Unfortunately sold out by the time I tried signing up Monday AM.

spent 30 of my 47 years in chicago. Was home 10/21-10/30 staying at Hyatt at Mccormick while my gf worked a expo. I wandered and drove around looking at all the new buildings going up. Everytime I looked at this building and the 2 others next to it I cringed a little. :shrug: and also Millie LOL

That's a bummer!

"Salesforce" lettering being delivered today. Take your pictures now before it's too late.

This building definitely sucks – it can't be overstated how disappointing the east and west elevations are, considering their prominence in the cityscape – though I think the other two buildings are pretty nice. Hopefully the denouement of the blue glass era.

I don't think it "sucks". In most cities this would be a significantly good add. We just hope for more here, and especially for such a prominent location. This site really begged for a super tall.

Disagree. . . this building is excellent and it can't be overstated at how well proportioned it is for the site and surrounding context. . . there is no such thing as a "blue glass era". . .

. . .

No,no,no people, they should have built a space elevator with neon lights and a mono-rail that stretches from Navy Pier to the quad cities! Anything less would have been egregious!


I'm with Tom on this one....let it simmer a while folks

Yup. Again, if anyone doesn't like this building, design one of your own, raise the 100's of mm's to buy land, get it approved by the city and have at it.

It is a strikingly beautiful addition to the skyline.

The rendering from the OP looks a bit better than the real thing:

I believe ithakas has it right. From the east or west it's a humongous, blank blue wall. From the south it just looks VE'd to me.

Also, please spare us the "if you don't like it, build your own" nonsense.

If this building was built to its original height of 950 ft with a short spire taking it over 1000 ft, then it would actually look better and more accepted by us on here.

My 4-word critique:

Fine building; too short.

They made it look like the glass is different shades, which it is not. The angle also helps to accentuate the setbacks.

Agreed, as a local Chicagoan the building doesn't do all that much for me TBH. I mean its a very nice building depending on the angle you are looking at it from. Coming north-bound on I-55 into the city it kind of gets lost in that blue cluster there. But, I feel that its missing something... :hmmm: Of course as skyscraper enthusiasts we all wish it was taller, that's a given. I feel like for its spot that its just bland and when I see the building heading into the office I feel like there were a lot of missed opportunities.

Yup they played it very, very safe in a city that once prized for innovative architecture.
Better than a parking lot I guess.

Every building is too short. . .

. . .

LOL! :haha:

Well yeah, but some towers are "too shorter" than others.

A small piece of me will never fully get over how perfectly something at least 200' taller would've plugged into the overall skyline on this site.

But what got built is still nice. No real complaints on that front.

Like a difficult to get over relationship, the only real cure for all of our 'what cold have been' ruminations will be the next new shiny 900'+ skyscraper for us to crush on and to let us forget about this one.

Don't know about you guys but this is a beautiful view!

https://abc7chicago.com/weather/cams/riverwalk/

It is a good building.

But it is not architecture or even quality design. Maybe the details make it special, but even the details are lost in the overall banality. Just a bland, nameless, forgetful piece of corporate soullessness in a very prominent and highly visible location.

There is nothing about it that inspires awe, joy, delight. It is utterly forgetful, just something that you walk by and won't think twice about. Even WPE has a far more interesting exterior, and it's not even that different, just minor details that amplify the design in a much better manner.

I'm surprised you think that. . . most of the other office buildings that have gone up in the last 10 years don't really offer much in the way of excellent design. . . but seem rather banal with odd engineering flourishes that set them apart from other simple boxes. . .

This building is austere in the details, it's vertical expression and proportions on the site make it easy to look at. . . I don't see any dissonance when I'm looking at this building compared to every other office building done in the last 10 years. . .

. . .

I gotta agree. I understand the disappointment in that it underwhelms a bit in height and design, but I think it ranks rather solidly compared to its city peers of the last 15 years in the same neighborhood, with 150 Riverside being the standout outlier in the Wacker/River corridor.

I think it is also clearly superior to WPE, thankfully, given its stature as the larger of the two towers. I can't see how one can find much wrong with the cascading lobby of WPS that I think was well executed. The massing and setbacks are well proportioned, just a bit undersized given its prominence. The crown has turned out better than I expected it would.

I just can't get on board with those that think WPE is somehow superior to WPS. WPE has some slight PoMo vibes or something that throws it off to me. I find it more banal than WPS and more appropriate for some generic sunbelt city.

Some people prefer WPE because it is less homogeneous than WPS, thanks to the white stripes. I personally dislike WPE's horizontal stripes, which make it look shorter than it really is due to the illusion that each stripe corresponds to one floor.

I think the size and design of the vertical white fins on WPE are more successful than WPS at creating depth and differentiation to the various planes. The 4 facade treatments of WPE are more obvious from more different angles. It takes a particular views and light conditions for the different fin depths and areas with no fins on WPS to really become prominent.

There was an earlier design of WPS that had more facade variation that would have I think improved and accentuated the form. It had a lower first setback too, but I understand why keeping the setbacks all close to the top was better for the floor plans:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/za9a...7/WP_South.png
Rendering from curbed by Steelblue

^ absolutely... Unfortunately, the architectural heritage of this city has been lost for some time now...instead of continuing to innovate and push the limits on design we become so safe and modest as compared to other major skyscraper capitals...If you cant build a supertall or near supertall at this location where could you build one.. :shrug:

i'll have to reiterate this for like the 100th time now, really tall office buildings in chicago don't seem to pencil.

there have only been two office towers with occupiable height above 900' ever built in the entire history of this city, and they were both global outliers built as trophies to mammoth old dinosaur corporations back in the early 70s (sears and standard oil).


all of the late 80s big office towers (frankiln center, 311 s wacker, and 2 pru) used sticks and other rooftop embelishmnets to extend above 900').

Well there was no better time to add to that list than this spot...they had the building more than half preleased for a long time .. and so what if they had decorative element /spires to rooftops...if it works in the overall aesthetic designs so be it... doesn't hurt to change it up from time to time rather than the flat roof trend we normally see.

^^^

enhance ... enhance! ... ENHANCE!

they could have done a lot of things, but they did the things that they did because that was the forumla to the greatest ROI according to their calculations.

would it have been nice if hines had been more ambitious at this particular site? of course!

but that's just not how chicago office towers get developed, except for those two times a half century ago.

If they had outlined the vertical setbacks with some sort of material it would have looked a lot better. Everything just kind melts together. Also wasn't there supposed to be another setback in the front near the top portion of the tower? Why was that removed?

The River confluence has turned into Chicago's La Défense.

Salesforce signage is being installed. The first 'S' is on the eastern side of the crown is in.

11.14.22
https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/render...&ts=1668535560

Supply chain issue on the 'L'? lol

https://i.imgur.com/dVHtMUF.jpg

Are those top 3 floors just to house water supply and mechanicals and no rentable space?

May have been part of the recent layoffs...

Elon Musk bought the letter L. Did they get approved to put signage on the east and west side of the crown or just the east side? I thought BOA only got approved for one sign on 110 wacker if I recall correctly. Some Chicago rule?

Two signs are allowed in the case that the principal tenant leases at least 450,000 sf of the building or 60% of the building. BMO is one such example. The company must also have its international headquarters in Chicago.

Salesforce doesn't comply with the last requirement, so I think we are looking at only one sign.

who knows, maybe this is how they announce their relo.

The letter 'L' finally showed up. The crown reads "sale" for now.

I never thought a building this tall would look better with signage but it does.

All the recent towers at the confluence suffer from the same problem. They are fine at the bases but overwhelmingly boring at the tops. At least there's a sign floating up there now...

11.29.22
https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/render...&ts=1669820222

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/render...&ts=1669820223

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/render...&ts=1669820228

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/render...&ts=1669820233

still Black Friday I guess...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw...-no?authuser=0

:haha:

After seeing how this turned out, even Salesforce is trying to get ride of it...

November 7, 2022



November 8, 2022



December 1, 2022



December 5, 2022





December 12, 2022



December 13, 2022

not really the dynamic top we were once offered

The whole final product is disappointing. When viewed from the SE, the east and south towers overlap and make a monolith, and the south tower isn't taller enough to distinguish itself from the mass. And the (presumably) signature south tower is out-detailed by the east one. It also has no verticality from its best angle (the south elevation), which could have been achieved with better material choices for the final cladding. So completely underwhelming with the visual indication that they were attempting something impressive, which almost makes it worse. Like it would have been better to have it be confidently boring rather than look like it tried and flopped.