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)

Vlajos Sep 12, 2018 4:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8311909)
I think floor count was 50-something, but the architect may have been vague because the design isn't yet finished. The slides should go up on Reilly's website by tonight.

I don't understand the bitching. Not only will the historic headhouse not be marred by an incompatible addition, and 1700 parking stalls reduced to 400 invisible ones, but the new tower is integrated with street level and plaza in a very promising way. From an urban design perspective, it's doing lots of good things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8311925)
No bitching from me. I of course agree it's not some sort of stellar design, but there is so much good that comes out of this project that there's really very little to complain about...

Completely agree with you guys.

rgarri4 Sep 12, 2018 4:04 PM

Did they say anything at the meeting about the design being a place holder? I mean this thing is even facing the same direction as 110 N Wacker.
Of course it wouldn't be the first time Goettsch did a copy paste design.

http://images.skyscrapercenter.com/b...astructure.jpg

https://img.archilovers.com/projects...23034983fd.jpg

But if you're going to copy paste at least do it in a different country. Not down the street.

Clarkkent2420 Sep 12, 2018 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgarri4 (Post 8312007)
Did they say anything at the meeting about the design being a place holder? I mean this thing is even facing the same direction as 110 N Wacker.
Of course it wouldn't be the first time Goettsch did a copy paste design.

Right

Mr Downtown Sep 12, 2018 4:33 PM

The architect described the design as "evolving," and specifically mentioned the fins visible on the columns of the main volume. I think the big idea, though, is one they're pretty committed to: instead of bringing piers to grade on 30-foot centers that would create a psychological separation between the public open space and the area under the building, they gather them together to make the ground level all flow together as a 50,000 sf area open to the public.

But yes, exactly like many of Goettsch's other buildings, this one is expected to obey the law of gravity.

patriotizzy Sep 12, 2018 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 (Post 8311985)
The people on this board tend to not have an understanding of how real estate projects get financed, or how the market differs from location to location (like equating WPS to a non-Wacker, non-riverfront southwest Loop site). All people know is “taller is better” and “rectangles are bad”, without the foggiest notion as to why or how such decisions get made.

You can make non-rectangle buildings, while maintaining the integrity of the tenant's needs. You make it seem like the modern tenant can only rely on rectangles to work in. Your argument for this banal design does not make sense.

Daprato Rigali Sep 12, 2018 6:07 PM

looks like 110 N. Wacker was the first of twins.

rlw777 Sep 12, 2018 6:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 (Post 8312033)
Right because a 30 story concrete building is the same as a 55-story composite building, and a trapezoidal building with a serrated facade is the same as a rectangular building with a planar facade. Trump tower is a ripoff of the Burj, which was inspired by the shape of Lakepoint Tower at the base. And so on. Oye!

You're just trolling now. One minute you're pedantic about materials and in another you can't tell why this might be seen as more derivative of 110 Wacker than Trump tower is of Burj. :rolleyes:

The design is plainly derivative and the critique that it may be overly so is a valid one.

Daprato Rigali Sep 12, 2018 6:09 PM

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/iL8jf51.png[/IMG]

left of center Sep 12, 2018 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch (Post 8312001)
I don't think there was any chance that the bus terminal would ever get 'whacked'. What would have been a superior design would have been to build over the bust terminal which is what I thought an earlier proposal had suggested...

I remember this as well. I thought it was a very efficient use of space, certainly more so that this current proposal. If they wanted to make a park, go bold and make an actual usable park. Place the building on piers over the big bus station, in order to open up over half the block to park space. A tiny quarter block park is basically a glorified lunch spot for office workers who are in a hurry.

10023 Sep 12, 2018 8:10 PM

The site plan is extremely unimpressive.

First, get rid of the fucking bus depot. Put it under the tower or underground. Then have the open space/park face Union Station, so that it can be a proper public space.

And then yeah, the tower itself is derivative and underwhelming. But I’m sorry to say that Chicago hasn’t produced much interesting architecture in some time.

Clarkkent2420 Sep 12, 2018 8:13 PM

#

Freefall Sep 12, 2018 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8312388)
The site plan is extremely unimpressive.

First, get rid of the fucking bus depot. Put it under the tower or underground.

They just spent $40 million dollars on that!

Ned.B Sep 12, 2018 9:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freefall (Post 8312423)
They just spent $40 million dollars on that!

Exactly! The designers and development team have wanted to do all sorts of things with the bus transit center, because they rightfully see it as unfortunately cutting their site in two. But they tried building over it, moving it, or integrating the canopy, and it all came down to lack of support from CTA to do any of those things and major issues with tearing something up that just got a federal grant (if the station was changed too substantially, the CTA may have had to pay back the money they got) I guess it ended up being pretty much impossible to do anything but leave it where it is.

And yes, in a time when many tenants are trying to cram as many small workstations and hotelling spots on a floor as possible, rectangular buildings have a definite advantage over their more creatively shaped neighbors. Efficiency of the floor plate is way more important than having a signature design. Look at 151 N Franklin for example. It's a box and it's nearly invisible, but it's having no issues getting tenants. That all said, I think we should see how this thing really takes shape.

the urban politician Sep 12, 2018 9:57 PM

The bus transit center rocks!

Bus fumes, loud noises, commuters. It's all screams "you are in a big, bustling city!"

Why hide that?

AMWChicago Sep 12, 2018 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freefall (Post 8312423)
They just spent $40 million dollars on that!

Haha was about to chime in as well

Mister Uptempo Sep 12, 2018 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8311909)
The slides should go up on Reilly's website by tonight.

Link to the slideshow.

BonoboZill4 Sep 13, 2018 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8311909)
I think floor count was 50-something, but the architect may have been vague because the design isn't yet finished. The slides should go up on Reilly's website by tonight.

I don't understand the bitching. Not only will the historic headhouse not be marred by an incompatible addition, and 1700 parking stalls reduced to 400 invisible ones, but the new tower is integrated with street level and plaza in a very promising way. From an urban design perspective, it's doing lots of good things.

Agreed

BonoboZill4 Sep 13, 2018 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daprato Rigali (Post 8312204)
looks like 110 N. Wacker was the first of twins.

I was thinking second of triplets because of the UBS building :haha:

Also thanks for the link Mister Uptemp.

SamInTheLoop Sep 13, 2018 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 8312209)
You're just trolling now. One minute you're pedantic about materials and in another you can't tell why this might be seen as more derivative of 110 Wacker than Trump tower is of Burj. :rolleyes:

The design is plainly derivative and the critique that it may be overly so is a valid one.


Correct.

This a copy. O’Donnell, Goettsch and ClarkKent just completely phoning it in now, unfortunately.....

BVictor1 Sep 13, 2018 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Uptempo (Post 8312552)

More than 1,000,000 sq ft of FAR left undeveloped. Pathetic...


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.