Won't be a supertall last time I checked its height was 875 feet.

http://www.surfacemag.com/articles/s...op-their-egos/

Stephen M. Ross to Architects: Drop Your Egos

November 14, 2017

Well, "the fall" is only around for another month. It's been 3 years since they got control of the site, so the wait better be worth it.

Heard from a source in the industry that new plans are in the works. Taking it with speculation, but all the other news I have heard has been spot on (especially regarding One Chicago Square I also got the heads up on).

On a personal note, not looking for Hudson Yards here, but it would be lovely to have a supertall on that site. Not quite 2,000ft tall, but about Trump's height would look great imo.

doesnt need to be 2000ft but would want something over 1500 ft..perhaps the cities tallest atlest...i know going for 2000ft is a bit much

A skyscraper can be tall 2.000 ft thanks to a spire. There is not need to reach that height with the roof.;)

Oh my gosh you guys, get over yourselves. Let's just wait and see, because any mental foreplay you do amounts to nothing. I'll consider things a success if it breaks 1200, because I'm not sure Related has set their sights on anything more than what figures give them the best business while still being worthy of the site and Rahm's judgement, subjective as that is.

I'm holding Related to when they said they would develop something "Architecturally significant" for this site. Going to or passing 2000ft would be architecturally significant for the Western Hemisphere.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2014/11/4...ficant-chicago

I get what you're saying, but it's a shallow promise on many levels.

Architectural significance =/= height significance. Design and engineering are 90% of that discussion, especially at a time when 2000 ft is not a watershed moment. Not saying a 2000'er in NA wouldn't be significant, just that there are a lot of ways to take that statement. I'm sure many Chicagoans have or will come to find 150 N Riverside significant simply because of its cantilevers.

Really, when it comes down to it, Related is not going to tack on 500-1000 extra feet if it just results in a net loss in the 10s/100s of millions on their margins. If they want 1400 feet and a unique design like that of the recent stilt concept for the site or something like Vista (if Vista wasn't already a thing) rather than 2000, you can't really say that they're hypocrites. Maybe they just have a different mindset on the architectural significance and fit for the site. Rest assured, I think 1400 would obviously still "fit" the site's prominence. Perhaps we should be more irked that Magellan didn't try to allocate more FAR/density to Site I on the other side of the river.

Just curious, are you confident a 2000ft tower would not do well financially at that location, or is it more of a "what if" on your part?

Just a what-if, considering this would surely be on the tail end of this boom. We've yet to see what effect the avalanche of incoming units will have, but if it's feasible, it's feasible. I'm definitely team megatall, but I'm just not gonna count my chickens before they hatch.

Thanks for sharing – a great read. There's also a few short interviews further down the page with prominent architects on working with Stephen.

Here's an interesting bit from David Childs of SOM:

It could be for the 78 site, but it seems more likely this might be the Spire site...

Hopefully him working on the Freedom Tower makes him want to build bigger, instead of being afraid of backlash for doing so...

I hate to open this back up. . . but I have NEVER seen this picture before. . . http://payload546.cargocollective.co...addm14_612.jpg

Here is the link: http://ismaelsotodesign.com/PROFESSIONAL-EXPERIENCE

It looks pretty promising. The other two skyscrapers in this page are actual projects. The one in San Fran is a Related project. . . I don't know what this image means, but if it means what I think it does than omg. Of course I could be completely off. :shrug:

Interesting find. Now to identify if this is legitimate in any way or if it's just an exercise in creativity on their part. I get sort of a Marinas Towers vibe from this - as in experimentation that's not too bad. I don't like how the second shorter tower is inverted and top heavy though. The main tower also does not appear to be 2000ft.

Impressive concept, looks like a couple of lamps/bottles from the 70's! My guess is 1400-1600 ft.

Would like to see a rendering at nite....

Star Wars? ^^^

Interesting. And it does jump out at you as much as the Spire would have. If Related were to build this I think they would deserve a lot of credit for going out and finding something just as impressive as the Calatrava. Only thing is we will still need a Santiago Calatrava building or atleast bridge in the city of Chicago.

Related will never build anything that interesting on the spire site.

But it would have been cool to have a Hadid supertall in this town.

The smaller one is around 75 floors, the larger one around 115. The round shape makes good use of the existing foundation. I wouldn't say this is all that unrealistic.

While I don't have this confirmed, it looks like this might be it. The image is under "Professional Experience" in his portfolio page. Why would he put a personal project under his "Professional" page? Also, on the same page the other two projects are real (as I have said before). Most of all, the one in San Fran is a Related Project, suggesting that he has done design work for them in the past. It also says he has professional experience at SOM, and Zaha Hadid (the firm that designed these structures). Most of all, this building has a practicality that only Related would do. The taller tower is clearly built on the same foundation as the original spire. Meanwhile, the taller tower doesn't go to 2,00 ft (which I think everyone knew probably wouldn't happen). It is definitely different, and architectural significant. They chose to use Zaha Hadid, one of the most famous firms in the world to fulfill this task. Now, it is possible that they asked multiple firms to create designs for them (and that would explain why BIG was mentioned earlier) but why them would they hire a professional design guy? Either way, this image has at least something to do with the project, it could be the real design, the preliminary design or something else. For me, it has all the hallmarks of a Related building.

This fits perfectly with Chicago and manages to echo Sears and Marina towers at the same time, an uncanny accomplishment. But, yeah, would take a developer with vision and a more global POV.

If you assume the same overall floor-to-height ratio as Related's neighboring project (12.3 ft per floor) then you get heights of 922 FT and 1,415 FT. That second one is only 35 shy of Sears. If real, then Trump's days at #2 are probably numbered, Vista wont be #3 for long, and even Sears could threatened.

Really dig the design. Looks really organic. I say build the taller tower as is. The shorter tower looks like it need a little work, however. Maybe adding a setback to it ala the taller tower might help?

I don't mind not having the height be 2000 ft. It would honestly look a bit awkward when viewed from the lake to have such a tall building right along LSD. 1500' would look a lot more balanced in the skyline as a whole.

Off topic chicago vs. New york posts have been deleted.

Please stay on topic folks.

This is a beautiful proposal.

The shorter tower complements the proposed BKL tower across the river (assuming that still happens).

I like it - looks somewhat futuristic. My girlfriend finds it atrocious though LOL. What are the actual odds this is part of the real proposal?

Not an architect or anything, but if this was a real "proposal" (in quotes because I know there's some specific criteria for something to actually be a proposal, I'm using it more colloquially), wouldn't it have a bigger unveiling than a guy's professional experience webpage?

You are assuming that everyone is watching some random architect's webpage for this without even knowing that he was the architect that Related had hired (if true). Just because it's out there doesn't mean there couldn't be an unveiling in the near future if this one is true. This was just a fluke that someone found it. I've helped launch numerous products that were just out there in the open for a month before there was any "news" about it.

Well that's why I asked. I'd assume the guy that told the artists to make the render would've also said "Keep this under wraps until we announce it", but maybe no one really cares.

You'd be surprised at how much people can get away with by not tipping off anybody of what they're doing. I obviously have no idea if this is a "real proposal" or not, but I don't think the fact that it was on some random architect's webpage that 99.99% of the population doesn't know anything about doesn't automatically mean it's nothing. It's interesting because it's from Zaha Hadid Architects but it's on the site of a guy, Ismael Soto. If you put this on Zaha Hadid Architects' website, you'd probably have people all over it because they're famous. Ismael Soto though?

At this point, I'm just hoping for something good. Personally I like this design - it's kind of futuristic and unique.

Ok let's be honest this project is sick af. Every time i come back to it i like it more.

Agree. Also look closely or zoom in and you'll see hints of the structure that's underneath the facade. By the looks of it, the shorter tower is around 90 floors while the taller one is 125 or 130 floors.

Indeed.... totally agree:cheers:

Dare I say this would be one of the best skyscrapers in the world!

.

this vision looks similar in concept to 9 DeKalb in Brooklyn. Hopefully this rendering has merit towards whatever is being planned here.

https://images.adsttc.com/media/imag...jpg?1447084347
https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...ng-777x740.jpg

Pretty neat if true, is this a pre humus hadid design? Also the taller tower tapers, but the shorter tower un-tapers.

YES oh god please this is some neo-futuristic structural expressionism perfect for Chicago

^ If this rendering is real, you should copyright "neo-futuristic structural expressionism"

You are a very good poster Hudson and have been a nice contributor to Chicago topics in general but I honestly don't see much similarity between this and the concept piece for Brooklyn except for height. Am I missing something or am I just missing it:shrug:

.

The cylindrical look and the "black base" with lighter windows seem to be in common to me.

I am compelled to admit this:

I love New York...But I wish this upon Chicago.

It's too stunning to pass up the opportunity...almost literally so.

Good luck, gents.

Yes. The cylindrical shape plus setbacks and dark facade elements are the connections which came to mind. 9 DeKalb is more angular to achieve an art deco silhouette while this vision emphasizes its curves. I really, really like it. You don't see buildings like this built often in the US.

I'm trying to think what the best way to get this confirmed is. Anyone have any ideas?

Spam Related’s social media with questions and then overanalyze their response [or lack thereof]? I don’t wanna get the designer in trouble though

Not a concept piece, that project is under construction already

On that note, the foundation for this one is already done.

I don't want to start with the picture. . . maybe just ask questions relating to it?

Damn I really hope this is legit, it's truly something iconic, and I love that Chicago doesn't use spires often to gain height often.

Has an exoskeleton look which is cool. Also its nice that the shorter tower steps outwards that's not seen a lot in taller buildings