SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | BMO Tower | 727 FT | 50 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224752)

ESysyn Dec 19, 2018 1:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8404540)


and according to the rendering posted with the tribune article, it looks like we'll be getting another giant corporate logo in the sky. hooray...... :uhh:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5c0ecd79/t...ge/750/750x422
source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...210-story.html


Wait a minute, I thought that there was regulations against corporate logos on chicago buildings????

Zapatan Dec 19, 2018 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ESysyn (Post 8413408)
Wait a minute, I thought that there was regulations against corporate logos on chicago buildings????

I'm not sure but several have them...

Chase, Boeing, Nuveen, Salesforce (future) and probably a few others.

PittsburghPA Dec 19, 2018 3:03 AM

They passed an ordinance after the Trump Tower Sign. The signage can get larger in square footage the higher they are placed on the building and the sign holder has to employ X amount of people in the building.

Also they amended this ordinance for Salesforce so they could have a larger sign on the new tower.

roshea999 Dec 19, 2018 8:44 PM

Really hate the thought of more signage on buildings downtown.

It's on virtually every building here in Denver and it's a total eyesore.

gebs Dec 19, 2018 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roshea999 (Post 8414298)
Really hate the thought of more signage on buildings downtown.

It's on virtually every building here in Denver and it's a total eyesore.

Dallas has "eyebrow signage" where tenants will put their logo HALFWAY up the building. It looks so, so awful, and I hope Chicago never does it.

LouisVanDerWright Dec 19, 2018 9:44 PM

I can't think of a single sign on a building in Chicago that irks me except for the Trump building. Does the Trump stamp count as "eyebrow signage"?

Steely Dan Dec 19, 2018 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 8414373)
I can't think of a single sign on a building in Chicago that irks me except for the Trump building.

there's nothing in chicago as bad as milwaukee's US Bank center's billboards that block fazlur's expressed belt trusses at the top of the building, but there are still some awkward sign retrofits atop chicago skyscrapers that are somewhat clumsy in my opinion, such as the chase sign on top of chase tower and the kemper sign on top of the kemper building.

when architects specifically leave a blank area at the top of a tower for a corporate name/logo, as with the prudential building or the boeing building, the result doesn't seem quite so clumsy.

woodrow Dec 19, 2018 10:17 PM

Trump Tower sign irritates me because of where it's located on the building, and because the font is just so tacky. I was also super pissed when Chase put a sign on the First National Bank of Chicago building. It just wrong for the design of that building, which should just be unadorned. The Loew's sign doesn't bother me because I think the font is nice and the way it sits on the building. Hate the Nuveen sign on 333 W. Wacker.

I could go on and on. Though I generally dislike signs on buildings because it seems so 2nd or 3rd tier city, if the design and placement are well thought out and act as an adornment to the building, I give them a pass.

Oh, and I like big effing neon giants from the early 20th century - https://www.flickr.com/photos/rock_c...ku/43501085501

gebs Dec 20, 2018 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 8414409)
Oh, and I like big effing neon giants from the early 20th century - https://www.flickr.com/photos/rock_c...ku/43501085501

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20131204084423

BonoboZill4 Dec 20, 2018 1:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 8414409)
Trump Tower sign irritates me because of where it's located on the building, and because the font is just so tacky. I was also super pissed when Chase put a sign on the First National Bank of Chicago building. It just wrong for the design of that building, which should just be unadorned. The Loew's sign doesn't bother me because I think the font is nice and the way it sits on the building. Hate the Nuveen sign on 333 W. Wacker.

I could go on and on. Though I generally dislike signs on buildings because it seems so 2nd or 3rd tier city, if the design and placement are well thought out and act as an adornment to the building, I give them a pass.

Oh, and I like big effing neon giants from the early 20th century - https://www.flickr.com/photos/rock_c...ku/43501085501

I guess NYC is a second/third tier city :koko:

VKChaz Dec 20, 2018 2:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8414605)
I guess NYC is a second/third tier city :koko:

I could be mistaken but don't believe NYC allows corp signs atop buildings any longer - since maybe the 60s. MetLife would be a grandfathered example.

BonoboZill4 Dec 20, 2018 4:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKChaz (Post 8414638)
I could be mistaken but don't believe NYC allows corp signs atop buildings any longer - since maybe the 60s. MetLife would be a grandfathered example.

Not sure how that would be possible with Times Square existing today, and there are definitely signs on semi-recently built building like the Citigroup tower in LIC/Queens, and MetLife putting up signage in the 90s I believe, so it would have to be a newish rule.

I guess my biggest beef is with the idea of banning signs based on feelings or corporate hatred. I think the best approach is instead to regulate it by having the signs be done tastefully. You even mentioned your love for neon lights, and I 100% agree that they are beautiful. LED is obviously the future, and alone with being able to do wonderful jobs at lighting up buildings in ways we never could have before, they can also enable us to encourage these corporations to put some effort into their designs.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ilt-today.html

Other rules changed too, doesn't mean they aren't a part of what made New York(and likewise Chicago) great, and the rule changes definitely aren't always for the best. Sure, a lot of people despise the Trump tower sign, but most signs are inoffensive or pleasant to look at in my book. The PanAm building(or MetLife now as you pointed out) would never have been as iconic as it was without PanAm on its top. Signage when done right can be iconic at best, and usually inoffensive.

There are few instances that I can think of in which it was horrifyingly ugly, or made a building worse. I honestly think people hate the Trump sign not for its look but for who it stands for, and if we remove the politics from it, it really isn't bad looking, especially at night.

Off the top of my head, I can think of several well done signs in Chicago:

The Drake

Prudential 1

CNA on both buildings were/are inoffensive and worked with the towers they were/are built on

Chase Building, which is my favorite building in the city is a solid example of a sign being inoffensive(not great, but still, not a detraction), although it appears others disagree here?

BCBS Building's badges are just damn wonderful

UBS looks sleek

NBC Tower's is gorgeous, and compliments the art deco look perfectly

Citigroup center's is pretty meh(and that's my feeling on the BMO tower's)

You mentioned Loews, and I like that one

Boeing's is okay

And that's about all I can think of... but I think my point is made.

People need to chillax about signage in this great city

PittsburghPA Dec 20, 2018 4:40 AM

Don't forget London House, Bonobo. I like that one. Fits perfectly.

VKChaz Dec 20, 2018 5:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8414701)
Not sure how that would be possible with Times Square existing today, and there are definitely signs on semi-recently built building like the Citigroup tower in LIC/Queens, and MetLife putting up signage in the 90s I believe, so it would have to be a newish rule.

This article references a 1963 zoning change to prevent signs on tops of buildings. That doesn't mean exceptions haven't been made, not certain about that.
https://www.crainsnewyork.com/articl...ing10-20170607

Was not referring to billboards and street level signage with their own zoning requirements. And then Times Square is its own animal with rules that require signage.
Am not suggesting anyone should like or dislike what any city does. Simply stating there are differences.

Skyguy_7 Dec 20, 2018 1:13 PM

One other Chicago staple worth mentioning, Bonobo, is the Santa Fe sign (R.I.P.), which was replaced by Motorola.

BonoboZill4 Dec 20, 2018 2:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 8414884)
One other Chicago staple worth mentioning, Bonobo, is the Santa Fe sign (R.I.P.), which was replaced by Motorola.

Very good points Sky and Pitts, and I am willing to admit from my point of the argument that the Motorola sign is pretty freaking bad

Chicago E Dec 31, 2018 5:49 PM

The location for this building illustrates how the West Loop has evolved as a very strong office market. Back in the day, the West Loop was known for lower level brick loft buildings that housed manufacturing companies (esp. electrical and food processing). As things changed, I became involved in the financing of the current multi level parking garage that will be demolished for BMO Harris building to be completed. In the late 1980's this garage was built in response to what was considered an influx of "loft office developments" and the original owners felt there would be strong demand. Actually there was not the degree of demand at that time and the property was foreclosed due to substandard demand and revenues. I believe Amtrak owns the property now and the not so attractive parking garage will be demolished shortly.

The proposed building is attractive but to me there seems to be an abundance of these blue glassed 50-60 story building being built lately. Wish this had some real "wow" factor as you see this building coming east on the the Eisenhower. Nevertheless it will be a nice addition.

One last question.....where will all the commuter parkers now park in the area? So many lots are being built on and this parking garage has a large parking capacity. Like to hear others thoughts on the West Loop parking situation. Thanks.

LouisVanDerWright Dec 31, 2018 10:23 PM

^^^ They won't park, they will take one of the trains literally right next to this site as has been the case with all the other parking less (or close to it) 50-60 floor glass boxes you reference. Turns out the automobile isn't the end all be all it was thought to be back when this garage was built...

the urban politician Jan 2, 2019 4:04 AM

^ People will still drive, and this tower will still have on site parking.

But yes, encouraging transit use will always be the priority

Hourstrooper Apr 12, 2019 12:14 AM

Any contractors have any news on a start date/any new news on this one its been about 4 months since we last heard an announcement???? Ik its getting built but what details might somebody have?

Handro Apr 12, 2019 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 8414409)

I could go on and on. Though I generally dislike signs on buildings because it seems so 2nd or 3rd tier city, if the design and placement are well thought out and act as an adornment to the building, I give them a pass.

New York is as first tier as it gets and they have some building signs, so I'm not sure that holds true. CNN, MetLife, H&M come to mind.

EDIT: Missed the whole conversation about this old comment, oops.

spyguy Apr 20, 2019 5:00 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/15pdKrhL/Image-02.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/7ZwWtJqb/Image-03.jpg

Hourstrooper Apr 20, 2019 5:08 PM

Nice Find, This thing looks very Refined! Cant wait for it to start in a few months!

PittsburghPA Apr 20, 2019 5:12 PM

I know it has been said before..I'm a fan of the design, and of Goettsch Partners/his work but this feels very recycled from 110 N Wacker. Couldn't we get a little variation, Jim?

BonoboZill4 Apr 20, 2019 5:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA (Post 8547056)
I know it has been said before..I'm a fan of the design, and of Goettsch Partners/his work but this feels very recycled from 110 N Wacker. Couldn't we get a little variation, Jim?

It's a girthier and multi-colored glass version of that tower basically, but it's much more visible in the skyline so I kind of like it even so. I think it'll be much more visually interesting in person than the renderings show, but we'll see.

Speaking of which, when should we expect shovels in the ground?

donnie Apr 20, 2019 5:44 PM

I absolutely love the 3 tier design and was admittedly upset when 110 went to 2, but now i can appreciate both!

chicubs111 Apr 20, 2019 5:49 PM

Definitely feels too bloated and bottom heavy..another 150 ft stretched out would do wonders for this building

Hourstrooper Apr 20, 2019 6:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8547065)
It's a girthier and multi-colored glass version of that tower basically, but it's much more visible in the skyline so I kind of like it even so. I think it'll be much more visually interesting in person than the renderings show, but we'll see.

Speaking of which, when should we expect shovels in the ground?

Bombardier Probably will know!

The Lurker Apr 20, 2019 6:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8547065)
Speaking of which, when should we expect shovels in the ground?

Not before that horrible parking structure is removed. Can't find any info as to when it closes or when demolition starts.

Zapatan Apr 21, 2019 1:32 AM

That looks nice, is the logo on the other side or was it nixed?

HomrQT Apr 21, 2019 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8547074)
Definitely feels too bloated and bottom heavy..another 150 ft stretched out would do wonders for this building

Though I don't think it's bad, I think it would look better taller. This is how I wished this tower looked.

https://i.imgur.com/1hOMlVW.jpg

Hourstrooper Apr 21, 2019 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 8547691)
Though I don't think it's bad, I think it would look better taller. This is how I wished this tower looked.

https://i.imgur.com/1hOMlVW.jpg

Wow! if only the construction costs weren't so high for a 1000 foot office tower

Hourstrooper Apr 21, 2019 7:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8547315)
That looks nice, is the logo on the other side or was it nixed?

Its more than likely on the other side facing the expressway

pianowizard Apr 21, 2019 11:38 PM

IMO anything under ~1,100 ft is going to look short in this neighborhood due to the proximity of Sears/Willis, so it's not a bad idea for the developer to just stick with 715 ft and save some money. Look at the 1,007 ft Franklin Center and the 961 ft 311 South Wacker, which are Chicago's 6th and 8th tallest skyscrapers. Being right next to Sears/Willis, both look pitifully short.

RedCorsair87 Apr 22, 2019 12:20 AM

I'm digging that fake supertall. Great job Goettsch ;)

HomrQT Apr 22, 2019 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard (Post 8547843)
IMO anything under ~1,100 ft is going to look short in this neighborhood due to the proximity of Sears/Willis, so it's not a bad idea for the developer to just stick with 715 ft and save some money. Look at the 1,007 ft Franklin Center and the 961 ft 311 South Wacker, which are Chicago's 6th and 8th tallest skyscrapers. Being right next to Sears/Willis, both look pitifully short.

I have to respectfully disagree with that. Those two buildings provide good visual support to the much taller Sears in my opinion.

http://www.sherilynjashley.com/wp-co...-Tower-101.png

HomrQT Apr 22, 2019 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedCorsair87 (Post 8547865)
I'm digging that fake supertall. Great job Goettsch ;)

I never got into the architecture industry so I make up for it with half-assed photoshops. :cheers:

pianowizard Apr 22, 2019 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 8547870)
I have to respectfully disagree with that. Those two buildings provide good visual support to the much taller Sears in my opinion.

Of course, they make Sears/Willis look great, but they themselves pale in comparison. I assume that most developers would want their own buildings to look good, not someone else's.

HomrQT Apr 22, 2019 1:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard (Post 8547892)
Of course, they make Sears/Willis look great, but they themselves pale in comparison. I assume that most developers would want their own buildings to look good, not someone else's.

I think if they had better designs they would stand out. To be honest they just aren't good looking towers. The Chrysler Building is a similar height. Put it in place of 311 S Wacker and I'm confident it would stand out.

Zerton Apr 22, 2019 9:23 PM

The lobby looks absolutely beautiful and refined. The top... looks a bit boring.

Imo this is becoming a trend here. Really fascinating lobbies but meh towers above.

galleyfox Apr 22, 2019 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton (Post 8548674)
The lobby looks absolutely beautiful and refined. The top... looks a bit boring.

Imo this is becoming a trend here. Really fascinating lobbies but meh towers above.

I feel like the city has returned halfway to its Chicago School of Architecture fundamentals. Elaborate bases. Check. Vertical blocks. Check. If architects could only add some more flair to the crowns, we'll have come full circle.

On the one hand, I'm glad of the trend. Great architecture should be about more than just building tall spires and giant Matisse sculptures. The world has forgotten that to some degree, I think.

But on the other hand, local Chicago architecture hasn't pushed the boundaries in the opposite direction. There are fantastic lobbies coming online. Now, they need to focus on improving the design and even function of the topmost levels.

Skyguy_7 Apr 23, 2019 12:00 PM

^To your point, on this particular tower, the W action on the lower levels would look great if continued at the top few floors, as a crown.

Zerton Apr 23, 2019 6:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 8549219)
^To your point, on this particular tower, the W action on the lower levels would look great if continued at the top few floors, as a crown.

Totally agree.

Hourstrooper Apr 24, 2019 11:14 PM

I cant wait for this tower to commence, going to have such a presence from the south and west

the urban politician Apr 25, 2019 2:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper (Post 8551331)
I cant wait for this tower to commence, going to have such a presence from the south and west

I agree. Sears/Willis looks so lonely in the skyline from the SW vantage point. It needs some "friends" to surround it to keep it company

Steely Dan Apr 25, 2019 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8551987)
I agree. Sears/Willis looks so lonely in the skyline from the SW vantage point. It needs some "friends" to surround it to keep it company

this building will help a bit with that, but sears will still be more than twice as tall, so its "sore thumb" quality from the SW perspective will still be quite prominent.

i mean, 311 S wacker is roughly 250' taller than the proposed height of BMO, and sears still utterly dwarfs and dominates 311.

https://today.uic.edu/files/2016/10/MG_7273.jpg
source: https://today.uic.edu/lecture-series...ampus/_mg_7273

pianowizard Apr 25, 2019 3:13 PM

^In addition to the bulkiness of the building itself, the antennae are also pretty big (fatter than the spires of, for example, Trump International and Two Prudential), so Sears/Willis looks more like ~1700 ft than 1451 ft. Its "lonely" and "sore thumb" qualities seen from the southwest will continue for a very long time.

Bombardier May 10, 2019 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper (Post 8547086)
Bombardier Probably will know!

Sorry for the delayed response, topic just came up in conversation this week! The contractor has been selected (Clark Construction) and key trade packages have been awarded. We will see construction commence on this in Q4 of this year.

the urban politician May 10, 2019 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bombardier (Post 8568853)
Sorry for the delayed response, topic just came up in conversation this week! The contractor has been selected (Clark Construction) and key trade packages have been awarded. We will see construction commence on this in Q4 of this year.

Nice, thanks for updating.

r18tdi May 10, 2019 2:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bombardier (Post 8568853)
The contractor has been selected (Clark Construction)...

Riverside picking Clark for a Goettsch-designed building? This is shocking news! ;)


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.