Mark my words. Phase 1 will be built as is phase 2 will be redesigned and still be awesome because twins or near twins almost never get finished in Chicago.

This tower is 76 stories.

https://twitter.com/DavidLMatthews

Wow! This looks amazing! What a perfect design for Chicago. :cheers:

Let's play the bullshit height contest game. Where does this go in the "nth tallest in Chicago" list? Looks like #13 if 829 is right. need to check my notes.

The address used this evening was 113 East Roosevelt Road.

Vinoly
https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/


This tower will be 100& rental

mentioned the stepping of the sears tower

terraces/some are public and some are private

in existing planned development

phase 2 would probably be for sale units

Phase one will have 792 units
Phase two will have 648 units
Phase three will have 100 units (townhouses surrounding a park where the old Museum Park sales center used to be)

24 months of construction

retail component 9,000 before and 12,500 now…

There will be two-seperate towers.

That skyline...:slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob:

It looks like we have 1157 buildings (not including under-construction) instead of 829, according to the skyscraper map
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/maps/?cityID=4

This is Chicago. :slob:

When do they want to start construction? 100% rental means no pre-sales required.

The PD is already locked in so I think they only need to get a simple approval from the city, so there's nothing to hold them up except money.

The project still needs to go before the plan commission because of the tweaks in design. I was told they want to go in November, but that's not yet locked in.

Indiana and Roosevelt tower by Vinoly
Height: 829'
Units: 792
Parking: 622? (maybe 522.. photo is fuzzy and I forgot my glasses for the presentation)


http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/...psgloc2kzt.jpg
Photo of Vinoly and model of the building


http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/...psb6bw1vow.jpg
Left side is what the building will look like next to it's neighbors. Right side shows a hypothetical twin on Michigan and Roosevelt. (though likely it'll be different looking and be condos. Though the height is likely more or less correct.)


http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2dxfyj5d.jpg
View from the lake.


http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/...psyetvn6lh.jpg
Stats on the building (sorry, fuzzy)


http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/...psn8rrwrb9.jpg
Traffic flow

I rather have 700-900 ft buildings that eventually get buil rathert than 1,300+ illusions that never move past just that, illusions.

So if this is s sign of a "boom" in construction, I'd be more than happy with buildings like these built across the city.

This is just spectacular. No words to describe. So much better than what's going to take place in LSE.

I'm fairly sure that the height 829' doesn't include any parapet or architectural element that could potentially allow the height to rise. Regardless, 829' is by no means shabby.

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

That makes sense with what ardecila reported a while ago. He said 830' to t/ parapet, 862' to t/ decorative rooftop structure, so 862' is probably still closer to the total height.

My flabbers are ghasted. What an excellent surprise on an otherwise depressing day. Lets get the first tower built first but as we've seen with the streeter towers, 600 LSD, and less recently Grand Plaza, twin towers can and will be built in Chicago. Granted the scale is a little different here. The rendering looks closer to the 862' as it appears well over 100 feet taller than OMP. That or the render is a little bloated.

Would they really do the foundation work separately? Seems like there'd be a lot of efficiency in doing all the caison work while the entire site is empty and accessible.

Wow, I'm catching all this now.

This will be a beast for the south loop skyline. And I agree that this is a VERY Chicago design.

The south wall of Grant Park just told the world to go blow itself. But I'm worried about the shadows over the park. Mr. D, can you wipe that dust off your shadow study software and show us some diagrams?

Seconded, this is a major concern. The world could potentially end if these towers are built. The shadows could cause the new skatepark to reach absolute zero and create a black hole.

I guess I will be the first contrarian. I don't care for the design all that much. I don't care for most of Vinoly's work. Phase 1 is ok and I hope it gets built but it is nothing earth shattering like some posting here seem to imply. I don't usually like twin towers and I hope phase 2 is completely redesigned by a different architect. This design seems too bulky and boxy (especially with the twin) and lacks elegance while also braking no new ground in architecture. I much prefer the Spire (rip), Wanda Vista and even the SCB tower also presented today for 1300 S. Michigan.

Damn...... am I dreaming......?

This feels too good to be true. I can't help but think of all the home run designs from the last boom that never got built. That being said, I have the feeling a lot of the stuff in this cycle feel less like pipe dreams.

And rentals? So much for oversupply of rental units I guess.

Perhaps it may have been better to orient them differently, but it/they are certainly not the boxiest in the vicinity of Grant Park.

Yes I know. That is part of my problem. I feel there is already too much boxyness surrounding Grant Park and in Chicago in general. I really like to see explorations in other forms especially tapered designs.

This thing is giving me blood flow. I'm loving the verticality of it. Even if we don't get phase two I'll still be seriously happy with this one. :cheers:

My 2 cents...build the first one and skip the second. It couldn't hurt to slim it down a bit too. The fatness goes up too high. I like the backside better than the front. The white frame is making it look a little cartoony and fatter than it really is. As twins it's just too much of a big flat wall for such a prominent location. I get why everyone is saying that it's so Chicago but make it thinner and more elegant and it's still Chicago but pushing us forward...Haha, now I sound like all of the overly critical people that pick every new design apart. I want height and density as much as the next geek but does anyone understand what I'm getting at here?

File under, not gonna happen, right? :sly: At best one of the two and VEed? Would be cool if it happens. But I'm not holding my breath on a project this, uh, ambitiously huge.

Looks like a vertical completion of the Apparel Mart. It looks almost like it could have been an abandoned early proposal for the Apparel Mart (notwithstanding the windows that were added later), designed to ape the just-completed Sears Tower, before getting chopped down to its podium after a mid '70s oil shock.

Also, are those heavily-expressed columns going to be clad, or just painted concrete? If just painted concrete, this would be a minimal improvement on the countless '70s and '80s boxes we already have. If they're clad, and the fenestration is excellent, for example with a perfectly flush and glossy facade, it could help redeem the design.

And are we looking at references to rust belt smokestacks, another cliche that out-of-town architects immediately seize on?

The doubling up of the podium party walls looks like the work of a rural China developer who fired his architect and decided to finish the job himself. Surely you could at least chamfer the party walls where they meet the north facade so that combined they appear as a single unit. There are many ways to do a podium where 2 towers come together and this is a ham-handed one.

I expect the first one to be completed but as I have said before the second I assume will be redesigned later just like 90% of all twins proposed in Chicago.

Vinoly
 

Vinoly, IMO, is one of the best of the starchitects.

He knows how to detail a building.

As others have pointed out, there is a straightforward, muscular, structural expressionism with this design that reflects Chicago tradition.

Unlike other designs we've seen lately, this design will not have to waste, uhh, I mean, spend a substantial portion of the budget on geometric gymnastics that all can see have nothing to do with building's program or function.

If it is painted concrete with cheap detailing, yeah, that would be a problem. But, knowing Vinoly, I highly doubt it. Rather, it is a design that is ripe for beautiful detailing that also has an excellent chance of surviving any VE process.

Lol, have you ever seen a smokestack? They aren't square, they aren't made of multiple vertical segments, and they don't have setbacks... In short, other than these being tall, slim, structures, they have absolutely nothing in common with smokestacks. What this does reference is the square geometry of Chicago industrial architecture, it reminds me a lot of the tops of a grain elevator with the multiple little poured in place concrete penthouses or the massing of the water tower bases that rise up out of many old school concrete loft buildings:

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/w...nstruction.jpg
chicagoarchitecture.org

If these are the best criticisms of the design we are going to see, I think it's an instant classic.

All sorts of slobbers over this! Love it. I usually don't like twin towers but these work for me, but the base needs a redesign.

The NIMBYS are throwing shit like monkeys on the DNAinfo FB comment section of the story about this project.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150...all-south-loop

I've been having a bit of fun with them... :)

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-in-south-loop

Wow we really need to add density to the skyline south of Van Buren.

This is a really good location though and it is totally trumping OMP. OMP has a very huge impact on the skyline due to its location.

Agreed. if only we could let some bulldozers run rampant in Dearborn park.

I have matches :cheers:

its a nest of nimbys and old people and some questionable people too.

These are so 90s. I like the designs well enough. The terraces or whatever they are need some finessing, but the strong "piers" with the hash-mark spandrels is a great look.

Excellent point, I agree. But I also agree that we are most likely to see the design of phase II evolve and change if and when we reach that point.

We just got the full set of high res renders at curbed, stand by

Here's all of the slides:

http://i.imgur.com/mALeBXLl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/yQC0C8ml.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/00uoBDsl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/APnrJKjl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8jqdEKul.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Fzf0KVQl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/N5hvqPUl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/R39DfYGl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NqwHdAjl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/AuZQohIl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/nwxvE5Sl.jpg

Please read this post at Curbed so people can't say I'm leeching traffic: 76-Story Rafael Viñoly Tower Would Be Tallest in South Loop

I think most people here would agree that "bulky and boxy" are complimentary qualities for Chicago architecture. And how many buildings can truly be characterized as "ground-breaking"? Like, made a noticeable impact on all architecture to follow? Among everything ever built-- even among only the buildings we praise? Not many. Much more often than not, in any field, progress occurs incrementally, and the contribution of a single actor is minimal. I don't think that's a bad thing. Not that we shouldn't all, you know, shoot for the stars (or whatever hackneyed metaphor you want to use), but I think too often, and especially in architecture, saying that something is "ground-breaking" is really just another way of saying that it's novel, which is itself often just shorthand for "look at all those zany shapes!"

So that doesn't bother me much.

I'm with you on twins, though. I hate twin towers. The only exceptions I can think of are Mies' LSD apartments. But like others have said I doubt that one will get built anytime soon, and, when it does, I'm sure the design will have changed.

what, no love for goldberg's masterful marina city twins?

Oh man... this side-by-side is just embarrassing.

yeah, talk about a dodged bullet.

we were very fortunate that the great recession stopped P/H from having exclusive design control of the entire south wall.

:duh Of course I'd forget the even more obvious example...

Anyone with concerns about this tower's design looking "70s" or whatever needs to go take a look at 432 Park Avenue in New York City. It's really beautiful. Or go take a look at the buildings they've done down in Hyde Park at the University.

Vinoly does solid work.

http://www.rvapc.com/images-producti...29_tmp19BE.jpg
www.rvapc.com

That being said, I'm looking at this gigantic twin tower design and thinking, no way. No fucking way. I just don't see it ever happening. Not in Chicago. Not in the South Loop with all those NIMBY blowhards that will kill this thing... but here's to hoping! :cheers:

I'd bet they get the first one done and then the market conditions will change and phase 2 will get delayed for another 10 years and then taken on by some other group with a different design. Phase 2s have a way of not happening.

Not a bad design. The details will really make or break, but the impact will be amazing no matter what.


How dare someone build a big skyscraper in downtown Chicago. Think of all the traffic problems it will cause for it's neighbors :)


And it will block the lakefront view from the south on Michigan Avenue.

If the project fails it won't be due to NIMBYism