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)

JMKeynes Nov 5, 2018 4:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8368038)
That's an objectively better design...

I agree. It looks beautiful to me.

maru2501 Nov 5, 2018 5:48 PM

one issue is between this, 110 S Wacker and the alleged Union Station.. looking from the west we'll have three giant blue-glass walls

maybe rgarri can show us at some point

Zapatan Nov 5, 2018 6:04 PM

The more I look at this rendering the more I like it. The top looks really sleek, and the setbacks look nice from the river point of view

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 8368026)


Donnie77 Nov 5, 2018 6:37 PM

Its growing on me.

gebs Nov 5, 2018 7:28 PM

These anachronistic, parallel-universe renderings tickle me. In this future Chicago, where Wolf Point South rises above the Mart, what happened to Vista? Did the glass take so long that the developer decided, F this, we're done here?

(I know, I know, but still -- I find it funny when developers ignore in-progress buildings because they might upstage THEIR project.)

kolchak Nov 5, 2018 7:28 PM

Better design by far. A shorter but better building.

toddguy Nov 5, 2018 8:50 PM

I like it but I would like it better with one more layer, maybe a top 'fin' or something to cap it off. (and raise the height). Too much like a glass Rockefeller Center as is as has been mentioned.

vexxed82 Nov 5, 2018 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gebs (Post 8369114)
These anachronistic, parallel-universe renderings tickle me. In this future Chicago, where Wolf Point South rises above the Mart, what happened to Vista? Did the glass take so long that the developer decided, F this, we're done here?

(I know, I know, but still -- I find it funny when developers ignore in-progress buildings because they might upstage THEIR project.)

From the rendering firm's perspective, why would they take extra time to render/design building's that aren't their client's? If they're working from an older source photo, it would be more efficient to simply leave it out than go through the trouble of adding more buildings.

gebs Nov 5, 2018 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vexxed82 (Post 8369384)
From the rendering firm's perspective, why would they take extra time to render/design building's that aren't their client's? If they're working from an older source photo, it would be more efficient to simply leave it out than go through the trouble of adding more buildings.

Yeah, I understand why they don't do it, which explains why Magellan's LSE building and Vista weren't in Related's renderings for 400 N LSD, even though they would most likely be in them. You don't want to showcase a competitor's product.

I just find it funny. Like watching a movie set in 2020 where mobile phones don't exist.

rgarri4 Nov 5, 2018 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gebs (Post 8369114)
These anachronistic, parallel-universe renderings tickle me. In this future Chicago, where Wolf Point South rises above the Mart, what happened to Vista? Did the glass take so long that the developer decided, F this, we're done here?

(I know, I know, but still -- I find it funny when developers ignore in-progress buildings because they might upstage THEIR project.)

I run a rendering studio and there was a project where we included Wolf Point East because it clearly would of been in 10 percent of the view. To our surprise the client made us take it out. This was back when WPE foundation work had clearly started so the rendering would of been more accurate to the future had we left it in. Oh well.

BonoboZill4 Nov 6, 2018 1:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgarri4 (Post 8369459)
I run a rendering studio and there was a project where we included Wolf Point East because it clearly would of been in 10 percent of the view. To our surprise the client made us take it out. This was back when WPE foundation work had clearly started so the rendering would of been more accurate to the future had we left it in. Oh well.

This sort of stuff is just hilarious to me. Thanks for sharing the anecdote rgarri4 :haha:

HomrQT Nov 6, 2018 2:58 AM

I got bored and decided to see what it would look like if they put a tower with height worthy enough for the site.

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

toddguy Nov 6, 2018 3:23 AM

^^ It looks too 'stubby' at the top now. Agree that this site deserves something a bit taller. Chicago is all the midwest has got except for that Detroit tower. We need good representation!

All of these proposals need to get built, and without height reductions.

Zapatan Nov 6, 2018 3:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddguy (Post 8369837)
^^ It looks too 'stubby' at the top now. Agree that this site deserves something a bit taller. Chicago is all the midwest has got except for that Detroit tower. We need good representation!

I'd say the 1,730 foot Sears Tower is pretty "good representation", as far as the new projects go Vista has some good height too. I agree a peak in this part of the skyline would have been ideal.

Quote:

All of these proposals need to get built, and without height reductions.
That would be nice but I'm just happy when they get built at all. When you think about it, this and OCS didn't end up that different then when originally proposed. Who knows what'll happen with the rest though.

BonoboZill4 Nov 6, 2018 3:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8369859)
I'd say the 1,730 foot Sears Tower is pretty "good representation", as far as the new projects go Vista has some good height too. I agree a peak in this part of the skyline would have been ideal.



That would be nice but I'm just happy when they get built at all. When you think about it, this and OCS didn't end up that different then when originally proposed. Who knows what'll happen with the rest though.

I also think the biggest problem with this forum is that for whatever reason, everyone expected the tower to be like 1100-1200 feet tall despite that never being claimed by the developer. 950 was the top for what was zoned, and if this ends up around 900 that's not much different.

People talk about prominent location being a huge factor here, but I think of the Sears tower, ESB, and Hancock, all are iconic buildings despite not being somewhere like Wolf Point. The city will have plenty of opportunities to build far superior buildings that will be much more iconic than Wolf Point, 1100 feet or not. I'd much rather have these three towers here than wait another cycle with it sitting empty for something a couple hundred feet taller.

Also, the riverwalk being added here is a huge addition that I'm excited for. Another quarter mile added to our canyon's pathway.

We never have been a city of skinny supertalls, and maybe that will change in the future, but with the constraints of the site, 1000 feet really was the max height. That person's rendering that practically doubled the height showed how silly a 1500ft monument tower would have looked there.

If someone's complaints are with the design, well fair enough, that's entirely subjective, but I find it odd that height is the marker for a great tower in this location. I think the three when put together compliment the river(and their designs being quite elegant) far better than an awkwardly tall building would have. Just my opinions of course lol

HomrQT Nov 6, 2018 3:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8369870)
I also think the biggest problem with this forum is that for whatever reason, everyone expected the tower to be like 1100-1200 feet tall despite that never being claimed by the developer. 950 was the top for what was zoned, and if this ends up around 900 that's not much different.

People talk about prominent locations, but I think of the Sears tower, ESB, and Hancock, and all are iconic buildings despite not being somewhere like Wolf Point. The city will have plenty of opportunities to build far superior buildings. I'd much rather have these three towers here than wait another cycle with it sitting empty for something a couple hundred feet taller.

Also, the riverwalk being added here is a huge addition that I'm excited for. Another quarter mile added to our canyon's pathway.

We never have been a city of skinny supertalls, and maybe that will change in the future, but with the constraints of the site, 1000 feet really was the max height. That person's rendering that practically doubled the height showed how silly a 1500ft monument tower would have looked there.

If someone's complaints are with the design, well fair enough, that's entirely subjective, but I find it odd that height is the marker for a great tower in this location. I think the three when put together compliment the river(and their designs being quite elegant) far better than an awkwardly tall building would have. Just my opinions of course lol

For me the site is special in that it has several vantage points that would allow observers to fully appreciate a very tall building, specifically for its height. Other very tall iconic buildings tend to be surrounded by other buildings, so at best your view of them are slightly impeded a little, or you are right under them. Imagine being on the riverwalk and having an unrestricted view looking up at a monster 1300'+ building. I think something like that would be absolutely awe inspiring.

Zapatan Nov 6, 2018 4:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 8369876)
For me the site is special in that it has several vantage points that would allow observers to fully appreciate a very tall building, specifically for its height. Other very tall iconic buildings tend to be surrounded by other buildings, so at best your view of them are slightly impeded a little, or you are right under them. Imagine being on the riverwalk and having an unrestricted view looking up at a monster 1300'+ building. I think something like that would be absolutely awe inspiring.

Totally agree,

Although the Wolf Point complex will still be a major focal point on the river, and the 800+ foot 110N Wacker across the river will make for a super cool effect as well.

Are there any notable sites along the river that could potentially yield another supertall since they f*cked this up?

lakeshoredrive Nov 6, 2018 4:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8369883)
Totally agree,

Although the Wolf Point complex will still be a major focal point on the river, and the 800+ foot 110N Wacker across the river will make for a super cool effect as well.

Are there any notable sites along the river that could potentially yield another supertall since they f*cked this up?

The south lot next to NBC tower, 400 N LSD, The 78 site, and maybe the new development site at Tribune on the north branch of the river.

Steely Dan Nov 6, 2018 5:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddguy (Post 8369837)
Chicago is all the midwest has got except for that Detroit tower. We need good representation!

All of these proposals need to get built, and without height reductions.

For some perspective, even at 844' tall, this tower would still be among the top 4 tallest skyscrapers in any other US city not named new york.

And the meager OCS height reduction only has meaning to the nerds of this forum. The other 99.99% of humanity simply isn't capable of caring about whether or not a really effing tall skyscraper falls a dozen feet above or below some arbitrary threshold.

Chicago is representing just fine in the skyscraper game.

Kenmore Nov 6, 2018 12:08 PM

looks nice enough and all 3 wp towers will work real nice together, hard to care that much about height at this point in the game, especially with supertalls u/c or about to be


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:01 PM.

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