HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


    Coast at Lakeshore East in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 7:41 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,245
more like a boom of 400ft and a few 500fters..unfortunly no biggies on horizon until next year
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2011, 1:13 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
C. Don't forget this is a rental where low ceiling heights are the norm.
Honestly I think it's more of a Loewenberg thing.....the guy seems to be obsessed with these substandard low for market ceiling heights......granted market average for condo might still be greater than market average for rental, but the rental market has moved up, and average for Loewenberg buildings must surely be lower than new construction average for rental towers....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2011, 5:03 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Honestly I think it's more of a Loewenberg thing.....the guy seems to be obsessed with these substandard low for market ceiling heights......granted market average for condo might still be greater than market average for rental, but the rental market has moved up, and average for Loewenberg buildings must surely be lower than new construction average for rental towers....
I hope that it builds up to one monster of a building on the corner of LSD & Wacker...
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2011, 11:22 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
^ I wonder what the vanity address for that would be. At a minimum, probably 300 LSD or something, unless there was an LSE-specific street for it.
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2011, 6:07 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
June 28, 2011









Sorry for the watermarks, but I had to unfortunately start doing this.
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2011, 6:12 PM
intrepidDesign's Avatar
intrepidDesign intrepidDesign is offline
Windy City Dan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 493
What a sight for soar eyes.
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2011, 11:31 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
July 7





Checking the hole




Close to the wall


A hole in a hole with a column in it.


Holding the rebar while the concrete sets.
__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2011, 8:25 AM
tommaso tommaso is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 396
It's a shame that this thing can get financing, but the Spire can't. It's easy to get upset when you look at the location of the Spire and its potential impact on the skyline and compare it to 345 E Wacker which is an elegant post-modern tower, but won't have nearly the same impact the Spire would. I hope that the Spire will eventually find financing and that 345 E Wacker will only become an addition to the skyline, but not a precursor to what we should expect from the Chicago skyline in terms of height or cutting edge design. 425 feet is nice, but in this location, it really should be rising 600+. Although we didn't rave about Trump's antenna, we can all agree that the height Trump added to the skyline was remarkable and had a profound impact on how we think about land use in DTChicago. It really brought us back to thinking that 1000+ footers should be more of a common sight in Chicago.
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2011, 4:15 PM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommaso View Post
It's a shame that this thing can get financing, but the Spire can't. It's easy to get upset when you look at the location of the Spire and its potential impact on the skyline and compare it to 345 E Wacker which is an elegant post-modern tower, but won't have nearly the same impact the Spire would. I hope that the Spire will eventually find financing and that 345 E Wacker will only become an addition to the skyline, but not a precursor to what we should expect from the Chicago skyline in terms of height or cutting edge design. 425 feet is nice, but in this location, it really should be rising 600+. Although we didn't rave about Trump's antenna, we can all agree that the height Trump added to the skyline was remarkable and had a profound impact on how we think about land use in DTChicago. It really brought us back to thinking that 1000+ footers should be more of a common sight in Chicago.
What type of absurd statements are these?

Might it be different, perhaps, to finance a 500 M dollar building vs a 2 B dollar building?

345 is not a post-modern tower, its distinctly (and pretty hardcore) modernist. And speaking of cutting edge design, its glass balconies, aluminum framing, and fritted glass actually potentially puts 345 in the top 5-10% of buildings built during the boom, with no banal precast accessories or strange grating to be seen. Between the cities I've lived in, I can only think of a few buildings with fritted glass, and I can only think of one in Chicago (BCBS).

And whats this bull about 600+ feet? There is a plan for this development, and not every tower built should be a monstrosity. Its also about the same height or taller than most other towers current U/C or proposed.

Trump has an (ugly) spire, not an antenna.

No one in Chicago ever forgot that supertalls existed or could be built. Especially since Chicago still has the only supertall built in the US in almost 40 years (see above). However supertalls can be giant albatrosses (look at Sears). I really feel the boom has poisoned peoples minds. Buildings don't grow on trees and they cant be willed to be taller. They're large, long term investments that involve multiple industries working together. "Booms" happen every 20-30 years, not everytime something is built. This is a different phase of development, about building out more than building up. I think we'll still see some over 500 ft buildings coming years, but they wont be a daily occurrence (and we can remember how really special they are. Frankly, considering this decade is already more productive than the majority of the 90's in Chicago, I am relatively pleased that Chicago is where it is, especially with such a nice potential design in this building (among others). Almost everyone on this forum wants development to continue/increase, but building 5, 200 foot towers can be better for a city's fabric than a supertall, and a better investment as well.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2011, 12:10 AM
tommaso tommaso is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 396
It's a shame that this thing can get financing, but the Spire can't. It's easy to get upset when you look at the location of the Spire and its potential impact on the skyline and compare it to 345 E Wacker which is an elegant post-modern tower, but won't have nearly the same impact the Spire would. I hope that the Spire will eventually find financing and that 345 E Wacker will only become an addition to the skyline, but not a precursor to what we should expect from the Chicago skyline in terms of height or cutting edge design. 425 feet is nice, but in this location, it really should be rising 600+. Although we didn't rave about Trump's antenna, we can all agree that the height Trump added to the skyline was remarkable and had a profound impact on how we think about land use in DTChicago. It really brought us back to thinking that 1000+ footers should be more of a common sight in Chicago

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
What type of absurd statements are these?

Might it be different, perhaps, to finance a 500 M dollar building vs a 2 B dollar building?

345 is not a post-modern tower, its distinctly (and pretty hardcore) modernist. And speaking of cutting edge design, its glass balconies, aluminum framing, and fritted glass actually potentially puts 345 in the top 5-10% of buildings built during the boom, with no banal precast accessories or strange grating to be seen. Between the cities I've lived in, I can only think of a few buildings with fritted glass, and I can only think of one in Chicago (BCBS).

And whats this bull about 600+ feet? There is a plan for this development, and not every tower built should be a monstrosity. Its also about the same height or taller than most other towers current U/C or proposed.

Trump has an (ugly) spire, not an antenna.

No one in Chicago ever forgot that supertalls existed or could be built. Especially since Chicago still has the only supertall built in the US in almost 40 years (see above). However supertalls can be giant albatrosses (look at Sears). I really feel the boom has poisoned peoples minds. Buildings don't grow on trees and they cant be willed to be taller. They're large, long term investments that involve multiple industries working together. "Booms" happen every 20-30 years, not everytime something is built. This is a different phase of development, about building out more than building up. I think we'll still see some over 500 ft buildings coming years, but they wont be a daily occurrence (and we can remember how really special they are. Frankly, considering this decade is already more productive than the majority of the 90's in Chicago, I am relatively pleased that Chicago is where it is, especially with such a nice potential design in this building (among others). Almost everyone on this forum wants development to continue/increase, but building 5, 200 foot towers can be better for a city's fabric than a supertall, and a better investment as well.
My line of argumentation isn't a petty personal squabble rooted in semantics, nor is it the interpretation of language and prose. Prime lakefront facing properties should no longer be allowed to build at 400+ foot heights. There must be a minimum height requirement in certain sections of the waterfront that will force any land owner who plans to develop real property on his parcel, to vertically build to a minimum of 500 or 600+ feet. I don't believe that the current socio-economic and political structure of Chicago would grant government the ability to support the control of land use in such a manner.

For the purposes of proper reporting, I must disclose to the general public the fact that 2 supertalls, the New York Times Tower and the Bank of America Tower have also been built.

NEW YORK | Bank Of America Tower | 1,200' Pinnacle / 945' Roof | 53 FLOORS

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...44861&page=203

NEW YORK | NY Times Tower | 1,046' Pinnacle / 746' Roof | 52 FLOORS

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...120027&page=57

According to wikipedia: "The word 'albatross' is sometimes used metaphorically to mean a psychological burden that feels like a curse." If that is your true feeling regarding the Sears Tower as you have clearly stated above, then I can understand why you would support smaller buildings over taller ones.

Last edited by tommaso; Jul 10, 2011 at 12:28 AM.
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2011, 7:13 PM
daperpkazoo daperpkazoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minneapolis/Chicago
Posts: 62
Walked by this site yesterday, and WOW, I was blown away by the size of those drilling heads.


Am I the only one who thinks that the "pilotis" concept on the lobby might come out a little weird without having the glass set back a bit? Looking at the 2nd rendering on the first page of this thread, it reads well from a distance, but in the third rendering, it doesn't show up at all. Perhaps this is because of the vestibule area? In any case, it will be interesting to see how it turns out!
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2011, 11:55 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommaso View Post

My line of argumentation isn't a petty personal squabble rooted in semantics, nor is it the interpretation of language and prose. Prime lakefront facing properties should no longer be allowed to build at 400+ foot heights. There must be a minimum height requirement in certain sections of the waterfront that will force any land owner who plans to develop real property on his parcel, to vertically build to a minimum of 500 or 600+ feet. I don't believe that the current socio-economic and political structure of Chicago would grant government the ability to support the control of land use in such a manner.

For the purposes of proper reporting, I must disclose to the general public the fact that 2 supertalls, the New York Times Tower and the Bank of America Tower have also been built.

NEW YORK | Bank Of America Tower | 1,200' Pinnacle / 945' Roof | 53 FLOORS

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...44861&page=203

NEW YORK | NY Times Tower | 1,046' Pinnacle / 746' Roof | 52 FLOORS

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...120027&page=57

According to wikipedia: "The word 'albatross' is sometimes used metaphorically to mean a psychological burden that feels like a curse." If that is your true feeling regarding the Sears Tower as you have clearly stated above, then I can understand why you would support smaller buildings over taller ones.
Semantics? Do you know what the word means? And did you read anything that he said? This is a planned development. There is masterplan with set heights and densities. The end result should be much more pleasing than a bunch of willy nilly heights and sizes.
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2011, 1:09 AM
Tex17 Tex17 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 82
So is 375 Wacker officially dead, and this is the replacement, or is this right next to where 375 would be?
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2011, 1:56 AM
torsodog's Avatar
torsodog torsodog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25
I don't know a ton about 375 Wacker, but this building is definitely being built on at least part of the proposed location for 375. I'd have to assume it's dead.
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2011, 2:47 AM
Chicago_Forever's Avatar
Chicago_Forever Chicago_Forever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chi-River North
Posts: 421
Again, there's a master plan in place for this site. This building is not taking the place of 375 Wacker or any other building. 345 Wacker was always part of the plan and was listed as plot A. For those who are curious, you can see the master plan for the entire site on Magellan's website. Also, I think somewhere on wikipedia there's a list of all the proposed plots and how tall each building is suppose to be.
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2011, 3:36 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by torsodog View Post
I don't know a ton about 375 Wacker, but this building is definitely being built on at least part of the proposed location for 375. I'd have to assume it's dead.
No, that's a different plot of land. There has always been a building planned for right here and it's been called "site A" the entire time seperate from the Arqui site.
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2011, 4:03 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
Between the cities I've lived in, I can only think of a few buildings with fritted glass, and I can only think of one in Chicago (BCBS).
Spertus has a hardcore frit covering the entire facade. Also, the GSA's South State Street Building at Jackson/State will be covered in a frit when it is completed (the pattern is based on the Sol LeWitt installation on the building's backside).
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2011, 5:16 AM
wrab's Avatar
wrab wrab is offline
Deerhoof Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,670
^ I can't remember but Jahn's IIT dorm building might use fritted glass as well?
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2011, 5:27 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
I don't think it's fritted, but it does use special insulated triple-glazing to reduce the noise from the L.

Koolhaas' campus center, though, does have images and iconography on the glass.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2011, 1:40 AM
torsodog's Avatar
torsodog torsodog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago_Forever View Post
Again, there's a master plan in place for this site. This building is not taking the place of 375 Wacker or any other building. 345 Wacker was always part of the plan and was listed as plot A. For those who are curious, you can see the master plan for the entire site on Magellan's website. Also, I think somewhere on wikipedia there's a list of all the proposed plots and how tall each building is suppose to be.
When we are talking about "375 Wacker", are we specifically talking about this building:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=131000

or are we talking in general about a building that is planned for the plot of land north of Field Blvd? If it is the former, then I'm confused how there is anyway that building will fit into the Lakeshore East plan with the Coast. If it's the latter, then I gotcha.
     
     
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 8:25 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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