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)

Mr Downtown May 25, 2017 6:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 7815136)
no one will ever build that way again. I don't think anyone could build that if they tried.

That's pretty much exactly what Lucien Lagrange planned to do with Prime Group for one of the stillborn development schemes circa 2003. There's no ornament on the "tower;" it's just limestone and punched openings.

http://i.imgur.com/A6YBSJt.png

I have my doubts about significant revision. There was a time when I couldn't imagine Landmarks approving this. But now that they're merely a branch of the mayor's development initiative, they seem unlikely to stand in the way.

I don't think anybody would proceed to this level of proposal and rendering if they hadn't already talked with Landmarks. And once they've done that, they don't tell the architects to go back to the drawing board on the parti. Maybe the cladding.

maru2501 May 25, 2017 6:12 PM

looks like a pipedream anyway

Ned.B May 25, 2017 6:31 PM

Somewhere I have the drawings for LaGrange's tower addition. Of course, no surprise it was clad in precast and detailing wasn't nearly as refined as the rendering would lead one to believe.

r18tdi May 25, 2017 6:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas (Post 7814894)
Yeah, they're not doing the head house any favors by trying to blend the addition in with the same color cladding. They should go with a black cladding like Adjmi's Gateway tower if this is the design.

I agree with this.

Busy Bee May 25, 2017 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 7815136)
Even in 2017 that still looks great, but no one will ever build that way again. I don't think anyone could build that if they tried.

Hmm, seems like there is a years long thread here on SSP that proves the opposite, ahh yes, here it is: --- New Buildings Built in Traditional Architecture Style ---

Ned.B May 25, 2017 7:38 PM

One thing to keep in mind with the Headhouse addition is that the economics most likely do not work for replicating the limestone exterior. The types of uses here are just not going to be big enough money makers. Luxury condos or apartments don't work because the addition is structurally limited to 12-15 floors. The views aren't all that spectacular and the entrances aren't exclusive enough. Office is a no go because of how shallow the lease spans are and complications with elevatoring, etc. Therefore a developer is limited to either precast or cast in place facsimile, or substituting a less expensive modern aesthetic. It's a very complex problem.

Part of the reason that we haven't been seeing the same daring architecture as New York and Europe is that it isn't economically feasible. There, people will pay big bucks for unique residences and office space. Here: not so much.

LouisVanDerWright May 25, 2017 8:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B (Post 7815123)
I would like to point out that this was not a design competition, but rather a developer proposal, and each developer came to the table with their own architect. The elements shown in the renderings here are purely massing studies to determine a developer pro-forma, and the developer was selected based upon their offer price and their ability to work with the complex train operations going on below these 3 sites. The large portion of design has yet to be done, and everything shown here is subject to change. I can say with confidence that no more than a few weeks of design work has gone into what is presented here.

THIS.

You all are freaking out over nothing, this isn't even close to a real design at this point. This is something slapped together by interns to submit with a proposal to demonstrate the massing and program of the site. None of these buildings will look like they do in this "design" once Jim gets his hands on it.

With that in mind, the program is far superior to anything else I've seen proposed for the site. The original union station design is totally outmoded today and any attempt to complete a building with that kind of light court massing would end disastrously. The two tower scheme is much much better and, with a creative flair and quality materials, could turn out on Par with Hearst tower in NYC. If anything the beige towers shown in the rendering are intentionally boring and understated in order to avoid ruffling feathers during the bidding process. I have a feeling that what we will actually see is something much more adventurous that will contrast with the original design rather than attempt to awkwardly blend with it.

Chill out.

chicubs111 May 25, 2017 9:24 PM

As many have expressed this is such a disappointment even if this isn't exactly how it looks, the two tower office design instead of the single larger tower is a let down... I feel Chicago should become the capital of the wasted opportunity!...Weather its the developer or architect behind the design choices we are consistently getting more banal and repetitive designs...even for the most prime of locations in this city.

Clarkkent2420 May 25, 2017 9:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 7815393)
THIS.

You all are freaking out over nothing, this isn't even close to a real design at this point. This is something slapped together by interns to submit with a proposal to demonstrate the massing and program of the site. None of these buildings will look like they do in this "design" once Jim gets his hands on it.

With that in mind, the program is far superior to anything else I've seen proposed for the site. The original union station design is totally outmoded today and any attempt to complete a building with that kind of light court massing would end disastrously. The two tower scheme is much much better and, with a creative flair and quality materials, could turn out on Par with Hearst tower in NYC. If anything the beige towers shown in the rendering are intentionally boring and understated in order to avoid ruffling feathers during the bidding process. I have a feeling that what we will actually see is something much more adventurous that will contrast with the original design rather than attempt to awkwardly blend with it.

Chill out.

:tup:

202_Cyclist May 25, 2017 11:09 PM

Amtrak taps developer for $1 billion-plus redevelopment of Union Station
 
Amtrak taps developer for $1 billion-plus redevelopment of Union Station

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5926d262/t...25/750/750x422
Amtrak has chosen Riverside Investment & Development to lead a more than 3 million-square-foot real estate redevelopment of Union Station and surrounding land, a project expected to take about six years to complete and cost more than $1 billion. (Image courtesy of the Chicago Tribune)

By Ryan Ori
Chicago Tribune
May 25, 2017

"Ammtrak has chosen a Chicago development firm to lead a more than 3 million-square-foot real estate redevelopment of Union Station and surrounding land, a project expected to take about six years to complete and cost more than $1 billion.

Riverside Investment & Development, led by John O'Donnell, will lead the redevelopment team, according to a news release on the project. More details are expected to be announced Thursday by the developer, Amtrak and Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The total development will be about 3.1 million square feet..."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...24-column.html

SpireGuy May 26, 2017 12:34 AM

If developers want to build in Chicago, they should be forced at times to innovate. If we banded together and learned to influence policy, we could require developers to be more proactive in designing skyscrapers in Chicago. Enough with the blue-green glass boxes with silver mullions/screens. One day this boom will be over and hopefully we'll have something interesting go up at Union Station and around the city before it ends. Meet for drinks in the loop afterwork, anyone?::cheers:

marothisu May 26, 2017 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpireGuy (Post 7815630)
If developers want to build in Chicago, they should be forced at times to innovate. If we banded together and learned to influence policy, we could require developers to be more proactive in designing skyscrapers in Chicago. Enough with the blue-green glass boxes with silver mullions/screens. One day this boom will be over and hopefully we'll have something interesting go up at Union Station and around the city before it ends.

You must not have passed your entry level business courses. But in a perfect world, sure. But we don't live in a perfect world.

left of center May 26, 2017 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 7815393)
THIS.

You all are freaking out over nothing, this isn't even close to a real design at this point. This is something slapped together by interns to submit with a proposal to demonstrate the massing and program of the site. None of these buildings will look like they do in this "design" once Jim gets his hands on it.

With that in mind, the program is far superior to anything else I've seen proposed for the site. The original union station design is totally outmoded today and any attempt to complete a building with that kind of light court massing would end disastrously. The two tower scheme is much much better and, with a creative flair and quality materials, could turn out on Par with Hearst tower in NYC. If anything the beige towers shown in the rendering are intentionally boring and understated in order to avoid ruffling feathers during the bidding process. I have a feeling that what we will actually see is something much more adventurous that will contrast with the original design rather than attempt to awkwardly blend with it.

Chill out.

I certainly hope you are right. Union Station is a Chicago icon. To build those twin beige turds on it would be an utter disgrace.

I know the building was originally built to accommodate a tower above it, but do they really need to do that in this case? Why not just leave Union Station as is, and just add 10 more stories to the residential tower on Canal?

Anyone got any ideas on floor count/heights of these towers?

Notyrview May 26, 2017 3:22 AM

Unbelievably shitty

OhioGuy May 26, 2017 12:10 PM

Union Station plans fail to live up to lofty rhetoric

By Blair Kamin Contact Reporter
Chicago Tribune
May 25, 2017, 8:03 PM


Quote:

Almost apologetically, backers of the just-announced plans for redeveloping Chicago's Union Station are characterizing their proposals as preliminary and conceptual. Apologies are indeed in order. The drawings fail to live up to the lofty rhetoric that Amtrak executives and Mayor Rahm Emanuel mouthed Thursday about turning the historic station and its surroundings into a vibrant urban center, complete with "new and dynamic" additions to Chicago's skyline.

The problem is not a lack of architectural refinement. It's a lack of strong concepts. There's no bold idea to signal Union Station's transformation from a workaday rail hub to a festive gathering place.

A planned food hall with the station is dull with a capital "D." The high-rises as presented are mere placeholders. Raised plazas and terraces — the obligatory package of public green space, supposedly easily accessible — are unlikely to lure people from the sidewalks.

To be sure, there are promising kernels in the designs prepared by Chicago's Goettsch Partners for Riverside Investment & Development, the hometown developer Amtrak chose to carry out this $1 billion-plus project. But what we are seeing suggests that the financially struggling railroad, which has tried before to redevelop Union Station, put a premium on getting things done rather than getting them done right.

sentinel May 26, 2017 12:39 PM

Awful.

scalziand May 26, 2017 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 7814996)
What the fuck are these bastards trying to do to Union Station!?!?
:hell::hell::hell::hell::hell::hell::hell::hell::hell::hell::hell::hell::hell::hell:

Trying to Pan-Am it on a smaller scale.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B-fiHnubNG...0/pan+am+1.jpg

BVictor1 May 27, 2017 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand (Post 7816548)
Trying to Pan-Am it on a smaller scale.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B-fiHnubNG...0/pan+am+1.jpg

This is fucking awesome though.

denizen467 May 27, 2017 4:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 7815393)
THIS.

You all are freaking out over nothing, this isn't even close to a real design at this point. This is something slapped together by interns to submit with a proposal to demonstrate the massing and program of the site. None of these buildings will look like they do in this "design" once Jim gets his hands on it.

With that in mind, the program is far superior to anything else I've seen proposed for the site. The original union station design is totally outmoded today and any attempt to complete a building with that kind of light court massing would end disastrously. The two tower scheme is much much better and, with a creative flair and quality materials, could turn out on Par with Hearst tower in NYC. If anything the beige towers shown in the rendering are intentionally boring and understated in order to avoid ruffling feathers during the bidding process. I have a feeling that what we will actually see is something much more adventurous that will contrast with the original design rather than attempt to awkwardly blend with it.

Chill out.

This. Eloquently stated. Including Ned B's comment. The selection was about developers and economics, with designs being placeholders. Keep in mind architecture firms are willing to spend only so much time when donating proposals for free, especially when the "jury" isn't even going to be judging on design.

People need to inhale some burgers and beers over the Memorial Day weekend and forget about this for several months, until real designs come out. The thread could even be locked for a while, except that discussion of the massing and overall program and other things is legitimate (though as someone said, the new transit center will be kept).

tm30 May 27, 2017 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7816726)
This. Eloquently stated. Including Ned B's comment. The selection was about developers and economics, with designs being placeholders. Keep in mind architecture firms are willing to spend only so much time when donating proposals for free, especially when the "jury" isn't even going to be judging on design.

People need to inhale some burgers and beers over the Memorial Day weekend and forget about this for several months, until real designs come out. The thread could even be locked for a while, except that discussion of the massing and overall program and other things is legitimate (though as someone said, the new transit center will be kept).


So if the selection was based on economics, what makes you think the final designs aren't going to be based on economics? And SOM didn't exactly phone in their proposal. Not sure I'm as sanguine as others about this.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:23 AM.

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