SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 130 N Franklin | 751 FT | 51 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199537)

Steely Dan Apr 21, 2015 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 6998263)
^ Was there as well, and yes there were - and this tower is going to be an absolute stunner......really pulling for Tishman Speyer to make this one happen........

has the overall design scheme changed in any substantive way, or is it more or less what we've seen before, just a bit taller?

BVictor1 Apr 21, 2015 4:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 6998361)
has the overall design scheme changed in any substantive way, or is it more or less what we've seen before, just a bit taller?

What we've seen.

sentinel Apr 21, 2015 4:49 PM

Chi Arch Blog has released what appear to be new-ish renderings, but (per usual), they're a bit blurry.

nomarandlee Apr 21, 2015 6:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6998019)
Nice!

3 well designed ~750 foot buildings rising near each other is nothing to complain about. Once the other Wolf Point towers go up (hopefully with a height increase) this area of the river is going to be a straight up canyon!

It will. And developers who built the new'ish North/South Wacker Drive +600 footers over the last 15 years will feel and look hemmed in from most vantage points in the next 5-10 years.

Ryanrule Apr 21, 2015 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 6998689)
It will. And developers who built the new'ish North/South Wacker Drive +600 footers over the last 15 years will feel and look hemmed in from most vantage points in the next 5-10 years.

not that they will care, they will just up the rent on their cookie cutter value engineered apartments anyway.

rlw777 Apr 21, 2015 6:33 PM

I think of this building as having a similar architectural style as Aqua. Neither design commits to a sculptural form that would require completely abandoning the modernist box. Both are minimalist in their sculptural exploration using a singular theme over the entire facade. I hope we see a few more designs along these lines.

Steely Dan Apr 21, 2015 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanrule (Post 6998710)
not that they will care, they will just up the rent on their cookie cutter value engineered apartments anyway.

what? the 600 footers along N/S wacker that have been built in the past 15 years that nomar was referencing are all office towers. nary an apartment to be found in any of them.

intrepidDesign Apr 21, 2015 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 6998787)
what? the 600 footers along N/S wacker that have been built in the past 15 years that nomar was referencing are all office towers. nary an apartment to be found in any of them.

Which is a damn shame I say. I'd love to see more residential on N/S Wacker as I think there's a lot of desire to live on the river. The General Growth site could be an amazing opportunity for high density residential, then bring the riverwalk a little more south, wooowee.

Skyguy_7 Apr 21, 2015 7:53 PM

^Funny you say that- Pearl Tavern, an excellent new restaurant at Lake and Wacker, has plans to develop their own "riverwalk." Essentially, it would be a glorified patio along the river, which is supposed to someday include boat docking with drive-in service. I'm not certain it will be ready for business this year, but it's currently a spectacular spot to catch all this action.

aaron38 Apr 21, 2015 8:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign (Post 6998816)
Which is a damn shame I say. I'd love to see more residential on N/S Wacker as I think there's a lot of desire to live on the river. The General Growth site could be an amazing opportunity for high density residential, then bring the riverwalk a little more south, wooowee.

Then you'd just have more NIMBYs complaining that the new buildings are stealing their views, too much noise, traffic, crowding, etc; And voting in alderman to squash them.
Chicago has plenty of land, no need to force residential into the commercial core. If it comes so be it, but no need to ask for it when we know what comes with it.

intrepidDesign Apr 21, 2015 8:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 6998878)
Then you'd just have more NIMBYs complaining that the new buildings are stealing their views, too much noise, traffic, crowding, etc; And voting in alderman to squash them.
Chicago has plenty of land, no need to force residential into the commercial core. If it comes so be it, but no need to ask for it when we know what comes with it.


Wait what?? First off, I don't think anyone (much less me) has the ability to force residential into the commercial core. There's also condos very close by behind 150 N Riverside so it's not like this area is (almost) a residential ghost town. Lastly, why would you ever say, no, no need to develop residential there, people are just going to complain about their views eventually, (even though that area is already built up so....) you're argument is an odd one.

sentinel Apr 21, 2015 8:10 PM

Soooooo.....no new, official renderings from last night, yet?

Tom In Chicago Apr 21, 2015 10:43 PM

^No new renderings. . . everything is as we've already seen. . .

. . .

BVictor1 Apr 21, 2015 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 6998878)
Then you'd just have more NIMBYs complaining that the new buildings are stealing their views, too much noise, traffic, crowding, etc; And voting in alderman to squash them.
Chicago has plenty of land, no need to force residential into the commercial core. If it comes so be it, but no need to ask for it when we know what comes with it.

That's why you do hotel instead.

BVictor1 Apr 22, 2015 6:10 AM

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

Skyguy_7 Apr 22, 2015 12:41 PM

Thanks for doing the legwork, Bvic. MAN, what a design! The high-quality glass; its concave, cantilevering, collective F-U to symmetry. Its dominance over the surrounding blocks.. This will undoubtedly become an instant icon.

SamInTheLoop Apr 22, 2015 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago (Post 6999130)
^No new renderings. . . everything is as we've already seen. . .

. . .



No, there were several new ones that I noted at the presentation (which BVic just posted).
Reilly mentioned that he will be posting on his site the full presentation by next week.....




And this, folks, is how Architecture is done.......

Notyrview Apr 22, 2015 12:57 PM

I think that long, vaulted strip of darker glass above the entrance might be new.

LouisVanDerWright Apr 22, 2015 1:23 PM

So to the Wanda haters, what makes this less "arbitrary" than Wanda? If anything it is more random, but hey, I ain't complaining, I actually prefer this design over Wanda, very handsome.

pilsenarch Apr 22, 2015 2:04 PM

it's the 'more random' part that makes it work... an office building doesn't have to do much, right? just provide large, uninterrupted floors plates... by treating the envelope of this box as a sculptural element, creating distinction through relatively minor manipulation of the curtain wall, it creates a bit of delight without any/minimal negative impact on the program, structure, etc. and maybe a little added joy from within... very much like Aqua's balconies...

wanda isn't random at all... the 'arbitrary' doesn't necessarily come from the frustum itself (it's a very definitive, symmetrical form) but by its selection as a form maker to begin with... this results in a skyscraper whose form was not generated from within, i.e. function, program, context, etc., but forced upon it entirely from without...

pilsenarch Apr 22, 2015 2:20 PM

oh, to clarify, I consider myself a 'Wanda very-disappointed-er' rather than a 'Wanda hater'...

sentinel Apr 22, 2015 2:21 PM

Looks impressive, thanks as usual, BVic. The main lobby height is quite impressive to me.

wierdaaron Apr 22, 2015 2:26 PM

I really love this tower but I don't think I love that stilted/airy base. I wish the glass kept going all the way to the ground, so it was a solid shard of uneven glass from head to toe.

That aside, it's a work of art and I'm happy to see a commercial building have a little guts.

Steely Dan Apr 22, 2015 3:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6999718)
I really love this tower but I don't think I love that stilted/airy base. I wish the glass kept going all the way to the ground, so it was a solid shard of uneven glass from head to toe.

good point. this design would be even more successful if they found a way to pull the "crystal shard" concept all the way down to the ground.

but like you said, it's still great to see an office tower take a design risk.

LouisVanDerWright Apr 22, 2015 4:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch (Post 6999689)
it's the 'more random' part that makes it work... an office building doesn't have to do much, right? just provide large, uninterrupted floors plates... by treating the envelope of this box as a sculptural element, creating distinction through relatively minor manipulation of the curtain wall, it creates a bit of delight without any/minimal negative impact on the program, structure, etc. and maybe a little added joy from within... very much like Aqua's balconies...

wanda isn't random at all... the 'arbitrary' doesn't necessarily come from the frustum itself (it's a very definitive, symmetrical form) but by its selection as a form maker to begin with... this results in a skyscraper whose form was not generated from within, i.e. function, program, context, etc., but forced upon it entirely from without...

But that's literally the same logic for Wanda, Gang herself made no secret that a huge part of the design was trying to create more views (or "a bit of delight" as you put it) for the residents. She just started with a shape and decided to create a more geometric version of what K+S is doing here.

Both towers are sculptural and don't rely on form follows function, that's where architecture is at these days. I just see your response as "Wanda is too abstract, but not abstract enough".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 6999810)
good point. this design would be even more successful if they found a way to pull the "crystal shard" concept all the way down to the ground.

Disagree, one of my favorite aspects of this design is the massive, open, airy, base. With the super white lobby, it makes it seem as if this tower is a crystal hovering above the ground suspended by some sort of magic glow. That's going to be absolutely stunning at night.

sentinel Apr 22, 2015 4:05 PM

^You know, I was thinking the same exact thing - I really like the fact that there's a sizable opening at the base. If the design, sublime as it is, was extended all the way down, it would make the entire structure too monolithic and could have potentially dulled the overall design.

wierdaaron Apr 22, 2015 4:25 PM

Could be true. I've also been going back and forth about whether the tree-lined plaza is better than hugging the street and filling out the whole block. I'm not really familiar with that part of downtown though, and I think the plaza trend is already pretty set in stone around there.

A monolith is good at certain locations, the Blue Cross building for instance, but maybe over there it would feel oppressive and out of context.

aaron38 Apr 22, 2015 4:40 PM

To be clear, all 190 parking spaces are in the low rise portion on the north with the green roof? Not bad as far as parking garages go. Even managed to line it up with the material change on the building to the west at Randolph/Wacker.

pilsenarch Apr 22, 2015 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6999891)
But that's literally the same logic for Wanda, Gang herself made no secret that a huge part of the design was trying to create more views (or "a bit of delight" as you put it) for the residents. She just started with a shape and decided to create a more geometric version of what K+S is doing here.

Both towers are sculptural and don't rely on form follows function, that's where architecture is at these days. I just see your response as "Wanda is too abstract, but not abstract enough".

see my response in Wanda thread...

Tom In Chicago Apr 22, 2015 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 6999621)
No, there were several new ones that I noted at the presentation (which BVic just posted).

I'm not seeing any significant design changes. . .

OLD
http://imageshack.com/a/img913/7237/FsJmXc.jpg

NEW
http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

. . .

wierdaaron Apr 23, 2015 12:06 AM

http://i.imgur.com/ixsh8khh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5gt7dF8h.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fRBhotAh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kCuK3I5h.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/IVKsZEah.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8PKX45hh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ppipSNHh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hEhxXPCh.jpg

Full presentation.

munchymunch Apr 23, 2015 12:11 AM

Nice! Still has that dominating presence over franklin, this guy is big, and bad. I love it. Best proposal in town.

Notyrview Apr 23, 2015 1:09 AM

A+++

Zapatan Apr 23, 2015 1:30 AM

Sweet pics weirdaaron, thanks for those.

wierdaaron Apr 23, 2015 1:32 AM

Glad there'll be so much retail.

Mr Downtown Apr 23, 2015 3:30 AM

I wonder if those wrinkles will smooth out if we run the shower really hot for about 20 minutes?

SamInTheLoop Apr 23, 2015 3:33 AM

duplicate

SamInTheLoop Apr 23, 2015 3:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago (Post 7000545)
I'm not seeing any significant design changes. . ..

Perhaps no major changes.....I was just responding to the no new renderings comment......

wrab Apr 23, 2015 3:43 AM

Bring it on!

aaron38 Apr 23, 2015 1:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 7000630)

Interesting to get a winter shot when Chicago is so often rendered in perpetual summer.

Tom Servo Apr 23, 2015 4:26 PM

Awesome.

Mr Downtown Apr 23, 2015 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 7001161)
Interesting to get a winter shot when Chicago is so often rendered in perpetual summer.

I had the same reaction and wondered if it was a conscious decision or one made necessary by the day they went and photographed the surrounding area. It put me in mind of another evocative wintry rendering:

http://www.chicagocarto.com/burnham/...sunsetview.jpg

Domer2019 Apr 24, 2015 5:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago (Post 7000545)
I'm not seeing any significant design changes. . .

OLD
http://imageshack.com/a/img913/7237/FsJmXc.jpg

NEW
http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

. . .

I think the base has changed. It looks like the glass starts higher up, and there might be some other subtle stuff like column differences. Or I'm seeing things.

ChiTownWonder Apr 24, 2015 9:12 PM

edit

jcchii Apr 24, 2015 9:27 PM

that second deck of trees will be a nice touch there

rlw777 Aug 13, 2015 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch (Post 7128154)
Sorry Sam stealing your thing. :P

On August 20th Chicago planning commission has 3 high rises (good ones) on the agenda.

- 130 N Franklin, the best office tower that could come this cycle IMO, nothing has changed for this one. :cheers:

-Viveroy Hotel,18 stories great design.

-Ed Debevic' (640 wells), love the zigzag boxes.

:rock:

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content...aft_Agenda.pdf

Awesome good to see 130 N Franklin is taking one step closer to becoming reality. I agree best design of the cycle.

munchymunch Aug 13, 2015 6:19 PM

Speaking of K+S have a couple of new close ups of 130 N Franklin.

http://www.ksarch.com/#!com-130-n-fr...1x20/image_5xn

MV2 Aug 14, 2015 2:57 AM

Speaking of 130 N Franklin, They re-surfaced and re-striped the parking lot a couple weeks ago. Obviously that doesn't make much sense if they plan to break ground any time soon...

munchymunch Aug 14, 2015 3:02 AM

In regards to 130 n Franklin, I have a feeling that tishman is gunning for the first one to start an office building next cycle. At this point I think they just want to get everything set up before starting.

rlw777 Aug 14, 2015 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch (Post 7128958)
In regards to 130 n Franklin, I have a feeling that tishman is gunning for the first one to start an office building next cycle. At this point I think they just want to get everything set up before starting.

Next cycle? Do you mean next year? They might as well not be going through the planning commission at all if they're planning on next cycle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MV2 (Post 7128951)
Speaking of 130 N Franklin, They re-surfaced and re-striped the parking lot a couple weeks ago. Obviously that doesn't make much sense if they plan to break ground any time soon...

I think we can rule out Tishman building on spec. They are most likely just still shopping for an anchor tenant nothing too concerning here. You don't stop doing maintenance on a property out of speculation.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.