In 6 years Chicago could have 11 supertalls. Damn Chicago is catching up to nyc.

no it's not.

and it's not a competition, but since so many people seem to be obsessed with this i'm going to post the numbers once, and then we will all MOVE ON.

using 300 meters for "supertall".


chicago:

comp. - 6
U/C - 1
prop. - 4 (assuming WPS gets over 300M)

total: 11



NYC:

comp. - 7
U/C - 11
prop. - 15

total: 33



it's not a race, and even if it were, it wouldn't be much of one.


now, back to 400 LSD.

Did Related mention potential start dates in the meeting?

I believe they noted Summer 2019 to start construction. As noted, it might prove tricky to try and take advantage of the 'hole'.

In regards to the NYC comparison, yes I was going to guess they had about a dozen UC; therefore, even with this 'surge' we will still be very 'behind'.... but WHO CARES. Supertalls in Chicago actually define the skyline much more. Check out the rendered edits posted, these will be spaced fairly well and be easily distinguishable.

Anyways, quite exciting about 400LSD (especially that they will be built at the same time, the riverwalk extended, and a new park opening!).

thanks. i knew you'd know what was there.

i was born in '76, and i while i (not so fondly) remember the diabolical LSD S-curve, i don't remember there ever being a building on the 400 LSD site, which would make sense if that box factory was demolished in the early '70s.

but didn't they use to pile up gravel (or some gravel-like material) on that strip of land between the river and ogden slip west of LSD? i have vague memories of that area looking kind of like a port area or something back in the early '80s.

I'm actually enjoying the rhythm of the setbacks on these. The visual trajectory of them nicely decelerates as the tower climbs skyward, and they don't come to a screeching halt at the top. I usually prefer the inverse setback pattern, where they decrease in frequency as the tower reaches skyward and with increasing distance between them (this trajectory is continued virtually in the mind even after the physical tower stops, giving it a dynamic of infinite upward movement). With this proposal, it's a terminal procession of energy but a complete one, and then the eye is drawn back to the bottom to cycle through it again. (The Jin Mao is an example of a tower that to me doesn't succeed with this scheme; it feels like the energy is stunted, and by the time you reach the pinnacle, it feels like the tower is decaying into itself.)

Though, I still prefer the effect created with the Tribune proposal's incomplete arch--the tension you feel as the arch at the top strains to climb and complete itself. It gives it an enduring energy of ambition and reach that results in a different kind of dynamism, like there's a string running through it from the ground up, pulling it skyward.

I think the city, or maybe Morton Salt, stored rock salt there. A covered salt dome is visible in this photo. But the 1973 and 1988 aerial photos show nothing at all on the site.

I'm gonna stop making poopoo comments on this one until it gets built. I feel like I might just not like how the renderings look(especially with the base) and that in person I may be converted, especially assuming they don't VE it, which I really don't think they will. VEing it would kind of defeat the point of the whole marketing campaign of being "Chicago"

You may already know but Vista's towers are not aligned and i know how you like to model everything as legit as possible!

Food for thought.......:runaway:

Will do! I have a list of updates I hope to get to and post on my thread this weekend. :tup:

looking forward to it

So I know everyone has been waiting in anticipation for my thoughts on this ;) But I will offer them for my own catharsis if nothing else.

The Good
-The proposal is very visually interesting and dynamic. It is a bit of a chameleon in a good way in that it will look quite different from different vantage points and perspectives. I particularly like the view of the taller tower from the south west.
-The façade details are top notch with the detailed terracotta and “Chicago” bay windows.
-The way the two towers relate to each other works very well. I normally don’t like twin towers and these are siblings rather than twins. I like how they seem to kind of twist away from each other and break the Chicago street grid to embrace the Lake and River as if they are each looking out onto the waters while slightly turned away from each other.
-I normally don’t like buildings on podiums but I think the podium works well here to unite the towers at the base and serve as screen to LSD. I understand why a podium would be desirable here to block out LSD and offer communal space for the residents that is above LSD overlooking the Lake. I like the mixture of stone and glass that helps ground the towers. There is a curvaceous yet almost brutalist look to the podium.
-I like the crowns. They are simple yet unique and should offer some interesting opportunities for illumination at night.

The Bad
-I agree with Kamin that the towers look a bit cluttered especially when viewed from the Lake and probably the west. I think the towers look very good from the SW and NE but the view from the Lake is a bit jumbled.
-This is related to the point above but the towers while having great façade details are rather busy. There is a lot going on here and I think it all reaches a point of diminishing returns and various features begin to conflict. There is the finely detailed terracotta, the bay windows, the balconies, the setbacks, and the twisted orientation. I think the buildings would benefit if some of these features were simplified. In particular I think the setbacks should be simplified. The current design has the setbacks staggered on north and south halves. I think the setbacks would look better if they are just continuous straight across instead of staggered. I understand that the reason they are staggered is probably to maximize the number of floors with terrace space but the result is too much visual clutter especially with all the other design features and dynamism of the towers.
-I am shocked that better use of the existing Spire foundation is not being used. This seems like a real waste of opportunity and available infrastructure. I had held out hope that something taller than the Sears in the 1500-2000 ft range would be built here because of the existing foundation to support such a structure and the importance of the site. Instead the current plan seems to barely make use of what already exists and almost starts from scratch. I think this is a real missed opportunity. Even if something above 1500 ft wasn’t realistic financially I think something around 1300 ft would be if the Spire’s foundation was used to its fullest extent. Why is the larger tower on the south end when the Spire’s foundation is on the north? At almost any other location in downtown these would be great but here they seem to be a bit of a missed opportunity.
-I think both towers would benefit from the addition of about 200 ft. As currently designed the towers look stubby from some views. Stretching them out but keeping the number of setbacks about the same would also reduce the visual clutter.

The unknowns
-How the podium relates to LSD is very important. LSD is one of the greatest urban drives in the world and deserves to be treated as such in maintaining high design standards to anything built along it. North Point tower and 500 LSD with its never materializing green wall are examples of what not to do. Hopefully the podium treats LSD with respect and not just as a normal highway to be screened out and treated as visual blight.
-How the towers touch the ground and relate to the podium is a question. Some of renderings seem to show the towers touching the ground and rising straight up into the sky without interruption by the podium. I hope this is indeed the case as I would hate to see these appear to be towers on top of a podium and instead are towers rising up directly from the ground that happen to have a podium between them.
-I haven’t really seen the current designs for Du Sable Park and the passages underneath LSD connecting the River Walk and Ogden Slip with Du Sable Park. These are very important issues.
-The walkway along Ogden Slip should be wide enough and offer a pleasant experience for users.

A repeating sentiment over the last few days is clearly wanting to see about 200 more feet added to each of them. This was my opinion as well. Who wouldn't want to be bigger by 20%? I mean really.

It appears that way


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7O_siGALDZ...14823522_o.jpg

Got to get me some of that newfangled Baby Ruth candy.


http://industrialscenery.blogspot.co...babe-ruth.html




Western view from Lake Point Tower relatively recently

https://tours65.vht.com/KSI/T4336521...?1526665647397

^^^ The big question is.... are you going to update your avatar? :runaway:

If I remember right the foundation cost about $40 million to construct. So failing to maximize that spend and instead having to spend several million more isn't optimal but it is necessary given...



... the choice to build two towers. That I think is the real reason the buildings have been oriented the way they are. Related is looking to maximize the value it gets for the hotel keys, condo units, and apartments. Hotel rooms, located on the river, can likely be sold for a higher premium than rooms located on Ogden Slip. Likewise condo units with river views will see higher prices than units looking into a neighboring apartment tower (which, if on the Slip, would be the case on the north and south). The marginal difference in terms of rent, for apartments on the Slip or apartments on the River, though is probably pretty small.

Not until after HQ2 than its Rahm all the way.

Good write-up 2PRUROCKS! and generally, agree with much of what you said.

Of course, I'll rebuttal on a few points for conversation's sake.

While I think it odd and perhaps an infrastructure waste not to seemingly use more of the the CS foundation I don't think the answer is in making the north tower taller. It is one of the few complaints I had with the Spire itself in that in that they chose to put it so far back from the river. Why would you forfeit partial river views for any of your residents unless there was a convincing reason to do so. Try to get up close to the river as tight as possible (within reason) if it were me. To me having the south tower be the decidedly taller of the two because it is the visual gateway tower makes all types of sense.

Height....Sure a bit more height of a few more hundred feet wouldn't have many here complaining. But as it sits it reigns at the near top floor heights of AON/JHC/Trump. Good company to be in. Maybe I am content given that we spent the last week fearing it would be <1k ft. and feel we somewhat dodged a bullet.
And right now I would put the aesthetic preference of increasing the height of the McGellan LSD/Wacker proposal to approximately equal the 1,100ft of 400 N.LSD as the greater priority rather than insisting that 400 LSD increase its height even more. Of course, I don't expect an increase in either case happening but if were are talking ideally what we would like to see.....

i love this image.

i know it's a long shot, but if all of that stuff gets built, it would represent a massive re-centering of the skyline around the river mouth.

within a 1/2 mile of the river mouth you'd have 5 bonafide supertalls and 5 additional buildings at least 800' tall. that's a pretty serious critical mass of height.

and you'd still have the outrigger groups of sears & friends down south and hancock & friends up north, but the visual peak of the skyline would be that massive clump of height right in the middle around the river mouth, right where it all started 250 years ago.

^6 supertalls including 2 Prudential;)