SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | LSE - Site I | 950 FT | 85 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=229046)

ithakas Jul 11, 2017 11:02 PM

CHICAGO | LSE - Site I | 950 FT | 85 FLOORS
 
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UwTn...710_IJKL_6.jpg
Source: bKL/Curbed

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/S-b2...710_IJKL_5.jpg
Source: bKL/Curbed

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/VCMH...710_IJKL_7.jpg
Source: bKL/Curbed

Quote:

Chicago’s Magellan Group and the Australia-based Lendlease have partnered for this portion of the planned development. All three towers proposed for parcels I, J, and KL are designed by Chicago’s bKL Architecture.

The most dramatic of the three towers is the 80-story, 875’ tower planned for Site I on the northeastern edge of Lakeshore East. At the proposed height, the tower would be slightly taller than the 859-foot Aqua but would be considerably shorter than the 93-story Vista, which will stand at 1,186 feet when it is completed. However, the other two towers planned for site will be much shorter. The Site J tower will top out at 550’ or 50 stories while KL will rise to 438’ or 40 stories.

Described as an “iconic” addition to the Chicago skyline by bKL principal Tom Kerwin, the 80-story tower also features a similar modular appearance that is consistent with the other towers planned for the development. However, the tower’s width gradually expands as it gets taller, offering large floor plates and sweeping views of the city for upper floor residents.
Source: Curbed Chicago

KevinFromTexas Jul 11, 2017 11:06 PM

That sure does look taller than 875 feet...

chris08876 Jul 12, 2017 12:58 AM

Nice specs.

1) Site I : 875'
2) Site J: 550'
3) Site KL: 438'

Always good when a trio of towers is planned. The more, the merrier. Although 80 floors could be stretched. Surprised its not a super tall.

J_M_Tungsten Jul 12, 2017 1:12 AM

The tower looks good. Kind of like a tall Viceroy Hotel with balconies. In the high rise thread someone mentioned to punch holes in the Chandler to open up the new views, which is a good idea if they truly are not going to take advantage of that wall, but I'm sure that cost would not be covered by bKl or the developer of the new building.

chris08876 Jul 12, 2017 1:19 AM

Symmetrical too comparing the L & R side. Looks like it draws the eye from Vista in the middle rendering in the OP.

Zapatan Jul 12, 2017 1:23 AM

Neat, Chicago is about to be on fire :)

spidey7312 Jul 12, 2017 1:55 AM

Let's throw 125 extra feet on there, make it another supertall for Chicago :cool:

BuildThemTaller Jul 12, 2017 2:04 AM

I've looked at this again after taking a peak last night and again this morning. I really love the design. So many on this forum complain of a barrage of blue boxes being proposed. bKL has done a fair share of their boxes, although better than most. This is a slight departure from that and in a very high visibility area.

It'll be a great addition to the skyline, visible from nearly all directions. Between LSE-I and One Bennett Park, we're adding a significant amount of height to the lakefront. Now if 400 N LSD can peak out just over the tops of these two at 1,200-1,500 ft...

Rocket49 Jul 12, 2017 2:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spidey7312 (Post 7862405)
Let's throw 125 extra feet on there, make it another supertall for Chicago :cool:

To make it a supertall we don't need 125 feet.

We only need 105 feet.

Maybe someone could make a decorative spire and donate it to the building 😊

ahealy Jul 12, 2017 2:30 AM

oh lala

ithakas Jul 12, 2017 2:34 AM

Is it out of the realm of possibility that they might be planning to squeeze a mid-rise building in between this and The Chandler's party wall someday down the line?

sentinel Jul 12, 2017 4:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 7862373)
Neat, Chicago is about to be on fire :)

Chicago has always been on fire. Ever since 1871 :D

TallBob Jul 12, 2017 4:46 AM

^^lol!

RyanChi92 Jul 12, 2017 5:58 AM

Damn. This is nice, I love how the building looks to get wider as it travels in height. And whatever Tetris/Jenga situation is going on with the balconies is a positive eye-grabber for me.

P.S. it makes me so happy how Vista is included in renderings. Soon.

denizen467 Jul 12, 2017 6:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7861454)
Seriously WTF bkl?

Why on earth would an architect be making design changes to a condo tower next door built many years ago?

If anything, direct the question to Magellan as to why they're not building a bustle. Presumably they and the architect decided a slim unadorned tower was best here. Then the question really is whether the neighboring condo association could be convinced to spend money to beautify their ugly wall, for the benefit of the new tower, and the neighborhood, and themselves. In fact, this render can work to put a little bit of pressure on the Chandler; any miscellaneous opposition they have to the new project could be alleviated by Magellan offering to kick in some money for ivy (or a mural of a sailboat?) to de-uglify their building. (I'm assuming there's no existing obligation for Magellan to address the blank wall.)

Rocket49 Jul 12, 2017 6:19 AM

From the images it appears that all but the highest floors of the 80 story building will have balconies.

If that's the case, would that mean this building will have the highest balconies in Chicago?

Mister Uptempo Jul 12, 2017 7:50 AM

Quote:

However, the tower’s width gradually expands as it gets taller, offering large floor plates and sweeping views of the city for upper floor residents.
I trust whoever purchases the penthouse will demand a balcony on the east side of the building, allowing the buyer to easily lob water balloons down onto traffic passing along LSD.:haha:

Looking at the renderings, the shape of the building kinda sorta resembles the nearby bridge houses of the Outer Drive Bridge.

chicagoisepic Jul 12, 2017 12:17 PM

This building probably won't be breaking ground until about 2020. What's the likelihood that this building will actually be constructed with this design?

10023 Jul 12, 2017 1:01 PM

The height seems quite low for an 80-story building. Maybe that's a Magellan cost-cutting move. Aqua ceilings are too low as well.

Rocket49 Jul 12, 2017 1:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Uptempo (Post 7862636)
I trust whoever purchases the penthouse will demand a balcony on the east side of the building, allowing the buyer to easily lob water balloons down onto traffic passing along LSD.:haha:

I'd love to see an avid BASE jumper buy the penthouse.

It certainly would add some excitement to an otherwise low key neighborhood.

Although the sight of someone flying overhead might possibly distract drivers on Lake Shore Drive and cause a few problems.

Chi-Sky21 Jul 12, 2017 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas (Post 7862244)

It almost looks like it mimics the LSD bridgehouses there. Giant silver versions that is.....

rlw777 Jul 12, 2017 2:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7862614)
Why on earth would an architect be making design changes to a condo tower next door built many years ago?

If anything, direct the question to Magellan as to why they're not building a bustle. Presumably they and the architect decided a slim unadorned tower was best here. Then the question really is whether the neighboring condo association could be convinced to spend money to beautify their ugly wall, for the benefit of the new tower, and the neighborhood, and themselves. In fact, this render can work to put a little bit of pressure on the Chandler; any miscellaneous opposition they have to the new project could be alleviated by Magellan offering to kick in some money for ivy (or a mural of a sailboat?) to de-uglify their building. (I'm assuming there's no existing obligation for Magellan to address the blank wall.)

Huh? Nobody was suggesting bkl should be making design changes to the chandler. My comment was about the design ignoring it's context and not utilizing the party wall.

spidey7312 Jul 12, 2017 2:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket49 (Post 7862615)
From the images it appears that all but the highest floors of the 80 story building will have balconies.

If that's the case, would that mean this building will have the highest balconies in Chicago?

There is a room in the John Hancock Observation Deck next to the tilt attraction which has screens in place of window panes, and this room is technically a balcony making it the highest in not only Chicago, but all of North America.

rlw777 Jul 12, 2017 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spidey7312 (Post 7862874)
There is a room in the John Hancock Observation Deck next to the tilt attraction which has screens in place of window panes, and this room is technically a balcony making it the highest in not only Chicago, but all of North America.

Vista will have balconies all the way to the top on the east and west ends which I assume would make it's penthouse the highest

Rocket49 Jul 12, 2017 2:49 PM

^^^ Thanks for the info

Kenmore Jul 12, 2017 2:58 PM

love it

Kumdogmillionaire Jul 12, 2017 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket49 (Post 7862615)
From the images it appears that all but the highest floors of the 80 story building will have balconies.

If that's the case, would that mean this building will have the highest balconies in Chicago?

I would imagine that the Aqua would still top this one being that balconies go all the way to the top on that one, but it will be close.

People also pointed out the Vista as well being much taller

Zerton Jul 12, 2017 7:25 PM

Now we know which building bKL has been spending all its time on. :haha:

This one is a stunner.

F1 Tommy Jul 12, 2017 9:17 PM

One can only hope this drives Related to do something even more amazing on the old Spire site!! I like this BKL design a lot.

the urban politician Jul 12, 2017 9:45 PM

I'm guessing this tower will be all condo?

Hence wait till the Vista Tower gets close to selling out before marketing these

rgolch Jul 12, 2017 9:52 PM

Yea, great building and great design. Fits into the skyline very well. bKL has outdone themselves. Given that it's a far ways away from being realized, I'm hoping the design doesn't change too much. Given what's happened with so many proposals in Chicago, height chop and VE'ing seems pretty likely, no?

BVictor1 Jul 12, 2017 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 7863460)
I'm guessing this tower will be all condo?

Hence wait till the Vista Tower gets close to selling out before marketing these

As will the tower to the south along LSD. The 40-story will be rental.

denizen467 Jul 12, 2017 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7862860)
Huh? Nobody was suggesting bkl should be making design changes to the chandler. My comment was about the design ignoring it's context and not utilizing the party wall.

That's even more unrealistic. It would be like telling Cesar Pelli's firm to make Wolf Point reflect the context of the Apparel Mart. (Coincidentally, it solved its blank wall problems by punching out hundreds of windows.) Here, the architect was tasked with designing a trophy tower at the mouth of the river, the final piece of LSE, likely destined for the marketing name of "300 North Lake Shore Drive", as the last skyscraper that will ever be built along the lake near downtown (other than NWU selling its land and a theoretical teardown of the W or 540), so the obligation to pay homage to a blank wall on a squat ten year old condo nearby that looks like it was designed in the front seat of an impala while waiting for cheesecake factory takeout in the woodfield mall parking lot is rather close to zero. Sure, there would be ways to include a decent bustle or base or podium in the design, but they decided the best impact would be a slender, unadorned design. Keep in mind that marketing brochures and other imagery of the building trying to sell 7 and 8 figure condo units can present it as a standalone jewel this way rather than as just another tower glued onto neighborhood buildings. The far easier solution is a mural or ivy or punching out windows in the old building.

aaron38 Jul 13, 2017 1:53 AM

No one said pay homage to a blank wall. They said cover up the wall that was intentionally left blank because something else was going to be built up against it.

entreprelawyer Jul 13, 2017 2:20 AM

:cheers::cheers::worship::worship:
Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7863533)
That's even more unrealistic. It would be like telling Cesar Pelli's firm to make Wolf Point reflect the context of the Apparel Mart. (Coincidentally, it solved its blank wall problems by punching out hundreds of windows.) Here, the architect was tasked with designing a trophy tower at the mouth of the river, the final piece of LSE, likely destined for the marketing name of "300 North Lake Shore Drive", as the last skyscraper that will ever be built along the lake near downtown (other than NWU selling its land and a theoretical teardown of the W or 540), so the obligation to pay homage to a blank wall on a squat ten year old condo nearby that looks like it was designed in the front seat of an impala while waiting for cheesecake factory takeout in the woodfield mall parking lot is rather close to zero. Sure, there would be ways to include a decent bustle or base or podium in the design, but they decided the best impact would be a slender, unadorned design. Keep in mind that marketing brochures and other imagery of the building trying to sell 7 and 8 figure condo units can present it as a standalone jewel this way rather than as just another tower glued onto neighborhood buildings. The far easier solution is a mural or ivy or punching out windows in the old building.


J_M_Tungsten Jul 13, 2017 2:50 AM

Edit

Kumdogmillionaire Jul 13, 2017 1:49 PM

Just get someone to paint a mural on it. Boom, art

Notyrview Jul 13, 2017 1:56 PM

+1 mural art

Mod can we please add chicago tag to this?

Zerton Jul 13, 2017 4:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas (Post 7862437)
Is it out of the realm of possibility that they might be planning to squeeze a mid-rise building in between this and The Chandler's party wall someday down the line?

There's actually a tiny separate lot between these two buildings. I checked the zoning because I thought it was strange also. See below:

http://i.imgur.com/mxwJ2rZ.jpg

Source: https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/ZoningMapWeb

TallBob Jul 14, 2017 6:26 AM

Very nice tower!!

ithakas Jul 14, 2017 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton (Post 7864241)
There's actually a tiny separate lot between these two buildings. I checked the zoning because I thought it was strange also.

Nice – I'll gladly take another 5-10 years of seeing The Chandler's party wall if it means they slip a narrow mid-rise in there. It's exactly the kind of granular development lacking in an area like LSE.

BVictor1 Jul 17, 2017 3:42 AM

For those interested in the slideshow presentation and sending in comments:

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...arcelsIJKL.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf


Email: development@ward42chicago.com

sentinel Jul 17, 2017 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7867073)
For those interested in the slideshow presentation and sending in comments:

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...arcelsIJKL.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf


Email: development@ward42chicago.com

Thanks BVic!
I love the fact that they included a number of drawings related to view corridors, to shut up people who bring up that issue during community meetings...unless that's now fairly common, to which I was unaware of..

trvlr70 Jul 17, 2017 7:40 PM

I remain deeply disturbed by the party wall on the Chandler. According to all these diagrams, there is no intention of building anything to cover up that ugly (and so visible) scar.

Zerton Jul 17, 2017 7:53 PM

.

delete

the urban politician Jul 17, 2017 8:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trvlr70 (Post 7867641)
I remain deeply disturbed by the party wall on the Chandler. According to all these diagrams, there is no intention of building anything to cover up that ugly (and so visible) scar.

Taking care of that is not going to be an issue if there is a will to eliminate it

BVictor1 Jul 17, 2017 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trvlr70 (Post 7867641)
I remain deeply disturbed by the party wall on the Chandler. According to all these diagrams, there is no intention of building anything to cover up that ugly (and so visible) scar.

Send an email to the alderman with your aesthetic concerns.

vegeta_skyline Aug 28, 2017 7:48 AM

Cutting edge design, great spot for more density.

BVictor1 Dec 14, 2017 1:20 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...213-story.html

Plan for 80-story tower, two others in Lakeshore East hits roadblock

Ryan OriContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune
December 13, 2017

Quote:

An ambitious plan for three residential high-rises near Lake Michigan, including one that would soar 80 stories, has been shot down by the city’s downtown alderman.

Chicago-based Magellan Development Group and its development partner, Australia’s Lendlease, now must make significant changes to the design to resuscitate plans for the three towers, which would house a combined 1,400 condominiums and apartments.

In an email sent Wednesday to constituents, 42nd Ward Ald. Brendan Reilly wrote that “the project is rejected and will not move forward in its current form.”

Reilly’s decision is a big setback, but not necessarily a death knell, for the next phase of Magellan’s 28-acre Lakeshore East development near the lake and Millennium Park. There are already eight residential high-rises in Lakeshore East.

“The project is stalled until we address the concerns the neighborhood has,” said Magellan’s president, David Carlins. “The alderman delivered us a message that we have a lot of hard work to do, and we’re going to roll up our sleeves and address the concerns.”

aaron38 Dec 14, 2017 4:42 AM

Do we get to know what the concerns are? Or should we just assume it's parking, traffic, density and sunlight.
You know, the four horsemen of the apocolypse.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:39 AM.

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