SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 875 FT & 765 FT | ? & ? FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219306)

Zapatan Oct 23, 2015 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 7209528)
because it was too expensive.

Related will build something with a more tenable budget.

now, enough of the spire talk.

True, but with the right market a location/view like the spire site could render a building of huge scale profitable, perhaps not 600+ meters but maybe something in the 400 meter range, a structural element added to pass the Sears would let them be able to boast about having the tallest building in the city too. That would be a nice selling point.

But then again if BIG designs some pile of crap it's probably better it be shorter to not ruin beautiful Chicago. We shall see...

bcp Oct 23, 2015 8:17 PM

Assuming that they will use the pit for their foundation....and design from there.

Seems nuts to undo that work onsite.

Steely Dan Oct 23, 2015 8:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 7209622)
Assuming that they will use the pit for their foundation....and design from there.

i think that's a safe assumption. Related wants to make money on this project, and they already have a fair amount of cash & debt involved with the land acquisition. i will eat my own hat if they don't reuse the costly foundation that is already in place.

some parts may need to be reworked, strengthened, adjusted, etc., but i can't see them starting over on the foundation from scratch. that would be very silly.

toddguy Oct 23, 2015 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 7209411)
in a sense that's EXACTLY why it failed. no one was willing to loan kelleher the 2 billion dollars because every single lender who could have afforded to shell out that kind of dinero saw it as a bad investment.




but seriously. the old chicago spire project is dead.

dead.

DEAD.

DEAD.

DEAD.

DEAD.

DEAD.

DEAD.

DEAD.



it's not coming back. and this thread is not about the old chicago spire project anyway.

it's about what comes next. (and it won't be the spire because it's still very dead, in case you haven't heard)

if you want to continue discussing the very, very dead chicago spire project, you can do so here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153494

:haha: This made me really lol.

I do hope whatever is built has a spire part to it(as long as it is not just a damn stick)that would make it the tallest in Chicago. As long as the ROI is there, why not go for bragging rights as well?

munchymunch Oct 23, 2015 8:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 7209622)
Assuming that they will use the pit for their foundation....and design from there.

Seems nuts to undo that work onsite.

In the original conceptual Related got P+W, they showed 2 towers...

go go white sox Oct 23, 2015 8:59 PM

Does anyone know the story behind the vacant piece of land directly across the street? Would be so cool to see mirror towers there. Just wondering thanks

VKChaz Oct 23, 2015 9:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7209576)
....This is a really great way to design civic and institutional projects - the buildings aren't intended to make money
....
Unfortunately, this doesn't work so well for the private sector. Related no doubt has an exact dollar figure on this project, and they will push BIG so that they come in at that amount and not a cent higher. ....

If I were King of Chicago, I would much rather have BIG design something for the Thompson Center site. They would knock it out of the park there.

Why would that or any other site be different from the Spire site? BIG would still be constrained by a budget.....

munchymunch Oct 23, 2015 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go go white sox (Post 7209690)
Does anyone know the story behind the vacant piece of land directly across the street? Would be so cool to see mirror towers there. Just wondering thanks

Can't build towers east of LSD, that space will be park most likely part of the development.

emathias Oct 23, 2015 9:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKChaz (Post 7209703)
Why would that or any other site be different from the Spire site? BIG would still be constrained by a budget.....

He past talked about how BIG designs things to integrate community functions, so I think he assumes that they would do a better-than-average job enabling cross functions between the existing link to the pedway system, City Hall, the subway and the 'L'.

VKChaz Oct 23, 2015 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7209730)
He past talked about how BIG designs things to integrate community functions, so I think he assumes that they would do a better-than-average job enabling cross functions between the existing link to the pedway system, City Hall, the subway and the 'L'.

I see. Sounds like that might be BIG's forte. Though if that particular building is replaced, it won't be by a public building. For some developers, the functions mentioned may pose constraints they simply want no part of.

aaron38 Oct 24, 2015 1:28 AM

The central pit is a circle, the caisons are arranged in a circle around it. I'd be very surprised if the footprint of the building wasn't also a circle. Lot they can do with the building form after that.
Whatever it is, I just hope it's something simple and elegant.

photoLith Oct 24, 2015 4:34 AM

It's been what, 7 years since Chicago Spire construction stopped at the site and the foundation being just out in the open for 7 years probably isn't good and I'm sure that hole fills up with water and ice. It's probably in pretty rough shape now.

Kngkyle Oct 24, 2015 5:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith (Post 7210102)
It's been what, 7 years since Chicago Spire construction stopped at the site and the foundation being just out in the open for 7 years probably isn't good and I'm sure that hole fills up with water and ice. It's probably in pretty rough shape now.

How can an underground foundation be out in the open? The only piece that has been exposed to the elements is the temporary retaining wall for the core. The caissons will all be perfectly usable, as will the slurry & secant walls holding back the river.

Scrapeskyer Oct 24, 2015 5:43 AM

I really hope something becomes of this big hole in the ground, even if it's not a supertall project. I'd also like to see something built across the street. I don't like the whole rule against building east of the LSD. I really think the skyline could be awesome if they did.

Domer2019 Oct 24, 2015 6:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapeskyer (Post 7210147)
I really hope something becomes of this big hole in the ground, even if it's not a supertall project. I'd also like to see something built across the street. I don't like the whole rule against building east of the LSD. I really think the skyline could be awesome if they did.

Maybe if the theoretical skyscraper is a museum. Hmm... y'know what, maybe that should be a thing. Chicago International Museum of Architecture featuring the Burnham/Root/Atwood/Sullivan (what have you) Hotel. Sign me up!

ardecila Oct 24, 2015 2:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKChaz (Post 7209758)
I see. Sounds like that might be BIG's forte. Though if that particular building is replaced, it won't be by a public building. For some developers, the functions mentioned may pose constraints they simply want no part of.

Assuming the Thompson Center gets replaced, it won't be the developer's choice. That building contains vital pieces of the Pedway network and the Clark/Lake transfer station.

Expect the planning process here to be just as complicated as Block 37 was.

Anyway, looking forward to what BIG can do at the Spire site. There's still plenty of interesting urban surroundings to interface with, from Lake Shore Drive to the river to Ogden Slip.

VKChaz Oct 24, 2015 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7210294)
Assuming the Thompson Center gets replaced, it won't be the developer's choice. That building contains vital pieces of the Pedway network and the Clark/Lake transfer station.

Expect the planning process here to be just as complicated as Block 37 was.

And you just said the magic word..."Block 37"
I am leery of the notion that the functions that exist neatly within a civic building will all readily find their way into a newly-constructed private one. But that may be correct. If it goes forward, I am sure it will be a long process. We'll see what happens either way.

Doubleu1117 Nov 3, 2015 3:34 AM

Being from NY I'm a little apprehensive about this. I really don't think BIG's style fits NYC, and much less Chicago. I dont believe he made a tower that could fit in NY, which I think is easier to do than Chicago. Chicago I believe has a more overall aesthetic. The city works together, NY is more of a sum of its parts. I hope he doesnt put up some "new age" twisty "evolutionary" monstrosity.

Tom Servo Nov 3, 2015 9:37 PM

Quote:

I hope he doesnt put up some "new age" twisty "evolutionary" monstrosity.
Hah. You mean, like this?

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/...01108_viz2.jpg
e-architect.co.uk


I welcome anything from Bjarke Ingels Group with open arms.

Tom Servo Nov 3, 2015 9:51 PM

Video Link


Fearless dreamers, we as a city could use more of this once again...


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.