I can understand your other arguments, but this part is just complete BS. Using that arguementation means we should not build any hotels downtown since they will invariably have other windows just meters away. Heck, we should not build any residential either for that matter.

Not to mention the fact that peak office use and peak hotel use are polar opposites. Hotel rooms are most used at night while office is most used during the day. If you are going to put two uses next to each other, office and hotel are probably the best.

How does building this hotel alter the sears/ willis tower? The building will be essentially the same, and just the horrendous plaza that isn't good enough for this city anyways- yet alone one its greatest masterpieces- will be all that's lost. This is a quite significant upgrade from the current plaza setup that in no way gels with the building as is, and it's not like this is some VE'd garbage like block 37. This hotel- along with 235 van buren- are symbolic of the city becoming more cosmopolitan and user-friendly in that area of the loop and I welcome it.

Well it is a nice looking hotel. But it is so close to the ST. Hmm but if it will help it out, why not. I say go for it...

The modification of the base/plaza is an interesting issue - of course, the base has already seen various modifications since the original construction, so it's tough to say what exactly is "original" and "authentic" and worthy of preservation.

It's a potentially cool proposal, but I share concerns given that Sears (Willis) isn't just any International-style office highrise - it's one of the most important and iconic of it's architectural style ever built.

I think ultimately I do like the proposal - just because something may represent a pristine architectural example doesn't automatically merit preservation if the strict adherence to those principles has a serious negative impact at street level, which I think is definitely the case at Sears.

As to dramatic aesthetic juxtapositions, I'm almost always in favor for the visual interest it generates.

"Willis Tower"

That just seems wrong:(

The "Sears Tower" sign at the base has not been removed or permanently altered, they have simply placed plywood over it and painted it black then painted "Willis Tower" on it. I hope they don't destroy that sign, I like it a lot.

^^^ It would be cool in a museum somewhere.

I like the hotel tower, but I think the plaza is too small and tight.

At 5:00 the sidewalk/plaza is jammed with people going to Union Station, this hotel would really make this area tight and difficult for pedestrians. Why not tear down the parking garage next door, and build this tower there? They can even make some cool connections over the street into Sears.

Some tenants might be quicker to move out because they will now have a building just meters from their windows.

But they should definitely redesign the plaza.

I personally dislike this entire design -- although not necessarily the concept. The hotel as its envisioned simply does not fit aesthetically within the South Wacker Drive corridor given the existing architecture in these two blocks.

The current rendering looks remarkably out of place framed between Sears Tower and 311 S Wacker. It doesn't even attempt to complement either building -- almost suggesting that it was designed in a vacuum -- with no regard for the neighboring architecture. And crammed so tightly into a corner of the existing lot beneath the very shadow of its nearby cousins, visually suggests that the proposal is nothing more than a developer's desperate band-aid solution for revitalization.

I think there are far better ways to incorporate a marketable green hotel into the existing Sears Tower property while similarly redeveloping the infamously tacky street-level plaza. There is a parking garage on Franklin St that is just begging to be razed. It is the perfect location for a hotel tower with an integrated parking deck. Simply construct a graceful skybridge across Franklin St to the mezzanine of Sears Tower.

That makes the most efficient use of the valuable real estate in the Chicago Loop. And it adds the convenience of direct, on-site parking for occupants of the new hotel which could be an additional selling point (not to mention being one block closer to the nearest "L" stop, since it is important to encourage use of public transit).

--Randall

The Developer's Hatred! The People's Love!
 

Why is this opportunistic developer hijacking the public space surrounding the Sears Tower?!!! ... because this ungentle gentleman has the land and property rights to do so! I say no thank you to unjust justice! There is no reasonable reason why the Sears Tower should change anything period! ... other than the fact that the person(s) who control the rights to this land and this property control this precious land and property! The developer is morally bankrupt! The public is morally ethical! Shame unto those who crave shamelessness! Power! Power! Power! The People are powerful! The People shall prevail! Long live the People! Our spirit shall last forever! Your building's body is merely material! Our spirit shall last forever!
:haha:

Love shall prevail!:banana:

Tribune is reporting sources saying United is moving in

Are you serious? I mean you have a smily, but I can't tell which part is a joke or not.

Posting while drunk should be a punishable offence :rolleyes:

. . .

united airlines is going to occupy 450,000 square feet of willis tower.

Unless it's in the drunken thread I suppose:drunk:


I wonder if that's enough to get the naming rights?

Now that UAL officially made the move. Damn I would much have perfered United Tower.... I am sure UAL will take on more space than Willis without looking into the details of each transaction.

I'm all for architecture being symbolic, sculptural, iconic, etc. But this hotel proposal seems one of many others as a standard to look like the assortment of objects you find in my medicine cabinet.

I'm okay with this proposal, but easily bored by it. The design seems rather predictable and I don't think it plays well with the Sears Tower for being on the same block. I'm not saying the hotel shouldn't be completly different from Sears, but the juxtaposition of both structures from either street level or above should be memorable. Think about this historic water tower or the church near JHC and how many people photograph these two structures against one another. In short, I guess I was expecting something a bit more original and appealing from Adrian Smith.

Wow, said more than I wanted to. :)

^If anything, I like how the design is classy yet subdued - it doesn't draw attention to itself by being either too pretty or too ugly. It's a well-done contextual building - just the type of thing you'd rather have rising next to a landmark.

stupid idea to put a hotel...looks crammed and awkward.
the building is nice though

I wonder if United moving there gives a little boost to the hotel plan (business travelers etc)

I'm pretty sure that the original plan for the Sears Tower included a hotel at this location, so I don't see the problem. The Sears Tower was extremely modern when built; this hotel will be extremely modern when built.

Hmm...not bad!

model located in the Santa Fe building lobby, adjacent to the massive, recently installed Chicago central plan model
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2563/...a3c6ee36_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2435/...8d178a96_b.jpg
some images of the downtown model
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/...248a7f41_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2461/...64388ae6_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/...cd28fc77_b.jpg

I really hope this sweet building gets built. Its just so futuristic looking.

Were there ever any renderings released of what Willis Tower would look like if painted silver. I'm curious to see what it would look like.

^^ Oops... looks like a tornado hit Sears' Franklin St portico.

A sexy tornado! :D
To answer your question Rail, I didn't see any renderings of the the re-vamped Willis Tower paintjob.

^^^ There was one where some guy at the Tribune or something used photoshop paintbucket to just paint it silver, but it wasn't official.

Edit:

Here it is:

http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedi...0.imageContent
suntimes.com

Its from the Sun-Times, not Tribune.

A silver re-clad is the only change I could get behind.

Why? A hotel in the plaza affects the few blocks around Willis. A silver re-clad redefines and, IMO, ruins the aspect of the building from the entire city and suburban region.

Does this model include the current state of the stump of the Waterview Tower project? If so, they forgot the abandoned tower crane.

:hahano:

Have these been posted before?
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/chicago...gg300609_5.jpg
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/chicago...gg300609_7.jpg
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/chicago...g300609_10.jpg
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/chicago...g300609_11.jpg

Oh no please...u're kidding... NEVER GONNA HAPPEN - At least, that's what I'm hoping for

You know I can't seem to make my mind up on this. I love the actually tower proposal, but like many I'm not convinced its appropriate to put it so damn close to Sears on the same block. I'm leery that this juxtaposition may not age well.

See, I think the juxtaposition is exactly why it should go there. I love the contrast to Sears *cough* [Willis] and quite frankly, I think it speaks to the effort to reinvent the Tower. And let's face it, it needs reinventing. I like the idea that it will capture Sears effects on wind and help to cut it's environmental impact.

To me, Willis is at its best from a distance, the way it looms over the entire city, and from the base, it's brutalist verticality. This tower does nothing to hinder either of those.

I know this was just a proposal, but is there any date they had in mind to start this?

I don't know, but there is a zoning change notice on the north side of the Wacker entrance, "conveniently" posted about 30 feet off the sidewalk in a chained-off area.

I really like what you are saying. Those are very good ideas. Instead of just bitching like some people here you give concrete opinions of what should be done and I respect that;)

That silver doesn't look bad.

I don't see where the complaining that "it doesn't complement the other buildings well" is coming from. This is Chicago, our architectural history is all about not complementing the other buildings well. If we "complemented other buildings" with the John Hancock Building we would have a 6 story castle-looking apartment building instead... Chicago has a long history of its buildings saying "screw you" to everything around them and being completely different, I don't understand the contextualism argument at all. I think contextualism outside of the realm of urban planning (i.e. aesthetics) is complete BS.

Also, I don't like the idea of them building this hotel on the Sears Tower garage because that would be a complete waste of that lot. Are you really going to advocate replacing what is one of the largest developable plots of land in the Loop area with a measly 50 story hotel? Its right next to the Sears Tower, 311 S. Wacker, and AT&T! It needs a building that will be at least 800' tall, if not a supertall or something in the range of 1200'. I can see there actually being demand for this in the future as the loop is choked off by the NIMBY's to the West.

That hotel next to Willis ("whatchutalkinboutSearsTower?!?!?!") just makes me think of a remora clinging to a shark.

Small, cute and harmless.

I actually kind of like this proposal, the juxtaposition's really interesting an I think it'll age well...like the juxtaposition between the Reading Terminal and the PSFS Building.

Just a thought... If they did in fact move ahead with this, How would they re-route the tourist entrance to the top? Obviously they can't close it for the length of the construction time. Also, I wonder what the road closing/ road narrowing situation would be like in that area? And being so close to the building, the crane placement would be an interesting position to see them pick. I really would like to see this project start, but I'm sure it has a lot of logistical issues, more than I can probably think of.

This project is my wet dream.

It's beautiful and it's net-zero energy. Viewing this proposal would and should make any density junkie's pants moist. Just imagining that much density on one block just makes this so awe-inspiring.

Moreover, it does something to enhance the pedestrian experience around the Willis Tower, by bringing interactive retail to the ground level.

Love it, love it, love it. Please more of this stuff!

On its own is one thing, but I find it to be intrusive when paired with another building of large size on the same parcel of land.

^ I hear you, but that's just the Loop all over again, and that's why I like the Wells Ave face of the base best - you're standing in this densely-packed corner of the Loop with the El overhead and Willis is just another piece of it (but when you do look up, whoaa...)

Apparently S&G would be adding a street-level skydeck entrance at Jackson.

http://www.smithgill.com/#/work/willis_tower

-----

They really play up the contrasts between the two towers in the model - that must've been part of the pitch.

BTW, big piece of the tower off and blocking the street at the bottom of that first pic ;)

I guess I have to experience what you’re talking about to understand it; really can’t relate. But I do understand where you’re coming from with the density. If that’s what looks ‘right’ for that part of town, then this proposal is right up its alley.