SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | Post Office Redevelopment (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=192697)

i_am_hydrogen Jul 24, 2011 1:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 (Post 5355807)
Why not at the Chicago Spire site?

Davies doesn't own that site...

Go7SD Jul 25, 2011 2:01 AM

Well, it seems like Chicago may continue it's rabbit ear style antenna tradition. I've wondered if this kind of design feature was a midwestern tradition for cities like Indianapolis's Chase and Minneapolis's IDS towers because of Chicago's JHC.
I may be wrong since the proposed tower's rendering is only conceptional which may never have them.

bnk Jul 25, 2011 4:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi (Post 5355815)
never. gonna. happen.



Agreed walk away nothing to see here.

denizen467 Jul 25, 2011 6:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy McDowell (Post 5357682)
Well, it seems like Chicago may continue it's rabbit ear style antenna tradition. I've wondered if this kind of design feature was a midwestern tradition for cities like Indianapolis's Chase and Minneapolis's IDS towers because of Chicago's JHC.
I may be wrong since the proposed tower's rendering is only conceptional which may never have them.

Nashville too (they might be spires and not antennas, though). I don't think this is limited to a given geographic area.

It is an interesting question. Why 2, and not just 1, or 3 or 4? Though I think Beitler's Streeterville proposal from five or so years ago might have had 3. There is a nice aesthetic balance having a pair, and any more gets cluttered and ugly, so I'd say we're lucky to have this "tradition".

futuresooner Jul 25, 2011 5:54 PM

eww, just no, what a disgraceful excuse of a development.

ardecila Jul 25, 2011 6:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 5356309)
Among the most bizarre parts of this is the retail bridge over the river. How, exactly, will that lift to 140-foot clearance for the passage of boats? Or does the developer's self-importance extend to convincing the US Coast Guard to remove the South Branch from the list of navigable waterways?

Davies is just laying out a grandiose, futuristic possibility for this area, with the goal of boosting land values as much as possible. He's in it to flip the land, not to actually build anything. Consequently, the practical aspects of the plan don't matter.

He doesn't have the resources to build, anyway - he has no experience with large development projects and even less experience dealing with lenders or REITs. Even if he wanted to build, he'd have an incredibly hard time finding the money.

The pernicious spirit of speculation strikes again...

Roadcruiser1 Jul 25, 2011 6:27 PM

Went looking around and I found stuff you guys might like.

http://www.boothhansen.com/news/old-...lan-announced/

http://204.248.60.17/wp-content/uplo...ce-Program.pdf

http://204.248.60.17/wp-content/uplo...oth-Hansen.pdf

Ch.G, Ch.G Jul 26, 2011 1:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 5355877)
Bill Davies is an absentee landlord who sat on several huge properties in Liverpool.

He is nothing more than a flipper. Booth is being paid to create some grandiose vision in order to get other potential buyers salivating about the site's potential, not because Davies actually has any intention of developing the place.

After seeing the plans, my suspicions were confirmed. They just flat-out don't work. Since I know Booth and his staff are far more talented than that, I'm left with the conclusion that the actual substance of the design doesn't really matter - Davies wanted something big, and he wanted it fast.

This seems like an accurate analysis.

Roadcruiser1 Jul 26, 2011 2:12 AM

I know someone in New York City like that. His name is James Joseph Sitt. He owns properties on Coney Island, but he tore everything down, and left only empty land without anything else.

Rizzo Jul 26, 2011 4:32 AM

This batch of massing concepts just seems like a really awful pr move. I understand it's great to get the public excited, but when they are laughing it's whole other story. Emerging from a recession where people are still humbled by our visible skyscraper losses and you throw this on the table.

The post office would benefit more from a wholesome well thought out plan that is convincing to the public. It's big, but not an impossible building to work with.

Nowhereman1280 Jul 26, 2011 3:40 PM

LOL, leave for two weeks and its 2007 again...


Just watch, this will be the 2000'er that finally gets built now that we are all pooh poohing it and convinced it will never happen.

gramsjdg Jul 26, 2011 7:42 PM

I definitely do not like the base/podium concept, but the twin 2000 footers don't look bad (given the rather crude rendering). It could be a LOT worse. I say build it.:yes:

gramsjdg Jul 26, 2011 7:48 PM

...actually, the only way the 2000 foot tower(s) could possibly get built is if they eliminate the huge, ill-conceived base "contraption" completely. The city simply wouldn't allow it (nor should it).

NYguy Aug 2, 2011 9:33 PM

http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=5565

Mail Mall Monolith
Developer proposes tallest Chicago tower in Post Office makeover.


http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/ima..._office_02.jpg

Alan G. Brake
8.02.2011

Quote:


In late July Monaco-based developer Bill Davies stunned Chicago with a proposal for a massive retail and entertainment complex topped by office, residential, and hotel towers, including a 120-story skyline topper. Working with Lawrence Booth, principal of Booth Hansen, the full build-out would include 6.2 million square feet of retail, restaurants, and entertainment space, 3.8 million square feet of residential space, 2 million square feet of offices, 7500 hotel rooms, parking for 12,000 cars, and a 20-acre “skyline park” green roof.


Nowhereman1280 Aug 2, 2011 9:37 PM

I just realized these towers are just a bunch of Hyatt Centers stacked on top of each other and bound in pairs...

J_M_Tungsten Aug 2, 2011 9:51 PM

Yea, the design is awful. Really hoping these aren't the actual intended designs, it looks like a giant tuning fork.

Roadcruiser1 Aug 3, 2011 12:18 AM

At first I was okay with the design, but with a second look especially from the rendering above I really hate this building. Looks like the Petronas Towers in Malaysia had a child with the Sears Tower. Just no no.

gramsjdg Aug 3, 2011 6:13 AM

At 120 stories, I'm guessing the roof height would be about 1650 ft with the antennas making up the difference to hit 2000 ft. I'm going to reserve judgment on the design until I see some more fleshed out renders.

gramsjdg Aug 3, 2011 6:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 5366835)
I just realized these towers are just a bunch of Hyatt Centers stacked on top of each other and bound in pairs...

:haha::lmao:

Rizzo Aug 3, 2011 6:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 5366835)
I just realized these towers are just a bunch of Hyatt Centers stacked on top of each other and bound in pairs...

LOL they are.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.