SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 130 N Franklin | 751 FT | 51 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199537)

Zapatan May 23, 2012 11:53 PM

CHICAGO | 130 N Franklin | 751 FT | 51 FLOORS
 
http://imageshack.com/a/img913/7237/FsJmXc.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img661/416/8R5HBl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ixsh8khh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/5gt7dF8h.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/fRBhotAh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kCuK3I5h.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/IVKsZEah.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8PKX45hh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ppipSNHh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/hEhxXPCh.jpg

Full presentation.

http://imageshack.com/a/img674/9321/DmOt3W.jpg

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...-quicklink.php

Quote:

Back in April, we reported that the Crown Family, owner the old the Chicago Mercantile Exchange site, had teamed up with Tishman Speyer to develop the property with a one-million-square-foot office tower. We were encouraged that Krueck & Sexton, the firm behind the awarding-wining Spertus Institute on South Michigan Avenue, had been commissioned to design the building. Now, thanks to an article in the Sun-Times that includes a small, blink-and-you'll-miss-it rendering, we can peep the latest design. The building's height is encouraging as is the sleek blue facade, articulated with subtle indentations reminiscent of Spertus. No word as yet on potential tenants, though Google was rumored to be in the mix. A shiny new skyscraper at the long-vacant site would help redress past transgressions of the Crown family, which opted, amid bitter debate, to demolish the historic exchange building in 2002.
http://www.tishmanspeyer.com/propert...north-franklin

scalziand May 24, 2012 3:05 AM

Looks like hints of Spertus.

rgolch May 24, 2012 3:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand (Post 5711078)
Looks like hints of Spertus.

Right you are, given that it was designed by the same firm.

TallBob May 24, 2012 4:41 AM

Not a bad looking building. Any chance it'll get a height increase? Or is this still in the planning stages.

denizen467 May 24, 2012 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 5710872)

There is kind of a chess move aspect to this, because if/when this is built, it will become a little harder for the owners of the property to the N to build and market a tall Class A tower, as it would have no southern views to offer. Had the Crowns waited, they would be the ones with the tougher sell.

It's like the Crain's article from a couple weeks ago about Hines pulling the trigger on doing River Point on spec -- coming out of a recession, the first mover has a big advantage, and the last mover gets hosed.

Separately, I am still hoping 101 Wacker eventually gets torn down and replaced with a marquee skyscraper, which will also be somewhat harder due to 130 Franklin. Although it'll probably be the 2020s++ before we again see any Wacker towers getting demolished for bigger things (100 or 150 South may be earlier candidates, not to mention GGP).

Chicago_Forever May 24, 2012 12:22 PM

:previous: Yeah, GGP said they were looking to redevelope their proper and I was so excited to hear that news because I've always thought their currect HQ was a big waste of space for its prime location. Anyway, I beilieve they made that announcement over a year ago, I'm surprised there haven't been any kind of follow up.

Chicagoguy May 24, 2012 2:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand (Post 5711078)
Looks like hints of Spertus.

The first thing that came to mind when I saw this rendering was actually the Shangri-La Hotel and Residences in Toronto.

I can never remember how to upload a picture so here is the link!
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=148718

lawfin May 24, 2012 3:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 5711315)
There is kind of a chess move aspect to this, because if/when this is built, it will become a little harder for the owners of the property to the N to build and market a tall Class A tower, as it would have no southern views to offer. Had the Crowns waited, they would be the ones with the tougher sell.

It's like the Crain's article from a couple weeks ago about Hines pulling the trigger on doing River Point on spec -- coming out of a recession, the first mover has a big advantage, and the last mover gets hosed.

Separately, I am still hoping 101 Wacker eventually gets torn down and replaced with a marquee skyscraper, which will also be somewhat harder due to 130 Franklin. Although it'll probably be the 2020s++ before we again see any Wacker towers getting demolished for bigger things (100 or 150 South may be earlier candidates, not to mention GGP).

I don't know General Growth has to be one of the more underutilized and ugly buildings on Wacker......it is an fugly embarrassment.
I was walking east across the river at Randolph the other evening around 6ish and it appeared no one was inside general growth at all. I know they declared bankruptcy a while back but is the building still being used by them at all or by anyone.....literally saw no one inside... eerie

Oh sorry see that you mentioned GGP missed that on my first response

spyguy May 24, 2012 8:13 PM

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2659/130nfranklin1.jpg
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1...nfranklin2.jpg
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5259/130nfranklin3.jpg
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/3...nfranklin4.jpg
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5...nfranklin5.jpg

the urban politician May 24, 2012 8:30 PM

Wow, that's nice

GregBear24 May 24, 2012 8:31 PM

I don't like this proposal....

I adore it!

Buckman821 May 24, 2012 8:38 PM

Damn, that is so nice it almost makes me rethink my somewhat hardcore preservationist stance.

Then again, by the time anything gets built here I'll guess the site has been vacant a dozen years and there are plenty of other places it could've gone.

In conclusion, the Crown family can still eat shit, but please build this tower also.

arkitekte May 24, 2012 9:00 PM

Thanks for posting the additional renderings! Looks really good.

emathias May 24, 2012 9:28 PM

That design definitely doesn't hurt my eyes to look at, but all the same I think it's kinda boring. That spot's been vacant so long, I would really have hoped to see something unusually creative proposed - especially from such famous owners.

the urban politician May 24, 2012 10:24 PM

^ Maybe the building will have images of faces on the side, spouting water? That sounds about right for the Crowns

Zapatan May 24, 2012 11:30 PM

Woah spyguy those renderings are great!

This is a good looking tower, I count about 50-52 floors, it's a bit hard to tell at the bottom, so hopefully it will break 700

J. Will May 24, 2012 11:34 PM

I like the angulating facade, but it looks like it should be a little taller and thinner.

BraveNewWorld May 24, 2012 11:53 PM

Love it. This will be Chicago's 20th tallest building.

rgolch May 25, 2012 2:53 AM

Very elegant. And it it seems like it will look a little different depending on what direction you looking at it, which great.

NYguy May 25, 2012 6:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 5711921)

Very attractive.

denizen467 May 25, 2012 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 5711921)

Ahh, I see, the separate lot across the alley to the north is part of the project. I guess they are under the same ownership now. Anyway, it's a bustle! And initially it seemed almost like a parking podium (obviously rare for office towers) but one of the streetside renders shows office lighting on those floors (maybe another conference center like at UBS Tower or extra-long "trading floors").

I guess we get this exciting design because it's not a vanity address (Wacker, LaSalle) and has a lot of blocked views on the lower floors, so the developer has to attract tenants some other way. That bodes well for 222 W Randolph someday.

I only wish the crown were a little more interesting; this will be an interesting tower only within a 1 block radius, and otherwise it will be kind of a dud on the skyline (even 155 N Wacker has a little dynamism to it, and it barely pokes into the skyline).

Neuman May 26, 2012 4:48 AM

It looks like the Spertus and the new Roosevelt University dormitory building had a baby...

It looks nice, could never figure out why they tore down the old Mercantile Exchange when I worked at 333 W. Wacker 10 years ago...

bnk May 26, 2012 5:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neuman (Post 5713614)
It looks like the Spertus and the new Roosevelt University dormitory building had a baby...

It looks nice, could never figure out why they tore down the old Mercantile Exchange when I worked at 333 W. Wacker 10 years ago...

Well that would be a very large child considering the size of their parents.

I remember the term "we test the father not the husband", lol long story.

TallBob May 26, 2012 5:53 AM

Wish this one was a little taller.... Kind of "boxy". I'm kind of glad things are starting to look up a bit!!

ardecila May 26, 2012 7:38 AM

The crown I think does not need to be super-fancy... it would be nice if the crown mirrored the "skirt" of glass that encircles the lobby level, then lit up white at night. I don't mind it having a boxy top; in fact, I think it's awesome and very Chicagoan, city-of-broad-shoulders stuff.

Theoryg Jun 13, 2012 1:01 AM

Cant say anything bad about it in fact its handsome but it needs a little more height to impact the skyline a little atleast. The latest developments that are planned on average seem to function as filling gaps not advancing the cities skyline or visual imagery as a whole.

Tom Servo Jun 13, 2012 10:37 PM

Please God, let this be real. Let this happen. :D

ardecila Jun 14, 2012 12:20 AM

I also really love the little mid-rise annex. It's great when we get things like that which preserve a bit of open airspace in the Loop without resorting to parking lots. I also love seeing an architectural concept working on multiple scales. Reminds me of Lever House or Seagram or something... not too much of this style in Chicago for offices, especially in the last 10-20 years.

It will help define the south side of the John Buck plaza across the street and preserve morning and afternoon access to sunlight.

BraveNewWorld Jun 14, 2012 3:43 AM

When is this supposed to start construction ? Or has this been approved yet ?

xXSkyscraperDudeXx Jun 14, 2012 4:00 AM

I Like it. :tup:

jarta Jun 14, 2012 11:52 AM

"Ahh, I see, the separate lot across the alley to the north is part of the project. I guess they are under the same ownership now."

The lot across the alley to the north has also been owned by the Crown family interests for many, many years - just under another entity/holding company.

Ch.G, Ch.G Jun 14, 2012 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 5711921)

:slob:

ardecila, I totally agree about that "annex." Based on the above rendering, it appears as though it's meant to be an intersecting volume; there's a small portion that protrudes from the other side.

I really hope this happens. Our local talent deserves these opportunities, Krueck+Sexton especially.

emathias Jun 14, 2012 1:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 5712621)
Ahh, I see, the separate lot across the alley to the north is part of the project. I guess they are under the same ownership now. Anyway, it's a bustle! And initially it seemed almost like a parking podium (obviously rare for office towers) but one of the streetside renders shows office lighting on those floors (maybe another conference center like at UBS Tower or extra-long "trading floors").
...

It's at least partially a parking podium, for two reasons:

1) It would replace a parking lot, and there would be demand for parking.
2) If you look at the image of the north elevation, you can see that the west half of the "midrise" is higher than the east half, caused by a curving slope just like a parking garage would have.

Now, it appears to have some sort of retail in the bottom, so it's not *only* a parking podium, but it seems pretty obvious to me that at least one of its purposes is to hold parking.

Tom Servo Jun 14, 2012 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 5733823)
:slob:

I really hope this happens. Our local talent deserves these opportunities, Krueck+Sexton especially.

x10!!! YES. :yes:

This is easily the best prospect in Chicago if you ask me!
:thrasher::thrasher::thrasher:
http://www.ksarch.com/projects/130NF...es/image_2.jpg
ksarch.com


Can someone post [or re-post] a Tribune or Craig's report on this or something with detailed info? Also, will this occupy the eastern half of the block from Randolph to Washington? Never mind, it apparently will.

BVictor1 Jun 15, 2012 4:13 AM

I'd pull the office tower a bit further to the south and I'd place a skinny tower, possibly apartments on the northern end of the site.

I'd like to see a bit more texture to the tower.

BraveNewWorld Jun 15, 2012 5:08 AM

Could someone make a model of this and put it on Google earth ?

ardecila Jun 15, 2012 7:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 5733851)
If you look at the image of the north elevation, you can see that the west half of the "midrise" is higher than the east half, caused by a curving slope just like a parking garage would have.

Now, it appears to have some sort of retail in the bottom, so it's not *only* a parking podium, but it seems pretty obvious to me that at least one of its purposes is to hold parking.

There's a garage entrance to Washington visible on the south elevation.

I don't get your point about the slope, though. As far as I can tell, this has underground parking - the renderings very clearly show level floorplates and drop ceilings in the annex.

They probably won't do too much excavation - 1 or 2 levels of parking below-grade. Remember, offices provide very little parking - River Point has 1 space for every 4500sf (200 spaces overall, projected occupancy of 2500).

intrepidDesign Jun 15, 2012 4:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 5735041)
There's a garage entrance to Washington visible on the south elevation.

I don't get your point about the slope, though. As far as I can tell, this has underground parking - the renderings very clearly show level floorplates and drop ceilings in the annex.

They probably won't do too much excavation - 1 or 2 levels of parking below-grade. Remember, offices provide very little parking - River Point has 1 space for every 4500sf (200 spaces overall, projected occupancy of 2500).

Looks like above ground parking to me

http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/...gn/parking.jpg

::edit:: or is that the reflection of the cars on the street?

The Pimp Jun 15, 2012 4:59 PM

Love it!. I see many clues from the Spertus Building on Michigan Ave.

BraveNewWorld Jun 15, 2012 6:50 PM

When is the project supposed to get going ?

emathias Jun 15, 2012 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 5735041)
There's a garage entrance to Washington visible on the south elevation.

I don't get your point about the slope, though. As far as I can tell, this has underground parking - the renderings very clearly show level floorplates and drop ceilings in the annex.

They probably won't do too much excavation - 1 or 2 levels of parking below-grade. Remember, offices provide very little parking - River Point has 1 space for every 4500sf (200 spaces overall, projected occupancy of 2500).

The front plates do look flat. But look at the back half of the roofline. It approaches the north face of the main tower a full floor above the front half. A garage doesn't need sloped floors on all sides, just on one.

I could be wrong - none of us really know what's going on there - but if it's parking, it looks like several other older buildings downtown - it wouldn't be some radically new design to do it that way.

Tom Servo Jun 16, 2012 1:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pimp (Post 5735412)
Love it!. I see many clues from the Spertus Building on Michigan Ave.

Yeah. Same architecture firm.

ardecila Jun 16, 2012 2:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 5735646)
The front plates do look flat. But look at the back half of the roofline. It approaches the north face of the main tower a full floor above the front half. A garage doesn't need sloped floors on all sides, just on one.

I could be wrong - none of us really know what's going on there - but if it's parking, it looks like several other older buildings downtown - it wouldn't be some radically new design to do it that way.

I see what you mean. To me, it looks like the roof is flat (it might have some sort of hilly landform on top, but essentially flat) and the main tower has a cut into it facing the alley, like a reveal joint that visually separates the tower from the annex. My guess is that the cut in the tower is where the access to the roof deck is, and it's set back to form some sort of overhang at the door.

george Jun 19, 2012 12:41 PM

Love it, a great addition to this corner of downtown... the Spertus Institute on steroids.

xXSkyscraperDudeXx Jul 1, 2012 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign (Post 5735376)
Looks like above ground parking to me

http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/...gn/parking.jpg

::edit:: or is that the reflection of the cars on the street?

The cars that are in the glass are reflection, if you see closely you'll see it is!
By the way any updates about this project..?

dclamster Mar 6, 2013 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 6036330)
Also noticed on Tishman's website a different rendering for the proposed 1.2 million square foot office tower at 130 N Franklin. Hopefully they haven't replaced the Krueck + Sexton design for this:
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/902...hfranklin0.jpg

Just read an article on curbed stating that the original design is still a go for 130 N Franklin and that the "new" rendering was a mistake on Tishman's website. The old, correct (and IMO better) rendering is still on Krueck + Sexton's site.

http://www.ksarch.com/projects/130NF...es/image_1.jpg

Ch.G, Ch.G Mar 6, 2013 12:35 AM

^ Thank God. Chicago needs this.

ardecila Mar 6, 2013 3:46 AM

It does, but it won't come to market for a long time if ever. With the exception of River Point, none of these projects seem to be moving forward.

denizen467 Mar 6, 2013 7:02 AM

Duplicating here a recent post from the Highrise thread:
Quote:

Originally Posted by dclamster (Post 6039446)
Just read an article on curbed stating that the original design is still a go for 130 N Franklin and that the "new" rendering was a mistake on Tishman's website. The old, correct (and IMO better) rendering is still on Krueck + Sexton's site.

http://www.ksarch.com/projects/130NF...es/image_1.jpg


denizen467 Mar 6, 2013 7:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dclamster (Post 6039446)
Just read an article on curbed stating that the original design is still a go for 130 N Franklin and that the "new" rendering was a mistake on Tishman's website. The old, correct (and IMO better) rendering is still on Krueck + Sexton's site.

Thanks for that. I just cross-posted your post into the dedicated thread for this project, which hadn't been bumped in over eight months.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:13 AM.

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