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)

spyguy Oct 22, 2015 5:43 PM

CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 875 FT & 765 FT | ? & ? FLOORS
 
current design:

https://www.relatedmidwest.com/sites...?itok=Xku9oIua





older schemes:

https://i.imgur.com/5G9J5ej.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/980/4...ce9e0ddd_h.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/954/4...02d8dbfc_h.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/903/2...cf820f08_h.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/906/4...3e6f8326_h.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/951/2...cad374b1_h.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/826/2...353beda7_h.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...13e8dc9f07.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...9d3b4f5ada.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...4ec0a35ff1.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...ee6b8d38b2.jpg

Steely Dan Oct 22, 2015 5:44 PM

^ interesting.

i mean, BIG > Stern, am i right?

Related promised something "architecturally significant".

this sounds like a step in the right direction.

BVictor1 Oct 22, 2015 6:03 PM

Is this worthy of starting a new thread for yet?

ithakas Oct 22, 2015 6:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 7207867)

Very interesting news. A few years ago I would have salivated at the prospect of Chicago getting a BIG building, but now I'm cautiously optimistic about him handling this site – his work seems to be best suited for mid-rise/institutional uses, at least after the disappointing WTC2 design.

Steely Dan Oct 22, 2015 6:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7207904)
Is this worthy of starting a new thread for yet?

Yes. Absolutely yes.

we have to discuss this juicy rumor, and we need a place to do it.

and something BIG (get it?) will eventually be built on this site, so let's discuss the possibilities.

munchymunch Oct 22, 2015 6:20 PM

BIG wow hopefully it won't be extremely tacky. Still good news best architect they've ever chosen.

intrepidDesign Oct 22, 2015 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas (Post 7207905)
Very interesting news. A few years ago I would have salivated at the prospect of Chicago getting a BIG building, but now I'm cautiously optimistic about him handling this site – his work seems to be best suited for mid-rise/institutional uses, at least after the disappointing WTC2 design.

I dunno, i kinda like WTC2, I like all the WTC buildings, both built an proposed. Yeah some are more avant garde than others, but over all they are all very tasteful. The building I like least in the WTC complex, coincidentally enough, is the Calatrava train station, I'm over the bone fish aesthetic. I'm reasonably certain we'll get something nice.

Jibba Oct 22, 2015 6:40 PM

Hmmm... would rather have Smith & Gil, Herzog, or Richard Rogers than the contrivance I'm afraid BIG will propose, but I'll wait and see, obviously.

I still haven't fully mourned the loss of the Spire. Sigh...

SamInTheLoop Oct 22, 2015 6:42 PM

Wooaaahhh. Hello. This is indeed BIG news.....


Exciting intel here......despite the fact that I, as many seem to, think their design is a downgrade from Foster's at 2 WTC, and disappointing in some ways in its own right, this is still exciting and I'm optimistic that they will come up with something compelling for the spire site if Related has in fact handed its design to them.....

Randomguy34 Oct 22, 2015 7:45 PM

Looks like the "to" in "a possible Spire part to" is the Danish word for "two". Don't know why they chose to use the Danish word instead of the American one, other than to be punny, because it looks as though it were a typo and it gets confusing with the American word "to" (I think I'm confused after re-reading this sentence). Linguistics aside, the idea of a Chicago Spire 2.0 makes me wonder how similar it will be to the previous design.

BVictor1 Oct 22, 2015 7:52 PM

I asked someone from Related about this and I was asked where I heard this info and I said I read a little blurb that had no verifying information.

When i delved deeper and asked if they could throw me a bone, I was shot down.

That act almost makes me believe that there's more truth to some of this than not...

Skyguy_7 Oct 22, 2015 8:10 PM

BIG; "Your Supertall Foundation-adaptation Specialists"

:yes:

rlw777 Oct 22, 2015 8:23 PM

Great lets hope we get the BIG that designed 625 w 57th st. and not the BIG that designed 2WTC.

Ch.G, Ch.G Oct 22, 2015 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas (Post 7207905)
Very interesting news. A few years ago I would have salivated at the prospect of Chicago getting a BIG building, but now I'm cautiously optimistic about him handling this site – his work seems to be best suited for mid-rise/institutional uses, at least after the disappointing WTC2 design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba (Post 7207965)
Hmmm... would rather have Smith & Gil, Herzog, or Richard Rogers than the contrivance I'm afraid BIG will propose, but I'll wait and see, obviously.

I still haven't fully mourned the loss of the Spire. Sigh...

Yeah, I kinda agree with you guys. I think Richard Rogers would be well-suited for Chicago; there's a muscular expressiveness in his work. I like Renzo Piano's forays into skyscraper design, too. The NYT building is way underrated. I wouldn't trust Smith and Gill not to do something safe/staid, and color me unimpressed by the execution of HdeM's Jenga tower. BIG would have a few tall buildings under their belt by the time this thing'd break ground, so maybe that would help.

Also very much agreed about the loss of the Spire. It was perfect for this site. :(

Ch.G, Ch.G Oct 22, 2015 8:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7208121)
Great lets hope we get the BIG that designed 625 w 57th st. and not the BIG that designed 2WTC.

I like parts of their proposal for Calgary:

http://images.adsttc.com/media/image...jpg?1373318874

...reminds me of this weird little gem on Sheridan:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OvonoKii_d...conieswide.jpg

(photo by my hero, Lynn Becker)

BVictor1 Oct 22, 2015 9:07 PM

^That building on Sheridan isn't a gem, it's a total pile.

Steely Dan Oct 22, 2015 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7208178)
^That building on Sheridan isn't a gem, it's a total pile.

INCAPABLE OF DISAGREEING MORE STRONGLY.

granville tower is one hell of a cool little odd-ball gem.

i was at my cousin's wedding in the park kitty-corner to it over the summer and my brother-in-law (a high school teacher with no specific interest in architecture) looked up at granville tower and said, without any provocation from me, "that sure is a strange looking building. i don't know if i like it or not, but it's so weird it's actually kinda cool".

i smiled benignly.

LouisVanDerWright Oct 22, 2015 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7208178)
^That building on Sheridan isn't a gem, it's a total pile.

You're right, i'ts not A gem, it's a pile of them. I love the faceted facade of that tower. You have to give it credit just for the size of the architects balls alone.

PS, I wish they'd paint the concrete another color, it would greatly improve people's general opinions of the tower. Paint it cream, it would look so sick with that brown brick.

Also, the best part isn't even the crazy facade massing or duplex construction, but the sick treatment of the base. It's a pool deck, a parking deck, and a lobby with absolutely nothing else. No extra hallways, no blank walls hiding the cars, no fortress walls around the pool. Just entirely open and honest.

chris08876 Oct 22, 2015 10:23 PM

I wish they could just build this. Maybe make a 1600-1700' version, carve an wide rectangular opening around the 1500' mark, add an observation deck with restaurant, make it mixed used, and call it the CWFC. Chicago World Finacial Center. :D

One of my favorite proposals in the country that didn't happen. :(

While I liked the spire, it wasn't anything special except for its height (IMO). Now this proposal, this was a bummer to not have.

Whatever rises, this location, with impeccable views, needs to be great and something that stands out on the national level. Yes, I'd like it to be a super tall that exceeds all. To wishful thinking :cheers:. Here Here... :cheers:

http://41.media.tumblr.com/f8c537caf...fqyo1_1280.jpg
Credit: http://themanonfive.com/page/125?rou...page%2F%3Apage

https://www.google.com/maps/vt/data=...jpBfFq1k-NfLGK

This in that location, and thats a wrap for the day.

Zapatan Oct 22, 2015 10:51 PM

I hope something big (no pun intended really) rises here but I can't say I'm normally a huge fan of his work. 2WTC has grown on me but only from some angles, from others it still looks like a 400+ meter pile of garbage.

Something simple that tops 400+ meters would be awesome here, I can't imagine with such valuable real estate they wouldn't try to top Wanda Vista. :shrug:

harryc Oct 22, 2015 11:45 PM

Last August
 

Randomguy34 Oct 22, 2015 11:53 PM

Wow, to think it's been a year since we hoped that Garrett Kelleher and Atlas would pay off the initial spire debt so that the plan would be back on. If Related is being as secretive as they are on the project, they better have a design that will stun us

chris11 Oct 23, 2015 12:11 AM

What are the odds Kelleher ever tries to build again? I know hes a native and seemed to really have a passion for the spire/helping with the 2016 bid. Not saying any investors would take him on another 2000 ft project but nonetheless is he out of the game?

BVictor1 Oct 23, 2015 1:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris11 (Post 7208449)
What are the odds Kelleher ever tries to build again? I know hes a native and seemed to really have a passion for the spire/helping with the 2016 bid. Not saying any investors would take him on another 2000 ft project but nonetheless is he out of the game?

It's not his land, so there's n chance.

spyguy Oct 23, 2015 1:37 AM

2WTC is commercial office; Spire going to be residential (maybe with a hotel?). Given his other residential/mixed-use towers in Canada & Miami, it would be safer to expect something twisty for this proposal.

munchymunch Oct 23, 2015 1:54 AM

I have a feeling this could be sls.

Notyrview Oct 23, 2015 9:28 AM

^^^^ Waldorf Astoria was a nice design but too safe for 2015. We need something new and exciting, something that breaks the mold, like Gang and Jahn's proposals.

Tom Servo Oct 23, 2015 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba (Post 7207965)
Hmmm... would rather have Smith & Gil, Herzog, or Richard Rogers than the contrivance I'm afraid BIG will propose, but I'll wait and see, obviously.

Smith & Gill? Uh, no thanks. Adrian Smith was the head architect behind the tower of shit that is Trump Tower. Again, pass.

Herzog + De Meuron might be the greatest architecture firm in the world. One step at a time. But I like your thinking. :cheers:

Agreed on Richard Rogers too. He kicks ass. Puts BIG and their silly digram-heavy design gimmicks to shame.

That being said, I still really like pretty much everything coming out of the BIG office. And anything BIG [potentially] dreams up for this site would likely be visually stunning as their work tends to be better than great. They're like the world-class version of Studio Gang.

http://www.newcondosinvancouver.com/...ouverHouse.jpg
newcondosinvancouver.com
http://www.designboom.com/wp-content...ignboom-02.jpg
designboom.com
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...4030940427.jpg
dailymail.co.uk
http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/201...s-by-BIG_1.jpg
http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/201...s-by-BIG_2.jpg
http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/201...s-by-BIG_3.jpg
dezeen.com
http://cdn3.greendiary.com/wp-conten...oVg8_11446.jpg
greendiary.com


...yeah, let's not forget how exceptionally good they are at designing tall buildings. :cheers:


Quote:

I still haven't fully mourned the loss of the Spire. Sigh...
Meh, it was awkwardly tall anyway. Whatever. Would've been nice because Calatrava and all, but the thing looked like a giant unicorn horn. Was never 100% sold on it to be honest.

chris11 Oct 23, 2015 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7208543)
It's not his land, so there's n chance.

Not speaking of the spire site, just as a developer in general.

Steely Dan Oct 23, 2015 2:40 PM

thanks, tom, for that visual compilation of BIG's previous and current tower work. it looks like we can expect something interesting. it may be good, it may be shit, but at the very least i don't think BIG will give us boring at this supremely high profile site.




Quote:

Originally Posted by chris11 (Post 7208449)
What are the odds Kelleher ever tries to build again?

ever tries to build a 2,000' tall 2 billion dollar skyscraper? i'd say zero.

ever tries to build anything at all? who knows.



Quote:

Originally Posted by chris11 (Post 7208449)
I know hes a native.

kelleher is not a native chicagoan, he's an immigrant from ireland.

Jibba Oct 23, 2015 2:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7208910)
Smith & Gill? Uh, no thanks. Adrian Smith was the head architect behind the tower of shit that is Trump Tower. Again, pass.

Let's be fair, now. S&G is arguably a very talented firm that consistently delivers. Their buildings are high-quality and high-performance. And they know how to use materials beautifully.

rgolch Oct 23, 2015 3:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 7208193)
INCAPABLE OF DISAGREEING MORE STRONGLY.

granville tower is one hell of a cool little odd-ball gem.

i was at my cousin's wedding in the park kitty-corner to it over the summer and my brother-in-law (a high school teacher with no specific interest in architecture) looked up at granville tower and said, without any provocation from me, "that sure is a strange looking building. i don't know if i like it or not, but it's so weird it's actually kinda cool".

i smiled benignly.

I used to live in Granville Tower as a college student at Loyola back in the 90's. They weren't bad at all. Duplexes with balconies and great views.

UPChicago Oct 23, 2015 3:33 PM

Chicago could have had something like this had both the Spire and Waldorf been constructed.
http://du.gensler.com/vol6/shanghai-...8.jpg?55b10f80

Yesh222 Oct 23, 2015 4:39 PM

Why not just build the Spire on the site? Seriously. It was a unique design, it was huge, and it would look really cool from dozens of miles away. There was nothing wrong with the plan, just the funding. If Related has the money for it, why not just build it?

Steely Dan Oct 23, 2015 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yesh222 (Post 7209267)
Why not just build the Spire on the site? Seriously. It was a unique design, it was huge, and it would look really cool from dozens of miles away. There was nothing wrong with the plan, just the funding. If Related has the money for it, why not just build it?

buildings don't get built because they are unique, huge, or "look really cool from dozens of miles away". they get built to make money.

my guess is that related does not believe that they can get a positive ROI on this particular piece of property by building a 2+ billion dollar calatrava* mega tower.

they're probably right.



(*) calatrava projects are notorious for going WAY over budget. another strike.

Yesh222 Oct 23, 2015 5:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 7209282)
buildings don't get built because they are unique, huge, or "look really cool from dozens of miles away". they get built to make money.

my guess is that related does not believe that they can get a positive ROI on this particular piece of property by building a 2+ billion dollar calatrava* mega tower.

they're probably right.



(*) calatrava projects are notorious for going WAY over budget. another strike.

Interesting. I mean, whatever they build here will be huge and will probably go well over $1B in budget. So they think they can get a good ROI anyway. And it's not like the Spire failed because it wouldn't have made money. It was because the original developer couldn't afford to try.

Steely Dan Oct 23, 2015 5:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yesh222 (Post 7209409)
And it's not like the Spire failed because it wouldn't have made money.

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

Yesh222 Oct 23, 2015 7:02 PM

I get that it's dead. I was just curious why something very similar to that project wouldn't be done on this site.

Steely Dan Oct 23, 2015 7:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yesh222 (Post 7209512)
I was just curious why something very similar to that project wouldn't be done on this site.

because it was too expensive.

Related will build something with a more tenable budget.

now, enough of the spire talk.

ardecila Oct 23, 2015 7:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas (Post 7207905)
Very interesting news. A few years ago I would have salivated at the prospect of Chicago getting a BIG building, but now I'm cautiously optimistic about him handling this site – his work seems to be best suited for mid-rise/institutional uses, at least after the disappointing WTC2 design.

Exactly. BIG evolved out of Rem Koolhaas/OMA - the really revolutionary aspect of their design practice is the way they add logical pieces to the program of the building so they become little microcosms of the city. This is a really great way to design civic and institutional projects - the buildings aren't intended to make money, and the fundraising often happens after the architect gets involved so there are opportunities to increase the budget accordingly. After the building opens, you wonder how your city functioned without it.

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. That reduces BIG to the role of "form-maker", which they're not so great at.

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.

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:02 AM.

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