In the video they say "defining iconic". They are out of touch with reality. These towers are simply decent. Not great. Not iconic.

I like these towers, but imagine if you weren't a skyscraper fanatic like us. Or someone visiting this part of the river from out of town. Besides the curves of River point and maybe the base of 150, I wouldn't expect any of these blue boxes to be recognizable from each other. Hell there's people in my office with full view of the top portions of them that cant tell the difference between 110 150 and wolf point. WPS is going to be a great building, but I wouldn't call it iconic. I mean it's literally a slightly taller version of WPE lol.

Completely agree. I am excited to see the long western legs on this tower though. Any idea why they didn't show the entire tower in the video?

Because after hyping it up as the eponymous definition of "iconic," the reveal of just a slightly taller Wolf Point East, as rgarri4 noted, would be a letdown. With that kind of buildup, you're expecting the next 53w53, Marina Bay Sands, or a 500m behemoth.

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but that video is not targeted towards this forum. Everyone uses the word iconic to describe their buildings in promotional materials. 150 North Riverside, BMO Tower, even 151 North Franklin have all used the word.

Burst out laughing at 26 seconds when they had Lake Michigan covered in some stupid looking future city with random things scattered about. Terrible promo video

Is that a challege for rgarri :P

No, but seriously. The real crime is how little impact the soon to start Salesforce tower will make it that photo. Would it even be visible? That a part of the skyline that desperately needed a shard climbing into the sky.

You bring up a good point. Words have meaning, and not EVERYTHING can be an icon. The fact that every single tower these days bills itself as an icon makes the word lose its meaning.

I know that the members of this forum ask a lot of developers and architects, sometimes unrealistically so. But that doesn't mean we can't also be aware of clichéd marketing practices.

^I had the same thought. It would be just to the right of the Chase Tower in that pic. Still holding out hope they’ll put a super tall there.

You should prepare yourself for the current planned height to stay.

I see that this post was moved here from the 400 LSD thread. The photo in question can be found here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=1616

Anyway, with so many skyscrapers in the 700 - 900 ft range rising now and in the near future, Chicago's skyline will simply have a new plateau that's a couple hundred feet higher than the current plateau of around 600 ft. Few of these 700 - 900 footers such as Salesforce, 400 LSD, BMO etc. will stand out, and the ones between 600 and 700 ft will be completely buried. So I agree that Salesforce will have little impact, no matter how "iconic" it gets.

I hope Chicago will either build more supertalls that rise well above the plateau, or build more 700 - 900 footers further south (in addition to 1000M). It would be a shame if the city's skyline gets flatter and flatter.

I think the 5 current tallest will prevent that from happening. It's good to see the skyline get filled in and lots be built on, but Chicago needs another signature tower or two.

OOOHHHHH How I cant wait for this to be reality!

I don't know exactly where WPS would be in this. But it seems like if it was a 1,000ft+ it would have added a nice balance to the skyline there right in the middle.


An aerial view of frozen Lake Michigan by Daniel/Dan Eidsmoe, on Flickr


https://images2.imgbox.com/bb/b3/tRd7LkL1_o.jpg
source: rgarri4[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I think I’ll be okay. BMO has been adding floors well into its construction. And this is the last highrise office tower in the pipeline, at least that I know of. So there’s a case that the same could happen with this one, particularly bc it is in the second hot job market in River North (with WL).

This is also a thin tower — 1.2M at 58 floors while BMO is 1.5M at 50 floors — so even a law firm lease would push this over 900 feet.

And that’s not to mention that this tower could flip over and die with some financial turmoil, like the kind we’ve seen the last month.

I don't think BMO ended up adding much or anything at all. As for this I think there was a cost reason they cut the height, I read something like that way back, I wouldn't expect them to bump it up again. They already have their signature tower in San Francisco.

That picture is awesome btw! To make us feel better, you can always stop and realize that Chicago is basically adding a Los Angeles worth of skyscrapers this cycle, even without Tribune and Parcel I.

Updated from last week was groundbreaking is 5/4. Who knows if that will happen now... haven't heard anything yet.

Not to be a Debbit Downer, but I'd speculate that probability of delay for this project is now 'quite high.'

I Agree

There is virtually no chance anymore of a march groundbreaking because of the coronavirus, and now closures and stay at home order extending into April and with things likely to get worse we can see further extensions to closures into may.

I could possibly see a Mid-Summer Ground Breaking if things end by June but it ain't no guarantee.

https://app.oxblue.com/open/hineschi...d1a4d381adbef1

South Site cleared and has two Excavators!

EDIT: I guess it might break ground this spring after all!

Chicago keeps on trucking :)