Quote:
Chase, Boeing, Nuveen, Salesforce (future) and probably a few others. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
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"?
|
Quote:
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. |
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Don't forget London House, Bonobo. I like that one. Fits perfectly.
|
Quote:
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. |
One other Chicago staple worth mentioning, Bonobo, is the Santa Fe sign (R.I.P.), which was replaced by Motorola.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
^^^ 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...
|
^ People will still drive, and this tower will still have on site parking.
But yes, encouraging transit use will always be the priority |
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?
|
Quote:
EDIT: Missed the whole conversation about this old comment, oops. |
|
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
Speaking of which, when should we expect shovels in the ground? |
I absolutely love the 3 tier design and was admittedly upset when 110 went to 2, but now i can appreciate both!
|
Definitely feels too bloated and bottom heavy..another 150 ft stretched out would do wonders for this building
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
That looks nice, is the logo on the other side or was it nixed?
|
Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/1hOMlVW.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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'm digging that fake supertall. Great job Goettsch ;)
|
Quote:
http://www.sherilynjashley.com/wp-co...-Tower-101.png |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
^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.
|
Quote:
|
I cant wait for this tower to commence, going to have such a presence from the south and west
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
^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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think once 601W starts developing some of the land they have been scooping up around the Old Post Office it should thicken the skyline from the SW. Cant wait until that starts happening, it looks very deserted now with all of the low rise warehouse type buildings.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.