbers have been crunched and the economics machine shit out this. So be it.

[HomrQT]

So much for Related promising they would deliver something "architecturally significant" on this site.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

So much for Related promising they would deliver something "architecturally significant" on this site.

You are aware that the phrase "architecturally significant" has absolutely nothing to do with height figures, right?

No one can know for sure about anything regarding the finer points of the original design, so we're all gonna have to be patient until the 10th when we'll hopefully get more info direct from Related about those finer points.

But I know most people suck at patience.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

You are aware that the phrase "architecturally significant" has absolutely nothing to do with height figures, right?

No one can know for sure about anything regarding the finer points of the original design, so we're all gonna have to be patient until the 10th when we'll hopefully get more info direct from Related about those finer points.

But I know most people suck at patience.

I'm not sure how you see the most recent renders and think "architecturally significant" but ok, we'll wait until the 10th and see if they blow our socks off.

Edit: Also I think there's a decent argument that height can contribute to "architectural significance".

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I'm not sure how you see the most recent renders and think "architecturally significant"

I'm not thinking anything right now, just saying that there's not a whole lot we can definitively discern at this moment from one low-res rendering from a half-mile away.

That said, i do love the overall massing of these towers and feel that there is at least promise in the design, but as Mies said, God is in the details.

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Edit: Also I think there's a decent argument that height can contribute to "architectural significance".

Is crown hall any less architecturally significant because it's only 1 story tall instead of 100?

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I'm not thinking anything right now, just saying that there's not a whole lot we can definitively discern at this moment from one low-res rendering from a half-mile away.

But u do love the overall massing of these towers and fell that there is at least promise in the design, but as Miles said, God is in the details.





I'd crown any less architecturally significant because it's only 1 story tall instead of 100?

The Empire State Building, Burj Khalifa, Home Insurance Building and plenty of others would be less architecturally significant if they were 1/5th their built heights. I do not think height is strictly the most prominent factor in architectural significance in most cases, but it certainly has the ability to contribute to it.

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by Northwest

Disappointing for sure, but its their property and they can do this with it if they want to. I am so tired of expecting and being let down.
Also, I don't think this site is all that magical. Between townhouses and a lame tourist trap, off the street grid and away from the real city, no transit but cars. Its nice in postcard views, but the numbers have been crunched and the economics machine shit out this. So be it.

Exactly, NW. This site is an entryway to the river, sure, but absolutely does not necessitate anything massive . I believe a supertall would look obnoxious here and, for one, am glad it's not happening.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Why is it crap? Because it's not tall? And today we have more money? Huh?

There will always be different sides/opinions and I respect that. But to say because it's a "prominent" location and therefore needs to be tall is, well, not the same opinion as everyone here. I will agree that it IS a prominent location and whatever is built there deserves to have good design, materials and execution. And I think this has that chance.

Has to be tall?? Silliness.

I think my point is that Chicago is only getting wealthier (and yes, poorer) than it was decades ago. That may surprise people, but we are seeing even more investment in the core of the city than we were when the Hancock, Standard Oil, and Sears Tower were built.

So the notion that a supertall can’t be financed when places on earth with much lower GDPs and per capita incomes are able to build them just speaks to lack of will, not lack of money.

Related may have a lot of vested interest in Chicago, but I don’t think their “heart” is in it. I think they have an obligation to build something really special here, and fine they decided to not go with a supertall—but does anyone here honestly think they will go with a high quality design and follow through with good materials?

If we don’t get height, then it’s very likely that we won’t get anything, because they probably aren’t going to build something that hasn’t been VE’d to death.

This is Reilly’s fault. Blair Kamin called him out correctly. Reilly didn’t oppose the height, but whatever he did made Related have to shake up their previous plans and now we are getting something much less inspiring, IMO.

[Zapatan]

As far as the design goes, better to wait for some more renderings, it's from a distance in the one we've seen so it's still hard to tell if they did cheap out or not. The original didn't look as nice from that angle either.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think my point is that Chicago is only getting wealthier (and yes, poorer) than it was decades ago. That may surprise people, but we are seeing even more investment in the core of the city than we were when the Hancock, Standard Oil, and Sears Tower were built.

So the notion that a supertall can’t be financed when places on earth with much lower GDPs and per capita incomes are able to build them just speaks to lack of will, not lack of money.

Related may have a lot of vested interest in Chicago, but I don’t think their “heart” is in it. I think they have an obligation to build something really special here, and fine they decided to not go with a supertall—but does anyone here honestly think they will go with a high quality design and follow through with good materials?

If we don’t get height, then it’s very likely that we won’t get anything, because they probably aren’t going to build something that hasn’t been VE’d to death.

This is Reilly’s fault. Blair Kamin called him out correctly. Reilly didn’t oppose the height, but whatever he did made Related have to shake up their previous plans and now we are getting something much less inspiring, IMO.

Part of it is super low construction costs in said places with much lower GDPs plus a desire to put themselves on the map, Chicago is past that point. I totally agree though, Chicago was building giants in the 60's and 70's, insane how it struggles so much today.

It's both of their faults, since Reilly never opposed the height Related could have easily kept it above 1000, or even combined the towers.

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

I believe a supertall would look obnoxious here and, for one, am glad it's not happening.

Even the megatall Spire looked fine at this location when it was proposed in 2005, when there were fewer tall buildings around it. A fair number of cities have their tallest buildings by a river (e.g. NYC, Detroit, Hong Kong) and they don't look weird. Further, the current proposed height of 875 ft is only 109 ft below supertall status. I don't see how 400 LSD (or any building for that matter) looks acceptable at 875 ft, but "obnoxious" if it were just 12.5% taller.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by JK47

Honestly I don't give a shit if Related is complaining that the hotel component makes this site difficult to develop at a profit.

And one way save some dough? Maybe take advantage of the millions of dollars of foundation work already in the ground instead of pushing for this two tower design?

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

You are aware that the phrase "architecturally significant" has absolutely nothing to do with height figures, right?

No one can know for sure about anything regarding the finer points of the original design, so we're all gonna have to be patient until the 10th when we'll hopefully get more info direct from Related about those finer points.

So you think that they shrank the height but increased the quality of the materials and increased the complexity and beauty of the original design? That height alone was the only sacrifice made in the name of budget? I mean hell, they added terracotta to it when they chopped 900 feet off the first proposal so perhaps they're going to coat it in platinum now that its been reduced a further 200 feet.

I mean sure, we'll see on the 10th, but it's a bit delusional to think that the design got better at this point.

[Mikelacey45]

[QUOTE=Zapatan;8847132]As far as the design goes, better to wait for some more renderings, it's from a distance in the one we've seen so it's still hard to tell if they did cheap out or not. The original didn't look as nice from that angle either.


Stop trying to make dead grass green , this is disappointed in so many level and disrespectful to this city we made skyscrapers like one person on this blog said it’s the entrance of the Chicago River. We originally had a 2000ft building and now a 875ft building. You seen in the renderings vista in the background that’s a 1200ft building. 400 N Lakeshore drive is dwarf in front of it. In the original renderings the tower looks like the same size as vista. I hope and pray this don’t get pass but rejected stop accepting crap we a city of royalty give us our respect.

[Barrelfish]

I think the new design looks a bit... stumpy for a lack of a better word. The proportions don't look as good.

That said, IMO the potential of this site is getting overrated a bit:

• It's actually quite hard to access. The North side is blocked by the Ogden slip and the south side is blocked by the river, so the only option to get in or out is Water Street (which looks like this). I guess in theory you could add an exit off of LSD, but space-wise I'm not sure how that would work.
• Making this worse, there is basically no transit access. The red line is a mile away, and the closest bus routes are on Grand, Michigan, or Wacker, all of which are a substantial walk.
• It's farther than you think from stuff to do. For example, Michigan avenue is > half a mile away. Millennium Park is a mile. It does have Lakefront path, the River Walk, and the future DuSable park, which are all great amenities. And Navy Pier too I guess.
• Personal opinion, but Streeterville is kind of a blah neighborhood to live in.

From a planning perspective, this site just doesn't make much sense to me as a place where a ton of people live and stay. So I guess I'm not shocked that this didn't end up as a super tall.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

This is the most disgusting slap in the face they could have pulled on Chicagoans. I really hope this project fails. Fuck Related Midwest

[marothisu]

So overall I have liked the design and although it's shorter, I'm still happy that the design doesn't totally suck. Although shorter, it doesn't look as good. However, I'm reserving judgement until I see some better renderings. The one posted here doesn't look like it's that high quality. I am more concerned with good/cool design than the tallest building. I know it's not going to make headlines but at the end of the day personally I'll take some crazy awesome looking 900 footer any day over a boring 1500 footer.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

I think the new design looks a bit... stumpy for a lack of a better word. The proportions don't look as good.

That said, IMO the potential of this site is getting overrated a bit:

• It's actually quite hard to access. The North side is blocked by the Ogden slip and the south side is blocked by the river, so the only option to get in or out is Water Street (which looks like this). I guess in theory you could add an exit off of LSD, but space-wise I'm not sure how that would work.

From a planning perspective, this site just doesn't make much sense to me as a place where a ton of people live and stay. So I guess I'm not shocked that this didn't end up as a super tall.

Exit and entrance ramps to lower Lake Shore Drive have ALREADY been constructed.

[SafetyFirst]

Why are people upset at Related Midwest? They proposed a great design. The alderman and NIMBY's killed it.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Mikelacey45

Stop trying to make dead grass green , this is disappointed in so many level and disrespectful to this city we made skyscrapers like one person on this blog said it’s the entrance of the Chicago River. We originally had a 2000ft building and now a 875ft building. You seen in the renderings vista in the background that’s a 1200ft building. 400 N Lakeshore drive is dwarf in front of it. In the original renderings the tower looks like the same size as vista. I hope and pray this don’t get pass but rejected stop accepting crap we a city of royalty give us our respect.

I was referring to the design, not height. As far as trying to be positive we don't really have much of a choice. Chicago is pretty spoiled skyscraper wise and most cities would be thrilled to have a project like this, if it looks as gorgeous up close I'm just glad something is finally getting built, despite how lame the height is.

I don't see why it would get rejected, and they'll probably start construction before May to avoid fees. For building nerds and their statistics we at least have 2 skyscrapers instead of one.