CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS

[BVictor1]

From the above image, I like the step up pattern of four rectangles from south to north.

Originally Posted by TallBob

Nice tower....Just not sure about the podium!

They're trying to remain contextual with the base and go sculptural with the tower.

[TimeAgain]

I can't lie. That makes it look beautiful. Still wish it was the original proposal. I doubt this'll be built anytime soon, though.

[denizen467]

Is there a German word for hodgepodge? I get an impression that the developer is stretching poor Jahn past his aesthetic sense's breaking point.

[ChiHi]

I'm not sure that I've seen any renderings of the view from the Wabash side. Does the podium go all othe way back to Wabash or will they keep an empty lot behind it?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by ChiHi

I'm not sure that I've seen any renderings of the view from the Wabash side. Does the podium go all othe way back to Wabash or will they keep an empty lot behind it?

The property on Wabash belongs to someone else.

[sox102]

More window wall. Cheap.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Is there a German word for hodgepodge? I get an impression that the developer is stretching poor Jahn past his aesthetic sense's breaking point.

I just checked on Google translate, and it's literally 'Mischmasch' LOL

[Ned.B]

^That rendering is a totally different design than the one shown on the previous page and than we have seen before. Note that the piers from the podium extend significantly higher into the tower, and the east facade of the tower has a fold in it similar to the south facade rather than a slight bow

Also there are some sloppy anomalies and geometric improbabilities going on with the upper east facade that suggests this was quickly thrown together.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

That's an improvement

[Catmendue2]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

That's an improvement

foreaaal.

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by Ned.B

^That rendering is a totally different design than the one shown on the previous page and than we have seen before. Note that the piers from the podium extend significantly higher into the podium, and the east facade of the tower has a fold in it similar to the south facade rather than a slight bow

Also there are some sloppy anomalies and geometric improbabilities going on with the upper east facade that suggests this was quickly thrown together.

Yes, it's rather Escher-esque. Definitely not an ideal perspective of the upper part of the tower. Very interested to see how that subtle centerline ridge interfaces with whatever is going on 7-8 floors below the crown. If accurate, It almost looks like the Eastern side of the top 8-ish floors bow out a slightly more than the floors below creating a mini cantilever.

[Jibba]

They need to stop finessing this iteration of the design and just go back to the drawing board. Every version I've seen has been so uncharacteristically inelegant for Jahn.

And I'm still failing to see the logic of the height cap figure chosen for the historic district. The difference between 800+ and 1000+ feet is completely nil from anywhere but a distance of probably a mile or more. If you are going to limit the height, you do so to cement the historical circumstances of the original stock. The ~800-foot limit is arbitrary enough to make me think it was a power play by the opposing neighbors to put a vindictive dent in the project.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Jibba

They need to stop finessing this iteration of the design and just go back to the drawing board. Every version I've seen has been so uncharacteristically inelegant for Jahn.

yep.

i'm not getting it.

[Arm&Kedzie]

The design is looking more and more schizophrenic.The East face especially is really confusing in this latest rendering.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Jibba

The ~800-foot limit is arbitrary enough to make me think it was a power play by the opposing neighbors to put a vindictive dent in the project.

Nope. That negotiation occurred entirely within DPD before any neighbors were involved. We thought 425 feet would be the absolute limit for the historic district, so we were astonished when we accidentally got a copy of an email to aldermanic staff saying that Landmarks staff had said they would approve 832 feet. Who picked that number—and how—I don't know. My guess is that the developer ran some construction and elevatoring numbers on the 1000-foot scheme, and determined that 832 was actually more profitable.

[sentinel]

The very last part of your statement is not a negative.

[Le Baron]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

Podium doesn't look too bad from this angle


link

Two things:
1. The original design is substantially better, by far
2. Interestingly, the link says: "1000 South Michigan Avenue is a to-be-developed, approximately 73-story residential tower building containing approximately 347 condominiums, ground floor retail space and approximately 440 accessory parking spaces."

I believe that's a removal of ~145 apartments from the initial scope of the project.

[NYC2ATX]

I'm just really baffled beyond all reason as to why this podium is presenting such an insurmountable design challenge for the architects. Like, it's literally not even a complex solution, they could perhaps have the slanting portion instead be made up of gradually receding but also curved faces until it reaches the streetwall of other buildings and then flatten the facade...I'm by no means formally trained as an architect and am able to come up with another idea that's theoretically better, so what's the deal, guys.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I just checked on Google translate, and it's literally 'Mischmasch' LOL

That's really funny. And lucky I didn't start out by saying 'what's german for mishmash'...

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Nope. That negotiation occurred entirely within DPD before any neighbors were involved. We thought 425 feet would be the absolute limit for the historic district, so we were astonished when we accidentally got a copy of an email to aldermanic staff saying that Landmarks staff had said they would approve 832 feet. Who picked that number—and how—I don't know. My guess is that the developer ran some construction and elevatoring numbers on the 1000-foot scheme, and determined that 832 was actually more profitable.

I'm surprised by it too, and indeed, it's specific enough to seem to come from a particular case being assessed, which in this instance could only be the Jahn-designed proposal. As for 425, that would be just below the roof of the Metropolitan (nee Straus) Building?