SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | BMO Tower | 727 FT | 50 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=224752)

BVictor1 May 25, 2017 1:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 7814421)
Uh oh!

More Goettsch blue glass boxes.

The natives will be restless.

Placeholder massing, but I too am disappointed in these seemingly 'small plans'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station (Post 7814450)
If this site can't generate a max density supertall tower, then safe to say Chicago will never see another one built again. I hate to see these prime sites close to the west loop train stations be underdeveloped continuously.

It's not "safe to say" that, and in fact, it's kind of a dumb comment seeing as there's a supernal going up now.

Kngkyle May 25, 2017 2:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7814469)
Placeholder massing, but I too am disappointed in these seemingly 'small plans'.

Hopefully............. not sure on that though.

Kumdogmillionaire May 25, 2017 5:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 7814436)
It would have been amazing if a plaza was proposed for the site, since Chicago doesn't really have a proper open plaza, but looks like we got another parking podium instead :uhh:

We definitely have some proper plazas, unless you mean just an entire block of open space that isn't a park

Kumdogmillionaire May 25, 2017 5:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station (Post 7814450)
If this site can't generate a max density supertall tower, then safe to say Chicago will never see another one built again. I hate to see these prime sites close to the west loop train stations be underdeveloped continuously.

Other than the fact that this statement is moronic, since Chicago has supertalls getting built in every major cycle(including one with possible one or two more to come in this cycle), the proposal by SOM was not a supertall, as it was only 950 ft. Well short of the 984 cutoff.

spyguy May 25, 2017 5:07 AM

https://s29.postimg.org/zbdxwpcc7/image.png

In its current state (which I'm sure could change drastically over time), I say this is junk. Not only are they throwing a suburban office tower-looking addition on top of Union Station, but the new towers also look pretty lacking.

Rizzo May 25, 2017 5:19 AM

The complexity of this site provides an extraordinary opportunity for structural exploration and expression. It shouldn't be wasted like this.

With all the promising images we saw in the competition, how pedestrian.

The Lurker May 25, 2017 5:28 AM

I could care less if we get a supertall. Im sure many on this forum would agree that 5 shorter towers with good density are better than a supertall but this is just boring and underwhelming. And why the twins? Whats the purpose of copying a poor design? I'm hoping this is a really reallllly rough draft. Frankly I expect more from Goettsch.

modkris May 25, 2017 6:29 AM

This just ruined my day. I thought there was a design competition for this? How in the actual fuck do we end up with such an uninspired POS. The people in this city's architectural community have lost their will to take risks, to innovate and inspire. I hope that this is just a placeholder massing but I think not. So sick of being disappointed by all the banality. I thought we had learned from the mistake of all the shitty pomo we had gotten in the 90's to early 2000's but it's baaaaaack. Oh but wait, there are two squat blue glass towers on the lot next door, so it's modern too then.

LaSalle.St.Station May 25, 2017 7:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7814625)
Other than the fact that this statement is moronic, since Chicago has supertalls getting built in every major cycle(including one with possible one or two more to come in this cycle), the proposal by SOM was not a supertall, as it was only 950 ft. Well short of the 984 cutoff.

I said max density supertall. I know thin residential towers are fulfilling the super tall category, but beefy office based supertalls are prime for the railroad station district as far as market viability.

I'm looking for the newer taller larger massing of sears tower class office structure.

hammersklavier May 25, 2017 7:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station (Post 7814698)
I said max density supertall. I know thin residential towers are fulfilling the super tall category, but beefy office based supertalls are prime for the railroad station district as far as market viability.

Residential is much more viable than office for building tall in the overwhelming majority of markets nowadays.

LaSalle.St.Station May 25, 2017 7:21 AM

Xxxcx

Domer2019 May 25, 2017 7:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station (Post 7814698)
I said max density supertall. I know thin residential towers are fulfilling the super tall category, but beefy office based supertalls are prime for the railroad station district as far as market viability.

I'm looking for the newer taller larger massing of sears tower class office structure.

Wolf Point South and 110 N Wacker are good consolation prizes. Not to mention River Point and 150 N Riverside just went up. The Sears Tower just outshines so many other buildings worldwide when it comes to square footage, that it's hard for me to be upset with the best projects of this boom.

KWILLSKYLINE May 25, 2017 9:14 AM

Not sure if there's a link, NBC 5 has a bunch more photos of the new proposal I saw on the news this morning. Still dissapointed.

pilsenarch May 25, 2017 1:08 PM

wow. after so many proposals over the years... we get this shit...

what a fucking disaster.

ithakas May 25, 2017 1:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch (Post 7814808)
wow. after so many proposals over the years... we get this shit...

what a fucking disaster.

Dare I ask if anyone has photos of the JLL/Studio Gang/Pelli Clarke Pelli proposal that also wasn't selected?

Steely Dan May 25, 2017 1:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas (Post 7814833)
Dare I ask if anyone has photos of the JLL/Studio Gang/Pelli Clarke Pelli proposal that also wasn't selected?

ditto for the gensler scheme.

i want to see all of the other entrants so i can properly know how deep my disappointment should be.

BVictor1 May 25, 2017 2:00 PM

BORING!!!

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017...opment#slide-6
https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/201...extralarge.jpg

https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/201...extralarge.jpg

https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/201...extralarge.png

https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/201...extralarge.png

tjp May 25, 2017 2:14 PM

so are they just tearing down the new transit center / bus terminal they built on Jackson across from Union Station?

k1052 May 25, 2017 2:15 PM

I don't outright hate the towers/plaza on the parking structure parcel but jesus christ on the towers sprouting from the head house.

trvlr70 May 25, 2017 2:20 PM

Wow! What a let down! Now I'm terrified to think what the City's plans are for the new terminals at ORD!:yuck:


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:40 AM.

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