HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #321  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 7:27 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Seriously? They were out in front.



Demo of the Stock Exchange, Garrick Theater (protest pictured above), and Penn Station in New York were what gave us the concept of historic preservation to begin with, and federal review for potentially historic resources.
Kudos for them being out there and fighting the fight. I just hope people can see the difference in quality and historical value between the old Stock Exchange building and this one.
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
     
     
  #322  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 9:02 PM
Stained's Avatar
Stained Stained is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Loop
Posts: 64
I was one of the people who received a letter asking for comments on this project. I told them that the building is incredibly ugly, a waste of space and no more valuable than a random assortment of concrete and steel. I want to see this squat building gone!
     
     
  #323  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 12:19 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
You realize that, at the time, most people would have said the same about the Stock Exchange? Old, soot-covered, obsolete as office space, covered with all that old-fashioned ornament, holding back progress. Tear it down already so they can build a shiny new highrise.
     
     
  #324  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 12:27 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
You realize that, at the time, most people would have said the same about the Stock Exchange? Old, soot-covered, obsolete as office space, covered with all that old-fashioned ornament, holding back progress. Tear it down already so they can build a shiny new highrise.
Comparing those two buildings like this is a damn sin. Ignoring their obvious differences in historical significance there is some dishonesty in your comment. The Stock Exchange had great masonry, the GG building looks like something that should be in an Oakbrook industrial park
__________________
For you - Bane
     
     
  #325  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 2:02 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
^That's what most people would have said about Prentice, or about a Paul Rudolph civic building, or about the Maywood Courthouse, or 55 West Wacker, or Inland Steel. In 1910, it's what they'd have said about Glessner House.

We don't assess historic importance based on popular vote. We establish criteria, and do our best to judge based on those. I have my doubts that Morton Salt will meet the criteria, but what's the harm in observing a process?
     
     
  #326  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 3:48 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
^That's what most people would have said about Prentice, or about a Paul Rudolph civic building, or about the Maywood Courthouse, or 55 West Wacker, or Inland Steel. In 1910, it's what they'd have said about Glessner House.

We don't assess historic importance based on popular vote. We establish criteria, and do our best to judge based on those. I have my doubts that Morton Salt will meet the criteria, but what's the harm in observing a process?
I feel like we can still rebuild the GGP and other mid-century modernist buildings, though.

The craftsmanship and building techniques required to build things like the old Stock Exhange Building, however, are largely gone. I think that is one of the big differences.
     
     
  #327  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 4:57 PM
Bonsai Tree's Avatar
Bonsai Tree Bonsai Tree is offline
Small but Mighty
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I feel like we can still rebuild the GGP and other mid-century modernist buildings, though.

The craftsmanship and building techniques required to build things like the old Stock Exhange Building, however, are largely gone. I think that is one of the big differences.
Honestly, we can always rebuild a building. You just need the money to do so. There will always be some people who are just as skilled as before. Just look at the rebuilding of the Berlin Palace (bombed out in WW2, and destroyed by the communists later)

     
     
  #328  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 5:38 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,569
Heritage buildings can still be built of course, but the issue is that it is no longer economically feasible to do so. New construction will be concrete, steel and glass. Terra cotta and ornate stone work is simply too expensive to build on a wide scale, and lacks the massive supply chain of modern building materials.

How many firms still make terra cotta in the US? Or distribute it for that matter?
     
     
  #329  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 6:09 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...98228&page=105

This kind of made me laugh, beause I remarked on this in this thread. While they cut the cost by doing it curtain wall instead of directly applying it, one of the tallest buildings in the country will, indeed, be faced with expensive terra cotta panels. They also get the price down by the building being so thing, but that's still a crap-load of terra cotta panels.

Of course it's on an luxury residential tower. But, yeah, it is still being done.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
     
     
  #330  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 10:54 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...98228&page=105

This kind of made me laugh, beause I remarked on this in this thread. While they cut the cost by doing it curtain wall instead of directly applying it, one of the tallest buildings in the country will, indeed, be faced with expensive terra cotta panels. They also get the price down by the building being so thing, but that's still a crap-load of terra cotta panels.

Of course it's on an luxury residential tower. But, yeah, it is still being done.
It's being done. On one building... I wonder if it can and will be done outside 57th Street where the cheapest units will start at $16 million. I hope so! Because it's a stunner!
     
     
  #331  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 1:27 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...98228&page=105

This kind of made me laugh, beause I remarked on this in this thread. While they cut the cost by doing it curtain wall instead of directly applying it, one of the tallest buildings in the country will, indeed, be faced with expensive terra cotta panels. They also get the price down by the building being so thing, but that's still a crap-load of terra cotta panels.

Of course it's on an luxury residential tower. But, yeah, it is still being done.
It's also being used on One Vanderbilt Curbed had a picture of that facade a while back here
     
     
  #332  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 6:16 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,421
Huh.

So they're asking for more FAR?

https://ibb.co/gAzbvG
     
     
  #333  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 6:39 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
That is very curious. Would be almost 1M sq ft left after Bank of America's lease.

Let the mystery tenant derby commence.
     
     
  #334  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 6:43 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Huh.

So they're asking for more FAR?

https://ibb.co/gAzbvG
That's good. So they're looking to add 100k sf? That should make it taller.
     
     
  #335  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 7:30 PM
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post

-110 N. Wacker

-DX-16

-office tower

-800’

-PD filed tomorrow 01/18/16

-Current building is 220,000 sq ft

1,350,000 sq ft of rentable area

-40’ high lobby on Wacker Drive

-Roughly 44,000 sq ft site

-20,000 sq ft of riverwalk and landscape area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Low-rise portion will have about 30,000 sq ft per floor.
Mid-rise will have about 28,000 sq ft per floor.
High-rise will have about 26,000 sq ft per floor.

Given these front page numbers and the subsequent change in the design, I'm not sure if 100,000 sq ft means a guaranteed height increase. At least not a substantial one.
     
     
  #336  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 8:09 PM
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,648
c'mon 850'
     
     
  #337  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 2:26 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
Guys, the 100k is probably where the third setback disappeared to. They likely fattened up some of the floors making it disappear.
     
     
  #338  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 10:25 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Guys, the 100k is probably where the third setback disappeared to. They likely fattened up some of the floors making it disappear.
Bingo! The new PD they submitted says they're still at 800 ft: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=
     
     
  #339  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2017, 9:50 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/12/1...scraper-design

Wacker Drive office tower tweaks design, asks city for more floor space

Despite a federal review hanging over the project, the developers of the 52-story building are seeking additional density

By Jay Koziarz Dec 15, 2017, 1:06pm CST

Quote:
This week, the developers behind an already-approved office tower at 110 N. Wacker filed a zoning amendment to increase the size of the building by 100,000 square feet. If approved by the City of Chicago, the measure would grow the total floor space of the 52-story Bank of America-anchored skyscraper to a maximum of 1.6 million square feet.

The latest application also confirms a redesign by Chicago architect Goettsch Partners. The move will see the glassy riverfront skyscraper ditch its previous three-setback layout for a beefier—and arguably less elegant—two-tier design.


The previous three-setback design [left] versus the latest version of the project [right]. Goettsch Partners


The change will help accommodate the requested increase in square footage while retaining the tower’s previously approved height of 800 feet. The building’s serrated western facade—designed to maximize views up and down the Chicago River—and its waterfront riverwalk will remain as previously shown.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #340  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2017, 12:46 PM
dropdeaded209's Avatar
dropdeaded209 dropdeaded209 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 470
^^ what a shame that stepped back profile was one of the few distinguishing characteristics of what is now a pretty banal glass tower.
__________________
Director of Starship Chicago, The Absent Column, Battleship Berlin, Helmut Jahn: In a Flash, and Starship Chicago II.

"Helmut Jahn has never suffered a failure of nerve."
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:46 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.