SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | Salesforce Tower | 850 FT | 60 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217949)

Tom In Chicago Mar 19, 2019 7:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 8511036)
Most definitely. I see why they did it from a value standpoint (the views, duh) But in turn they told the rest of the world to F off. Screw your views of the setting sun.

That doesn't make any sense. . . I don't know of any city in the world where architects design with consideration of where the sun will or will not set on neighboring buildings. . . that's not how this works. . . that's not how any of this works. . .

. . .

Tom In Chicago Mar 19, 2019 7:39 PM

Updating building height from elevation diagrams:

---60 Floors above ground
---3 Floors below ground
---835' 3" height to top of parapet as measured from Level B2 (restaurant/riverwalk)
---813' height to top of parapet as measured from Level 1 (main entrance)

. . .

bhawk66 Mar 19, 2019 7:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago (Post 8511203)
That doesn't make any sense. . . I don't know of any city in the world where architects design with consideration of where the sun will or will not set on neighboring buildings. . . that's not how this works. . . that's not how any of this works. . .

. . .

I don't want to drag this out but you are very wrong. Of course not all (some don't give a shit) but many designers most definitely consider EVERYTHING. Have you not ever read or heard an architect speak of their reasons behind plans.

bhawk66 Mar 19, 2019 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign (Post 8511114)
Why is it the developers responsibility to consider the views of their neighbors? How many times must we have this insane conversation? It's so old at this point. They didn't tell anyone to "F off" they built on land they owned as they saw fit. Cities are living, breathing, ever-changing things, anyone living in Chicago who expects their view of whatever to remain exactly as it is, is delusional.


Disagree! Ask the designers of Trump Tower how they conceived their design. In relation and respect to its surrounding buildings and views. I could go on and on.

PittsburghPA Mar 19, 2019 7:59 PM

Trump was designed around the shape and size of the plot of land. The setbacks are a crafty homage to historic Chicago landmarks. You're talking apples and oranges here to the original debate, bhawk.

bhawk66 Mar 19, 2019 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA (Post 8511303)
Trump was designed around the shape and size of the plot of land. The setbacks are a crafty homage to historic Chicago landmarks. You're talking apples and oranges here to the original debate, bhawk.

The debate was that designers never take their surroundings into consideration I thought. Which is completely inane, to use a fellow colleagues term. You said it yourself, the designers considered their surroundings in the Trump building design. Okay, you said "crafty homage" like it was an afterthought, I said considered. East Wacker Drive/East River canyon has become historic in it's essence and aura. It in itself is a Chicago landmark, imo. The riverboat business has grown exponentially. It is a huge tourist draw. Huge. Isn't it a reasonable suggestion to consider that dynamic? Ever notice nothing gets built around the Eifel Tower? (I know that's a wild comparison, but it holds that decisions were made to prevent poor views) NY could give a rats ass, but have you ever noticed nothing large gets built around the Empire State building? By chance? London is another prime example of building code etiquette.
I stand by my feeling. It is a single minded plan, with no reverence to location. But I'll live.

Tom In Chicago Mar 19, 2019 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 8511326)
The debate was that designers never take their surroundings into consideration I thought.

The debate was specifically about if/when/how the sun will set and the considerations thereof. . .

Look, you're new here. . . we're all aware what/why architects do what they do so this isn't new. . . don't get hung up on this, play nice and try not to derail the conversation too far off topic. . .

Thanks. . .

. . .

mark0 Mar 19, 2019 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 8511326)
The debate was that designers never take their surroundings into consideration I thought. Which is completely inane, to use a fellow colleagues term. You said it yourself, the designers considered their surroundings in their design. Okay, you said "crafty homage" like it was an afterthought, I said considered. East Wacker Drive/East River canyon has become historic in it's essence and aura. It in itself is a Chicago landmark, imo. The riverboat business has grown exponentially. It is a huge tourist draw. Huge. Isn't it a reasonable suggestion to consider that dynamic? Ever notice nothing gets built around the Eifel Tower? (I know that's a wild comparison, but it holds that decisions were made to prevent poor views) London is another prime example of building code etiquette.
I stand by my feeling. It is a single minded plan, with no reverence to location. But I'll live.

Agreed Bhawk. For the most part views are not protected, and not saying anyone building's views should be protected at Wolf Point. What I was getting at is this site plan absolutely just sticks a wall into the river corridor, a giant, wavy, dirty, streaky glass wall. There's nothing architecturally appealing about this. It will however create a new spatial dynamic, especially when the west side of river gets filled in and will become a true box canyon without an open end. At least a rounded, tapered tower could have allowed more light down to the river, played off Trump and 333 Wacker. This to me is a great opportunity lost. The new river canyon will still be cool but it wont have the vistas and interplay of towers it could have had with some better planning.

Handro Mar 19, 2019 9:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 8511326)
The debate was that designers never take their surroundings into consideration I thought. Which is completely inane, to use a fellow colleagues term. You said it yourself, the designers considered their surroundings in the Trump building design. Okay, you said "crafty homage" like it was an afterthought, I said considered. East Wacker Drive/East River canyon has become historic in it's essence and aura. It in itself is a Chicago landmark, imo. The riverboat business has grown exponentially. It is a huge tourist draw. Huge. Isn't it a reasonable suggestion to consider that dynamic? Ever notice nothing gets built around the Eifel Tower? (I know that's a wild comparison, but it holds that decisions were made to prevent poor views) NY could give a rats ass, but have you ever noticed nothing large gets built around the Empire State building? By chance? London is another prime example of building code etiquette.
I stand by my feeling. It is a single minded plan, with no reverence to location. But I'll live.

I think you're conflating "views" with other variables, like style choice or landmark designation. I would be willing to bet "views" were not taken into consideration in any of your stated examples. The riverboat business would do that much better if more towering skyscrapers were built along their routes. If "views" were a contributing factor, how would one building of similar height or taller ever get built next to another?

ChiTownWonder Mar 19, 2019 9:18 PM

This building just seems like a shorter flatter version of OCS.. Not a fan, its sad that this building went from a prominent keystone of the Chicago River to a bland 700-800 ft blue glass office tower to blend in with the rest. WPW and WPE seem to have much more balanced massing and both have proven to have great detailing, so If the new tower has as much attention to detail as its brothers it wouldn't be a complete loss, but still disappointing.

bhawk66 Mar 19, 2019 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 8511415)
I think you're conflating "views" with other variables, like style choice or landmark designation. I would be willing to bet "views" were not taken into consideration in any of your stated examples. The riverboat business would do that much better if more towering skyscrapers were built along their routes. If "views" were a contributing factor, how would one building of similar height or taller ever get built next to another?

I may have been misunderstood. I'm using the term views in reference to the sun set. Not peoples views from within the other buildings. And in my examples I meant views of certain buildings, like the Empire State building. Isn't it great that that gem isn't boxed in by a bunch of glass monstrosities? I initially said I see why they chose this plan because it sells "views" right down the river canyon. Yes. In the mean time they just put up a huge glass wall in front of enormously beneficial sun light. No offense to anyone, but I just don't understand the appeal of a dark shadowy canyon versus wonderful sun splashed river and buildings...like 333's beautiful green glass arc. That was the slot for it to happen. For the most part, say goodbye. Like Mark0 said above, wasted opportunity. Could've accomplished same goals with different plan. Anyway, here we are. Hope it works out.

maru2501 Mar 19, 2019 9:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder (Post 8511442)
This building just seems like a shorter flatter version of OCS.. Not a fan, its sad that this building went from a prominent keystone of the Chicago River to a bland 700-800 ft blue glass office tower to blend in with the rest. WPW and WPE seem to have much more balanced massing and both have proven to have great detailing, so If the new tower has as much attention to detail as its brothers it wouldn't be a complete loss, but still disappointing.


ding

chicubs111 Mar 19, 2019 10:42 PM

I agree... such a prime spot we were looking for something iconic...we just get a very nice tower... :shrug:

donnie Mar 19, 2019 11:45 PM

According to everyone that visits this site, every spot in Chicago is iconic and deserves a 1000 footer or it's a bust!

Lemonheads....

Ricochet48 Mar 20, 2019 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie (Post 8511635)
According to everyone that visits this site, every spot in Chicago is iconic and deserves a 1000 footer or it's a bust!

Lemonheads....

Wat. We have 1 river split. There's not any other site like it.

Lots want tall buildings in general, but there's no denying this is a special spot.

The Lurker Mar 20, 2019 1:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie (Post 8511635)
Lemonheads....

Forget your umbrella? ;)

mark0 Mar 20, 2019 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie (Post 8511635)
According to everyone that visits this site, every spot in Chicago is iconic and deserves a 1000 footer or it's a bust!

Lemonheads....

UHHHH no. More like people screaming "BUILD IT" to anything thats proposed. Wolf point deserves so much better than this.

bhawk66 Mar 20, 2019 2:24 AM

And I had so much respect for the Kennedy's...well the older ones. Kids today, smh.

Zapatan Mar 20, 2019 5:06 AM

The renderings make this building look so nice

835 is kinda lame (for this lot) but then again Chicago is one of the world's most spoiled skyscraper cities, so still a great addition

Steely Dan Mar 20, 2019 3:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicubs111 (Post 8511567)
I agree... such a prime spot we were looking for something iconic...we just get a very nice tower... :shrug:

that kinda sums up my feelings as well.

the proposed building is certainly not offensive to me, but i was really hoping for something more magical at this supremely prominent spot.

Hines is playing it safe here. there's nothing objectively wrong with that (that's how successful businesses stay in business), but i imagine the final result will always feel a little bit like a lost opportunity to me.


it's a nice enough tower, but oh what could've been...........


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.