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:

ithakas May 25, 2017 2:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 7814882)
I don't outright hate the towers/plaza on the parking structure parcel but jesus christ on the towers sprouting from the head house.

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 don't really like the office towers at all – just feels like an anonymous block of Franklin or Wacker.

But I really like that they're incorporating a significant amount of residential/hotel, despite the shortcomings of the designs.

MayorOfChicago May 25, 2017 2:30 PM

If ANYTHING, I wish they would tie an underground walkway from Union straight into the Clinton blue line mezz level.

Via Chicago May 25, 2017 2:33 PM

this is hot garbage.

the insult to injury is NEITHER the great hall, nor the other proposals are attractive in the least. actually, i think im most mad about the half assed attempt at the head house even more. this is actually going to detract from its beauty rather than enhance it in any way. and it looks so obviously tacked on as an afterthought.

Randomguy34 May 25, 2017 2:49 PM

"A high-rise above Union Station is an excellent idea"

Expectation:
http://i.imgur.com/opAqMFP.jpg

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

Jim in Chicago May 25, 2017 2:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 7814630)
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.

Worse than junk, this is completely disrespectful to the existing building. How could this ever have happened!!

I have no problem with the program, the execution is my issue.

KWILLSKYLINE May 25, 2017 2:57 PM

I hope everyone involved with this project are reading these comments and head back to the drawing tables. The more I look at these pictures the more pissed off I get. What a terrible waste of prime land with the parking structure replacement.

F1 Tommy May 25, 2017 2:59 PM

What a joke....This is the best design they could come up with??? Taking value engineering to a whole new level. Compared to some of the other stuff going up in Chicago and especially in NYC this is about as aesthetically pleasing as a dog turd:(

Jim in Chicago May 25, 2017 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE (Post 7814929)
I hope everyone involved with this project are reading these comments and head back to the drawing tables. The more I look at these pictures the more pissed off I get. What a terrible waste of prime land with the parking structure replacement.

This is the commercial version of the bungalows you see all over town where they sliced the roof of a brink bungalow and plopped a completely non-compatible stucco box on top to make a second story.

F1 Tommy May 25, 2017 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE (Post 7814929)
I hope everyone involved with this project are reading these comments and head back to the drawing tables. The more I look at these pictures the more pissed off I get. What a terrible waste of prime land with the parking structure replacement.

They don't give a crap what anybody thinks other than the Feds and the mayor. Pick the winner and design based 100% on price and what they will pay without obviously even looking at the design concepts(or the people who choose have zero taste).

We are really on a roll in Chicago with bad designs compared to NYC wich is becoming much more innovative. Then you leave the USA and you see even more innovation. Wanda and a few others are great, but in general Chicago deserves better.

BuildThemTaller May 25, 2017 3:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy (Post 7814956)
They don't give a crap what anybody thinks other than the Feds and the mayor. Pick the winner and design based 100% on price and what they will pay without obviously even looking at the design concepts(or the people who choose have zero taste).

We are really on a roll in Chicago with bad designs compared to NYC wich is becoming much more innovative. Then you leave the USA and you see even more innovation. Wanda and a few others are great, but in general Chicago deserves better.

I think we should calm down a tad bit. First, Riverside development has delivered what most consider an excellent addition at 150 N Riverside. Their proposal at 100 N Wacker has also been lauded by most on here. Both deliver excellent public spaces and innovative or at least interesting designs. What we're seeing here is a first attempt.

There are legitimate criticisms of this proposal, but that's all it is for now, a proposal. The city just dumped millions into a transit center that this proposal seems all too happy to pretend doesn't exist. I assume that the city will push back on that decision. Who knows, maybe Riverside Development and Goettsch Partners will respond to limits to development space imposed by the city and Amtrak by going taller. Dropping that much money on a development only pays off if you can bring the rentable space to the market, after all.

This is a $1 Billion proposal over 3 years that probably will go through several iterations before it becomes reality. To me, it's just like Wolf Point. What we see at first is not what we'll get. Hopefully, it will be much better.

UPChicago May 25, 2017 3:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller (Post 7814976)
This is a $1 Billion proposal over 3 years that probably will go through several iterations before it becomes reality. To me, it's just like Wolf Point. What we see at first is not what we'll get.

This isn't something that gives me much comfort.

HomrQT May 25, 2017 3:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 7814630)
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.

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:

Busy Bee May 25, 2017 3:48 PM

They didn't even bother to organize the facade and windows to have any sort of logical relationship with the station below. Unbelievable.

Fuck it, it doesn't bother me all that much what is proposed on the lot next door. No supertall, a little dull, whatever. But the addition to the station. Just NO. Give a job like this to Norman Foster...

Notyrview May 25, 2017 5:06 PM

It's so cool to see Oklahoma City getting a makeover

UrbanLibertine May 25, 2017 5:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller (Post 7814976)
I think we should calm down a tad bit. First, Riverside development has delivered what most consider an excellent addition at 150 N Riverside. Their proposal at 100 N Wacker has also been lauded by most on here. Both deliver excellent public spaces and innovative or at least interesting designs. What we're seeing here is a first attempt.

There are legitimate criticisms of this proposal, but that's all it is for now, a proposal. The city just dumped millions into a transit center that this proposal seems all too happy to pretend doesn't exist. I assume that the city will push back on that decision. Who knows, maybe Riverside Development and Goettsch Partners will respond to limits to development space imposed by the city and Amtrak by going taller. Dropping that much money on a development only pays off if you can bring the rentable space to the market, after all.

This is a $1 Billion proposal over 3 years that probably will go through several iterations before it becomes reality. To me, it's just like Wolf Point. What we see at first is not what we'll get. Hopefully, it will be much better.

This!

Mister Uptempo May 25, 2017 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine (Post 7815107)
This!

The Transit Center stays right where it is. Looks like they are decking over it. Just disappointed that they were considering expanding the Transit Center, to get more buses (like Van Galder) off the streets entirely when picking up/dropping off passengers, and that seems to have been dropped.

http://i.imgur.com/nSFqT6P.jpg
src - dnainfo.com

http://i.imgur.com/A59FGQK.jpg
src - amtrak.com

Ned.B May 25, 2017 5:40 PM

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.

aaron38 May 25, 2017 5:46 PM

What we see with Parcel 2 has some interesting features, the rising terraces are cool in the renderings. But are likely to be empty and sterile in reality. Maybe I'm wrong.

But the headhouse towers are just going to be River North beige schlock. "They're high enough up that no one can tell", the developer will say.

aaron38 May 25, 2017 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 7814917)
"A high-rise above Union Station is an excellent idea"
Expectation:
http://i.imgur.com/opAqMFP.jpg

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.

Kumdogmillionaire May 25, 2017 6:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjp (Post 7814879)
so are they just tearing down the new transit center / bus terminal they built on Jackson across from Union Station?

Looks like they are adding to it in the design by building a solid structure for it, but yeah, they are basically scrapping it

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:07 PM.

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