IDK if this was posted in the past. Found it on the Vinoly site.


PDF with some data/renderings: http://vinoly.com/wp-content/uploads...iana_FINAL.pdf

http://vinoly.com/wp-content/uploads...-1778x1000.jpg
Credit: http://vinoly.com/works/1200-s-indiana-avenue/

This must have recently been uploaded to the Vinoly site as I was there last week and it wasn't on the page.

Perhaps when looking for permits, 113 E. Roosevelt as well as 1200 S. Indiana should be used.

The south loop is really posed for some serious changes in the coming years. Can you imagine with Essex tower, jahn tower, the 2nd taller tower of this project, and everything going on just east of the river on those huge parcels. South loop is bulking up big time and it's going to naturally uniform itself to the rest of the skyline, making it look that much bigger.

[QUOTE=chris08876;7523554]IDK if this was posted in the past. Found it on the Vinoly site.


PDF with some data/renderings: http://vinoly.com/wp-content/uploads...iana_FINAL.pdf

http://vinoly.com/wp-content/uploads...-1778x1000.jpg
Credit: http://vinoly.com/works/1200-s-indiana-avenue/[/QU
Btw any updates on this project start? I thought it was to begin soon like this summer?

[QUOTE=go go white sox;7524165]If there were an update, it would have been posted.

So I sent an email to a representative of Crescent Heights, and they've just responded...

According to my source, we "SHOULD" see activity toward the end of October.

I's have to be dotted and T's crossed when it comes to projects of this size.

My friend has been working on this tower. It looks nice, the quality and materials are going to be great. But imo, stylistically it looks like it's from 30 years ago.

Good, everything today sucks. I'd rather have the funky shit from back then, though I'd prefer 40 years ago. I would like this to turn out like a 850' version of UIC tower with real limestone used instead of concrete. Such a building would likely take on a Marina City like "sky garden" patina with all these terraces and balconies. Or maybe like an extruded Contemporaine. Sign me up. Maybe both will get build and be the love child of Sears Tower, Marina City, and the World Trade Center. Also channeling those cool Mies concrete towers in Indian Village.

Yeah the UIC towers concrete is really aging horribly, not sure what they can do to fix that though

I agree that's really when Chicago still had that edge to it big bold buildings. I anyways envisioned Chicago building a third all black supertall to compliment Sears and Hancock, how badass would that look in our skyline!

That'll be for the redevelopment of the Jewel site at Wabash/Roosevelt. :cheers:

No it's not, it just needs to be maintained. That's what happens to 50 year old concrete that has been exposed to the elements. If you actually go up there and grind and patch the spawling it would look just fine. This was one of the same bullshit arguments used to justify destroying Prentice. "Oh there's chips and cracks in the concrete, it's falling down".

A. No it's not, it would take an awful lot to compromise cast in place concrete like this.

B. If you actually performed regular maintenance on the building it wouldn't be an issue. Do you think brick is any different after 50 years without any tuckpointing? No, that shit will be cracking and the mortar falling out.

Alas, I'm hearing that the reconstruction plan for University Hall will get rid of half the vertical concrete elements to save money on patching. Get your photos now. When they're finished, it'll have all the distinction of a bank building in Oklahoma City.

https://media.giphy.com/media/12XMGIWtrHBl5e/giphy.gif
source: https://media.giphy.com/media/12XMGIWtrHBl5e/giphy.gif

Depressing but better than demo and sounds slight less awful than the aesthetic lobotomy performed on the smaller buildings in the original campus.

Question to the engineers out there. How much would the cost be to cover the train tracks through Grant Park? Say, if they they were to go the T-beam route as they did, on a much smaller scale, for riverpoint and 151. Would it have to come out of private founds? I couldnt see the city fronting money on a project that size. Anyway, if you have any idea of what it cost to cover either 151 or riverpoint tracks. I'm sure Friends of the Train Tracks would oppose that idea anyway.

Figure out how much Millennium Park cost and then quadruple it.

^ I doubt that. MP was built over an active parking garage, plus it contains a lot of iconic cultural amenities that wouldn't be included in a simple plan to create park space above the train tracks

The tracks don't offend me. They're in a retained trench, they're pretty much out of sight unless you're right on top of them.

I will make an exception south of 11th Place... there is no retaining wall there and the big ditch fans out to a broad ugly valley where Central Station used to be. I wouldn't mind seeing that part covered to create a "Millennium Park South" and create a solid destination at the southwest corner of the park to mirror the northwest corner.

Yeah, so first of all - inflation. Millennium Park was finished more than 10 years ago.

Second, you of course know how there are elevation changes at Millennium Park. Look at the satellite view and line those up with the train tracks. So, a real basic "cover the tracks with grass" is going to require a lot of stairs and ramps for ADA compatibility. And at the point all you have is some grass and who is going to spend money on that? So, as Ardecila points out, you might as well do a Millennium Park South and add at least a basic level of amenities (that can be sponsored by corporations of course), probably tied into a full-service train station at 11th. This would be nice to have for sure, but I'm pretty sure it's going to cost MP*4 on the low end.