Completely agree with you guys.

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.

Right

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

#

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 bus transit center rocks!

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

Why hide that?

Haha was about to chime in as well

Agreed

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

Also thanks for the link Mister Uptemp.

Correct.

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

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