HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 12:53 PM
pianowizard pianowizard is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Michigan, US
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Perhaps ego is also involved / having a trophy tower to show off
These would become the tallest twin buildings in the US, beating the 751' Time Warner Center in NYC. So yeah, ego is likely involved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 2:18 PM
bhawk66 bhawk66 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
I think so, triplets even if I'm not mistaken. That would have been cool (or weird).

Good to know this is back on track potentially. Pretty boxy but sorta interesting at the same time.
Triplets is right. If you can see the "wings" on the back of the existing 311 S, that's where they were supposed to be attached to. Funny, now it's just assumed the building by itself was supposed to look like that. Kind of awkward in actuality, but forgivable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 2:35 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 799
I hope the southern twin gets built first and something taller than 311 S. Wacker gets built on the northern lot (likely much later), purely for skyline gap-filling reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 2:47 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianowizard View Post
These would become the tallest twin buildings in the US, beating the 751' Time Warner Center in NYC. So yeah, ego is likely involved.

Not trying to call you out specifically, but it's entertaining just how often people here think that tallest, tallest in an obscure category (twin offices?), or some other ego booster is what motivates developers...99% (and speaking as a developer) barely give those things a thought - the number one ego trip element is profit margin (mixed with quality work and happy bank / investors).

An extra foot that costs $$$ is a "who gives a crap" moment for developers, especially if it triggers redesign
__________________
Reject Biden
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 4:37 PM
pianowizard pianowizard is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Michigan, US
Posts: 505
^We are referring to the 1% who are interested in these sorts of things, and thus design buildings that set new records and/or include vanity height elements like spires and crowns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 4:44 PM
bgsrand bgsrand is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 178
Wont the Manhattan West (1&2) developments be the tallest twins upon completion of 2?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 5:10 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 4,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgsrand View Post
Wont the Manhattan West (1&2) developments be the tallest twins upon completion of 2?
They're not identical twins. One is noticeably shorter than the other.

Quote:
Not trying to call you out specifically, but it's entertaining just how often people here think that tallest, tallest in an obscure category (twin offices?), or some other ego booster is what motivates developers...99% (and speaking as a developer) barely give those things a thought - the number one ego trip element is profit margin (mixed with quality work and happy bank / investors).

An extra foot that costs $$$ is a "who gives a crap" moment for developers, especially if it triggers redesign
Most of the time this is probably true but there are still certainly developers wanting to make a mark some way or another. Tallest twin towers is a pretty good category for that.
__________________
Dump Trump 2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 5:28 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,263
I just want the design to be thoughtful, but hopefully unique and interesting; height is secondary.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 6:49 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 4,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
I just want the design to be thoughtful, but hopefully unique and interesting; height is secondary.
Seems they have sky gardens, I think that's a pretty cool design element, regardless of boxiness.

Height is kinda meh, especially next to Sears
__________________
Dump Trump 2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 6:50 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,646
It is a surprise this would have traction, even realizing developers are looking several years out, and investors can't just buy gold bars all the time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 7:06 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by vexxed82 View Post
I'm good at taking photos of architecture, but understanding its associated real estate is not my forte.

Can someone explain to me how/why developers are planning on building any new office towers in this environment? With all the new office space coming online (110, BMO, Salesforce, Post Office, etc.) and how our society has successfully (not in all cases, obviously) learned to work from home, what's the rush to build new office space before knowing what the future work environment will look like?
In a competitive market like Chicago, every developer is looking for an advantage, or a *potential* advantage over rivals. If the office market starts to rebound, and if this developer is in position to break ground immediately, they have a huge advantage. Other developers will not be able to match this head start.

A groundbreaking in late 2021 is likely after the pandemic is effectively over, we should have widespread and available vaccinations by that time. It may be late enough for the developers to assess the office market and have enough information to pull the trigger or not. This only works if they already have their ducks in a row.

If you're skeptical the office market will actually rebound post-Covid, you're not alone... but in a properly functioning market there's always a few people who are betting against the conventional wisdom. Occasionally they strike it big.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 7:08 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
...snip...the number one ego trip element is profit margin (mixed with quality work and happy bank / investors).
This is a great comment and it needs to be repeated.
__________________
SAVE CAPITALISM 2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 10:28 PM
vexxed82's Avatar
vexxed82 vexxed82 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
In a competitive market like Chicago, every developer is looking for an advantage, or a *potential* advantage over rivals. If the office market starts to rebound, and if this developer is in position to break ground immediately, they have a huge advantage. Other developers will not be able to match this head start.

A groundbreaking in late 2021 is likely after the pandemic is effectively over, we should have widespread and available vaccinations by that time. It may be late enough for the developers to assess the office market and have enough information to pull the trigger or not. This only works if they already have their ducks in a row.

If you're skeptical the office market will actually rebound post-Covid, you're not alone... but in a properly functioning market there's always a few people who are betting against the conventional wisdom. Occasionally they strike it big.
I guess if I consider this a risky gamble, it makes much more sense. But with all of the new space that was slated to come online, filling just filling that office space in a post-COVID world seems like it would be a successful rebound in and of itself. Though I shouldn't complain. I'm all for building, so fingers crossed it moves forward.
__________________
Nick Ulivieri | instagram | twitter | Facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2020, 10:34 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,480
For some tenants, being the first or second tenant to sign onto a proposed tower comes with certain advantages. You have your pick of the floors in the building, unlimited flexibility to rent multiple adjacent floors in a block as needed, and you have a lot of leverage to get concessions, rent breaks or even sometimes design changes out of the developer. Sometimes naming rights are at stake, signage/branding opportunities, etc.

If a tenant is looking at a new building that's 50-60% leased and already under construction, they have a lot less leverage when they cut a deal with the developer.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 9:30 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 6,541
Going through my archives I finally found the massing diagram showing the original 3 tower proposal by Lincoln Properties back in the late 1980s. . .



. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2020, 9:36 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 6,541
Also somewhat related. . . found an old rendering in an issue of Inland Architect from 1990 that indicated there were supposed to be small fin-like spires atop 311. . .



. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2020, 3:26 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhawk66 View Post
Triplets is right. If you can see the "wings" on the back of the existing 311 S, that's where they were supposed to be attached to. Funny, now it's just assumed the building by itself was supposed to look like that. Kind of awkward in actuality, but forgivable.
Would have been nice to have had three towers making use of granite cladding. Instead of what looks to be cookie-cutter blue glass
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 1:52 PM
Ned.B Ned.B is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 532
I have two concerns for this development:

First I think we had heard originally that the north twin might be built first. It would be a shame though to lose that green space (which is actually really well used in the summer, but probably would be less so in the shade of a tower to the south) while that parking lot persists for years or decades more.

Second, from a study that our office took on for the building a few years back, there is a good chance that the towers will also come with a complete reconstruction of the winter garden, which I would hate to see turned into a bland austere modern space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2020, 6:20 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Forest Park / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago View Post
Going through my archives I finally found the massing diagram showing the original 3 tower proposal by Lincoln Properties back in the late 1980s. . .



. . .
Dang, that would have been awesome. Thanks for sharing!
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. 9 Dekalb Ave - Brooklyn, New York - SHoP Architects - 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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 5:55 AM
Toasty Joe Toasty Joe is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Posts: 71
bummed with the uninspired design & height... could they even build a tower taller than 311 s wacker (say southern lot only) given proximity to the illuminated crown?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:28 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.