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)

sentinel Sep 2, 2018 2:41 AM

Glad they removed Union Station's hat, but good Lord, that tower is some basic-ass shit. Black Jesus, help these architects find a modicum of non-derivative creativity to make a unique tower. Blarghh.
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0MYNP...IV4Q/giphy.gif

MorganChi Sep 2, 2018 2:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 8301310)
Glad they removed Union Station's hat, but good Lord, that tower is some basic-ass shit. Black Jesus, help these architects find a modicum of non-derivative creativity to make a unique tower. Blarghh.
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0MYNP...IV4Q/giphy.gif

I agree bro it’s to damn basic , and I hope they redesign it

RedCorsair87 Sep 2, 2018 3:51 AM

It looks like BKL tried to design 110 Wacker. I'm sure they will refine the design. Hopefully something striking like the Viceroy Hotel.

WPS is not the only building SF is considering.

alegalvvan94 Sep 2, 2018 4:09 AM

LOL 110 Wacker replica how uninspiring. Give us the SOM proposal instead please!

LouisVanDerWright Sep 2, 2018 5:01 AM

Or it's Google dropping the rumored 5k jobs they have been shopping. I doubt it's Salesforce, Rahm is wayyyyyy more adept at sales than to sell the same product twice.

camdoodlebop Sep 2, 2018 6:03 AM

looks like a VE 110 wacker

k1052 Sep 2, 2018 1:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 8301377)
Or it's Google dropping the rumored 5k jobs they have been shopping. I doubt it's Salesforce, Rahm is wayyyyyy more adept at sales than to sell the same product twice.

Would kind of be an odd choice for Google since they've so far elected to add to their space in Fulton Market and SB (and a couple others) have no shortage of office space in the hopper they can build for them.

Could be Salesforce kicking tires on a few other buildings. Maybe it's something we haven't heard about yet like a big suburban relo who would like a building literally next to the train station.

chicubs111 Sep 2, 2018 1:34 PM

^ im surprised this story wasn't a bigger headline in other papers...if its a new corporate headquarter or just a large migration of new jobs in the thousands should be a pretty significant

MorganChi Sep 2, 2018 1:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 8301464)
Would kind of be an odd choice for Google since they've so far elected to add to their space in Fulton Market and SB (and a couple others) have no shortage of office space in the hopper they can build for them.

Could be Salesforce kicking tires on a few other buildings. Maybe it's something we haven't heard about yet like a big suburban relo who would like a building literally next to the train station.

Amazon jk lol

the urban politician Sep 2, 2018 2:32 PM

It’s Amazon!!!

Ok, probably not. I agree, I doubt SF would make that change so quickly.

But here’s a question: how accurate have Sneed’s rumors been? Because if they’ve already landed an anchor for this office tower, then the tower and the Union Station rehab is a go....and naturally it would once again be dancing bananas time...

left of center Sep 2, 2018 3:52 PM

Glad Union Station is being left alone. I wouldn't be opposed to an addition on the station itself, but it would need to be something that's done well. Not the crap we've been seeing so far.

As for the tower... wow is it uninspiring. Hopefully there are refinements to the design coming. And when I say refinements, I mean a damn near total redesign please, lol.

I'm surprised they aren't shooting for a taller tower. Its located immediately adjacent to the busiest commuter rail station outside of New York City, and a few blocks from a half dozen transit lines as well.

Looks like they won't be building over the Union Station Transit Center either, as was the plan in earlier designs.

chicubs111 Sep 2, 2018 4:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8301507)
It’s Amazon!!!

Ok, probably not. I agree, I doubt SF would make that change so quickly.

But here’s a question: how accurate have Sneed’s rumors been? Because if they’ve already landed an anchor for this office tower, then the tower and the Union Station rehab is a go....and naturally it would once again be dancing bananas time...

exactly my thoughts on the rumor by sneed...guess just wait and see how this all plays out just seems like for such a short snippet of a particular large story since it involves thousands of jobs and nobody else has picked it up yet?..:shrug:

RedCorsair87 Sep 2, 2018 6:55 PM

Which major banks don't have an office in Chicago at this time? Might be a good place to research.

Clarkkent2420 Sep 2, 2018 11:26 PM

Y’all tripping
 
#

BonoboZill4 Sep 3, 2018 6:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 (Post 8301814)
That’s obv not a real rendering - someone must’ve leaked half finished work ahead of that public meeting. Based on Sneed’s article it smells like mayor’s office. Looks more like one north wacker than anything mentioned so far. Park looks nice though.

I hope it's not the real rendering, but I wouldn't put it past them to do this after what they pulled before with the original proposal. I could live with this though, especially in comparison to the original design

Clarkkent2420 Sep 3, 2018 2:48 PM

#

BonoboZill4 Sep 3, 2018 4:12 PM

I'll admit, that is a really good looking building, and that is exactly what the leaked photo looks like. I guess i'm just gonna go back to biting my tongue until we see the official images haha

marothisu Sep 3, 2018 4:58 PM

Several thousand jobs new to the city...I like the sound of that. Obviously I hope it's Amazon or Google, but several thousand new jobs if it's a good company that pays well is awesome regardless.

rlw777 Sep 3, 2018 5:03 PM

I hope that tower in the rendering is a placeholder. I mean know that Architects have to reuse some things but damn let's get some new ideas Goettsch.

Clarkkent2420 Sep 3, 2018 6:02 PM

#

rlw777 Sep 3, 2018 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 (Post 8302256)
This is a recycled debate - in this city, the architect doesn’t pick the building, the developer does. In chicago, where the cost vs rent differential isn’t large enough to allow for hyper aggressive design, the result is a lot of really efficient rectilinear towers.

I wasn't suggesting that the design should be "hyper aggressive" design or that it shouldn't be rectilinear. I was simply suggesting that Goettsch try out some new material instead of doing their Nth variation on the One North Wacker design.

Clarkkent2420 Sep 3, 2018 9:34 PM

#

spyguy Sep 3, 2018 11:29 PM

The new building looks alright, certainly nothing grand. Goettsch does good work, but I wish more of our newer office towers were designed by someone else (maybe just not Ronan). The big/better news is that it looks like the rooftop addition to Union Station is gone, and that alone is worth celebrating. The possibility of an anchor tenant also being finalized is pretty exciting. Overall, it looks like this new plan is headed in the right direction.

ardecila Sep 4, 2018 3:57 AM

Ugh this whole scheme sucks. Even if the tower is a placeholder. More plaza space is not needed in this location when there is literally a continuous chain of plazas along the river. I would much prefer a significant retail podium at the base, maybe akin to WFC/Brookfield Place in NY, or closer to home, what Blackstone is planning for the base of Sears/Willis Tower. This would have the added bonus of swallowing up the bus station, which is elegant in isolation but really a very suburban design that doesn't belong right on top of the region's biggest transit hub.

Also, I still think Union Station needs a vertical expansion. The proportions of the building, as designed by Daniel Burnham, are clunky AF because they were always intended to be Phase I of a larger development. We shouldn't let the grand plan remain unfinished because we got used to the incomplete look. In their haste to avoid the atrocious design pitched by Goettsch, the city overreacted and basically told O'Donnell to shit-can any plans to expand the station headhouse, which IMO is a big mistake, the proper architect could design a very handsomely detailed precast or even limestone addition. Adrian Smith already figured out a creative way to panelize real limestone into precast units at low cost for NBC Tower.

pilsenarch Sep 4, 2018 11:57 AM

^Agree with ardecila on all of the above except the design precedent for the tower addition should be more Hearst and less NBC...

r18tdi Sep 4, 2018 1:29 PM

Yes, Union Station was designed as pedestal and should have something placed on top.
But that SCB design is so incredibly hideous I'm cool keeping it topless for now...

Mr Downtown Sep 4, 2018 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8302670)
The proportions of the building, as designed by Daniel Burnham, are clunky AF

Now, let's not get carried away. Daniel Burnham had been dead nearly a decade when the railroads stopped construction and went back in with new caissons so they could add some office floors on top. The designer of the Union Station we know was Peirce Anderson, using a parti developed by Thomas Rodd of the Pennsylvania RR. After Anderson's 1924 death, Alfred Shaw took over.

Nor should Burnham's signature mean much to us regarding architecture. He was a great rainmaker, was very good at persuading clients to create quasipublic spaces, and was a gifted planner (of floor layouts, of sites, of cities). But Burnham always kept much more talented people (Charles Atwood, Peter Weber, Anderson, Ernest Graham, Edward Bennett) around to handle actual building design.

Here's the last design Burnham would have been aware of:

https://i.imgur.com/FnhkxlU.jpg

For those interested, I highly recommend the new book Chicago Union Station, by Fred Ash.

SamInTheLoop Sep 4, 2018 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 8302502)
The new building looks alright, certainly nothing grand. Goettsch does good work, but I wish more of our newer office towers were designed by someone else (maybe just not Ronan). The big/better news is that it looks like the rooftop addition to Union Station is gone, and that alone is worth celebrating. The possibility of an anchor tenant also being finalized is pretty exciting. Overall, it looks like this new plan is headed in the right direction.

Definitely. Goettsch is solid, but let’s mix it up with new/different design talent for Loop office towers. The reason they’ve been so busy on this front really comes down to Riverside Development’s (O’Donnell’s) impressive string of success landing anchor tenants....

SamInTheLoop Sep 4, 2018 7:56 PM

Anchor
 
Much more likely to be an existing large traditional industry tenant relocation....

My best guess is BMO Harris....just a guess though.....could be either of a couple others....

ardecila Sep 5, 2018 4:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8302950)
Now, let's not get carried away. Daniel Burnham had been dead nearly a decade when the railroads stopped construction and went back in with new caissons so they could add some office floors on top. The designer of the Union Station we know was Peirce Anderson, using a parti developed by Thomas Rodd of the Pennsylvania RR. After Anderson's 1924 death, Alfred Shaw took over.

Yes, I vaguely remember you mentioning this before. But this just reinforces my point that the unfinished state of Union Station is not some genius architectural masterwork by a civic icon. Fans of good architecture should be advocating for something to be built on top of the headhouse, ideally something in line with the boxy proportions of the original tower scheme. It would echo many historic Loop buildings in a familiar way (Conway Building, Insurance Exchange, Builders Building, etc). Even Lucien Lagrange was prepared to give us a stripped-down version of this design back in the 1980s before that proposal fell through.

Quote:

Nor should Burnham's signature mean much to us regarding architecture. He was a great rainmaker, was very good at persuading clients to create quasipublic spaces, and was a gifted planner (of floor layouts, of sites, of cities). But Burnham always kept much more talented people (Charles Atwood, Peter Weber, Anderson, Ernest Graham, Edward Bennett) around to handle actual building design.
This subtle distinction won't mean much to the lay observer of architecture. Most people know Burnham (along with Sullivan) as the genius architect from Devil in the White City.

Clarkkent2420 Sep 6, 2018 1:18 AM

#

lakeshoredrive Sep 6, 2018 2:47 AM

I wish they could've gone with SOM's design. That was a really cool looking building.

SamInTheLoop Sep 6, 2018 1:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 (Post 8304860)
Isn’t that directly related to the predictable building efficiency/technology/amenities? Supply and demand...by citing O’Donnell’s ability to “meet the market” you are concurrently (if not intentionally) praising the design.

See: “Goettsch is solid”

Have they truly cornered the market on designing an attractive mix of efficiency, tech & amenities? No, of course not. Salesmanship is definitely a driver.

Clarkkent2420 Sep 6, 2018 2:10 PM

#

Notyrview Sep 6, 2018 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive (Post 8304955)
I wish they could've gone with SOM's design. That was a really cool looking building.

Yeah i'm disappointed, but i do love the riverwalk design. Sloping tiers work so well along the river.

LouisVanDerWright Sep 6, 2018 5:25 PM

Guys this design is like a half assed mockup done in sketchup, it will change significantly...

SamInTheLoop Sep 10, 2018 3:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 (Post 8305296)
Only if you presume large multinational corporate real estate users make decisions based on sizzle rather than steak.

Not mutually exclusive. In cre, it’s still a not insignificant amount of sizzle that plays a part in decision-making....incrementally shifting to more steak over time, thankfully, however in this industry relationships and schmoozing and slick salesmanship still play an outsized role, relative to the superior merits of data-driven decisions and strategy.

Exhibit A would be the continuing wild overcompensation of commercial brokers.

Clarkkent2420 Sep 10, 2018 6:41 PM

#

the urban politician Sep 10, 2018 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 8303388)
My best guess is BMO Harris....just a guess though.....could be either of a couple others....

^ You guessed it.

BMO Harris is in talks to anchor the new office tower. Just in from the Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...910-story.html


Quote:

BMO Harris Bank is in advanced negotiations to anchor a new office tower in Union Station’s $1 billion-plus redevelopment, a project that’s been revamped after the original plan met with widespread criticism.

The exact size of the lease for the bank’s new U.S. headquarters could not be determined, but it’s believed to be about 500,000 square feet in a new office tower that’s proposed just south of the railway station, sources said. That amount of space could accommodate thousands of workers.

If finalized, BMO Harris’ lease would be large enough to kick off construction of yet another a major new office building downtown. The building, which would require zoning approval from the City Council, is part of a multiphase redevelopment proposed by Chicago developers Riverside Investment & Development and Convexity Properties.

Under the new plan, set to be unveiled at a public meeting Tuesday night, the 715-foot-tall proposed office tower would have 1.5 million square feet of space atop 400 below-ground parking spaces, according to the city’s Department of Planning and Development.

Steely Dan Sep 10, 2018 10:26 PM

^ here's the image from the trib article:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b96e595/t...ge/750/750x422
source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...910-story.html

spyguy Sep 10, 2018 10:30 PM

From the Trib story above.
https://s8.postimg.cc/rhkqlrv0l/image.jpg
https://s8.postimg.cc/ffpcrme2d/image.jpg
https://s8.postimg.cc/fsgqxsomd/image.jpg

Safe design. Wonder how much of an expansion this is vs. consolidation for BMO (if it is them). Could leave some pretty big openings in the Loop.

Randomguy34 Sep 10, 2018 10:31 PM

They just copy-pasted the original design for 110 N Wacker.

Notyrview Sep 10, 2018 10:49 PM

I guess the one thing it has going for it is that it’s far enough from the wacker towers to look different in its surroundings

the urban politician Sep 10, 2018 10:49 PM

Yeah, this thing is just office filler. But at least it replaces a fugly garage and will be part of a development that rehabs Union Station, at long last!

BonoboZill4 Sep 10, 2018 11:22 PM

Not the most original design, but it's not ugly, and it will really impact the skyline from almost all angles. Good thing it is BMO and not a Salesforce competition tower. All of a sudden, lots of big office towers coming from this boom. Now if only 130N franklin could get built...

Chisouthside Sep 10, 2018 11:32 PM

I was thinking about 1330 n Franklin and that it would be ok if the current plan falls through and gets reworked into something taller in the next cycle, after all there aren't alot of lots like that left in the CBD.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8309744)
Not the most original design, but it's not ugly, and it will really impact the skyline from almost all angles. Good thing it is BMO and not a Salesforce competition tower. All of a sudden, lots of big office towers coming from this boom. Now if only 130N franklin could get built...


Clarkkent2420 Sep 10, 2018 11:45 PM

#

Chisouthside Sep 11, 2018 12:06 AM

in terms of having empty lot or parking lot where you dont need to tear down any existing buildings.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 (Post 8309774)
What do you mean? The 130 N Franklin site location is terrible by comparison to recent developments.


The Pimp Sep 11, 2018 12:17 AM

I like the park. Otherwise, this is boring.

lakeshoredrive Sep 11, 2018 12:38 AM

So disappointed. I hope the design will be refined some more.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:34 PM.

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