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)

Bonsai Tree Jun 20, 2017 2:47 AM

I bet you are right. I just posted it because I wasn't sure if anyone had seen these images yet. I personally hate the design for such a promising site.

Kumdogmillionaire Jun 20, 2017 3:14 AM

Thank god those aren't getting built. I'd riot and burn the whole site down if that was the trash they had decided to go with

camdoodlebop Jun 20, 2017 5:46 AM

just lock this thread already and end the suffering

BrandonJXN Jun 20, 2017 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7839795)
Thank god those aren't getting built. I'd riot and burn the whole site down if that was the trash they had decided to go with

These aren't terrible. Just not worthy of the spire site.

Hoosier388 Sep 24, 2017 2:00 AM

So is this Gateway Town thing ever going to happen or are we going to continue to see a big hole in the ground over the former Chicago Spire site? Personal Opinion it would be cool to see something new & different in the city beside the Willis Tower, Trump Tower, Hancock Building, & Aon Center to dominate the skyline. I know I'm new to the site as a poster but I have always red the different thread and have always be intrigued by the Architecture in the city. I would love to see this building happen. It would be something bigger then the Willis Tower and new to a city that is dominated by tall building east of the rivers north and south branches.

Bonsai Tree Sep 24, 2017 3:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier388 (Post 7931554)
So is this Gateway Town thing ever going to happen or are we going to continue to see a big hole in the ground over the former Chicago Spire site? Personal Opinion it would be cool to see something new & different in the city beside the Willis Tower, Trump Tower, Hancock Building, & Aon Center to dominate the skyline. I know I'm new to the site as a poster but I have always red the different thread and have always be intrigued by the Architecture in the city. I would love to see this building happen. It would be something bigger then the Willis Tower and new to a city that is dominated by tall building east of the rivers north and south branches.

So to answer your question, Gateway Tower isn't going to happen. Sadly, Gateway Tower was a concept, and not an actual proposal with financial backing. However, the development firm in control of the site (Related Midwest) does seem to have some plans for the site. What those plans are nobody knows. Related hinted early this year that they would release information about their 60 acre site in the South Loop and this site in 2017 (there is a Curbed article on this), but so far nothing has happened. As for what is likely to go there we can only speculate. I hope we get a tower over 1,500 ft, but I it's unlikely. In my opinion, it is more likely that we get a 1,000 foot tower with apartments, condos, and a hotel, similar to Wanda Tower. Anyway, that is pretty much all I know, and most of it is just speculation. I hope that helps. :)

Sky88 Sep 25, 2017 2:04 PM

On Spire site, Related Midwest will can build a tower like these, without spending so much money :)

A)
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4484/3...f505ef8f_b.jpg

B)
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4374/3...081b9762_b.jpg

C)
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4413/3...7d124191_b.jpg

harryc Sep 25, 2017 2:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88 (Post 7932457)
On Spire site, Related Midwest will can build a tower like these, without spending so much money :)

[/IMG]

Although I understand the concept of sunk costs - it would seem that the current foundation would be a huge discount on a building with about the same footprint.

r18tdi Sep 25, 2017 2:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88 (Post 7932457)
On Spire site, Related Midwest will can build a tower like these, without spending so much money :)

Pretty neat renderings. Did you make them?

Kumdogmillionaire Sep 25, 2017 3:46 PM

Those renderings are sick. Also shows how the city's skyline is so massive it can take a 2000+ foot building and make it still fit in

Sky88 Sep 25, 2017 4:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc (Post 7932464)
Although I understand the concept of sunk costs - it would seem that the current foundation would be a huge discount on a building with about the same footprint.

These towers are like to CN Tower. They are 2000 ft tall, and have restaurants, shops and observation points for tourists. They are not skyscrapers.
Their base is like to the Spire hole, except for the conic tower that is larger.

Khantilever Sep 25, 2017 5:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88 (Post 7932663)
These towers are like to CN Tower. They are 2000 ft tall, and have restaurants, shops and observation points for tourists. They are not skyscrapers.
Their base is like to the Spire hole, except for the conic tower that is larger.

Although it would be nice to extend the ceiling of the city, I would be incredibly disappointed if they built something like that - Chicago architecture places a heavy emphasis on function, after all. Though I find it unlikely anyway, since there's not much need for new antennae and already several great observation decks in Chicago.

I don't know if the economics of the site will be able to support a megatall anytime in the near future (maybe only if the L is extended to Navy Pier). But the existing foundations should reduce the marginal cost of building higher, so I'm hopeful for something that at least exceeds Vista.

ithakas Sep 25, 2017 5:50 PM

Since we're bumping this topic again anyway, does anyone have a sense for whether we're still likely to hear something concrete on Related's plans by end of year as previously announced? Only a few months left at this point...

We were also supposed to hear more on their plans for the 78 this year, unless the Tribune article is as much as we're going to get for the immediate future.

LouisVanDerWright Sep 25, 2017 6:24 PM

^^^ I thought we were supposed to hear something the first half of this year. I doubt we will be hearing anything about this site until One Bennett Park is sold out. Related isn't going to want to put anything out there that may delay or cannibalize demand for something that's already under construction. I assume whatever is proposed here will have a large condo component.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Khantilever (Post 7932718)
Although it would be nice to extend the ceiling of the city, I would be incredibly disappointed if they built something like that - Chicago architecture places a heavy emphasis on function, after all. Though I find it unlikely anyway, since there's not much need for new antennae and already several great observation decks in Chicago.

Chicago architecture also puts a huge emphasis on kick ass engineering so tall is easily justified that way.

BraveNewWorld Sep 26, 2017 5:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas (Post 7932759)
Since we're bumping this topic again anyway, does anyone have a sense for whether we're still likely to hear something concrete on Related's plans by end of year as previously announced? Only a few months left at this point...

We were also supposed to hear more on their plans for the 78 this year, unless the Tribune article is as much as we're going to get for the immediate future.

I saw this got bumped and immediately got my hopes up that Related finally released some news for this site. Here's to hoping they say something before the year's up.

Kenmore Sep 26, 2017 2:19 PM

will be shocked if anything happens this cycle, way too much in the pipe already

ahealy Sep 26, 2017 4:10 PM

hmmm. I would KILL for a 2000+ tower but I am not here for Chicago's tallest to be an observation tower. NO. NO. NO. :uhh:

Sky88 Sep 26, 2017 4:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy (Post 7933690)
hmmm. I would KILL for a 2000+ tower but I am not here for Chicago's tallest to be an observation tower. NO. NO. NO. :uhh:

Sorry, but this is a your problem!

Sky88 Sep 26, 2017 4:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy (Post 7933690)
hmmm. I would KILL for a 2000+ tower but I am not here for Chicago's tallest to be an observation tower. NO. NO. NO. :uhh:

Now, an observation tower is the only solution for Chicago.

ahealy Sep 26, 2017 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88 (Post 7933709)
Now, an observation tower is the only solution for Chicago.

Ummmm. I tend to disagree with that. What makes you think its "the only solution"??? I just don't see Chicago as one of those cities. I'd be open to the idea if it weren't the traditional martini glass shape but.....yeah..
¯\_(ツ)_/¯


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59 PM.

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