Hi all,
I'm a long time lurker and first time poster. I emailed the architect, Ismael Soto, to ask about these renderings. He said it was his entry for a "Zaha Hadid Architects competition", (possibly an internal competition?). Apparently it wasn't the winning entry and unfortunately, he "still doesn't know what Related plans to do with the site. Someday we will find out I guess." Sorry to be the bringer of seemingly bad news. |
Quote:
|
Damn - unless he's trying to cover his ass. Either way it's a cool design. I hope the winning design is still a very good design and as Related said "architecturally significant"
|
Quote:
|
Ok, you guys, I appreciate the #goals, but seriously, if NYC can't even launch a 2000 footer, with all its billionaire flight capital, it's highly unlikely that Chicago can. I suppose it's possible but it would take a developer with a massive personal fortune, a ton of vision and a very personal commitment to Chicago.
One wildcard are those plutocratic tax cuts, which are sure to spike the number of millionaires in the area, if not also increasing the ranks of the poor and sunsetting our already very dim democracy. |
Well, at least this wasn't a complete waste of time. I think we learned a lot about what Related wants to build on that site.
1. They don't want to build a 2,000 ft tower 2. The skyscraper will be around the height of the Sears Tower (1500 ft) 3. The skyscraper will use the same foundation as the Spire 4. Related might want to build 2 skyscrapers on the site 5. Someone other than Zaha Hadid won :shrug: |
Quote:
A mixed use would be ideal for this. |
I was going to say that part of the issue with NYC not launching anything beyond 1500' or so is probably related to how hard it is to assemble a site large enough to make a 2000' tall building feasible. You aren't gonna want to try for the first 2000' tower in the USA over a railyard like Hudson Yards, and you aren't going to do it on a tiny ass site like 432 Park or 111 w 57th.
If Chicago ever is able to turn around enough of the central area to get land values that justify larger towers like NYC, then it's possible Chicago could see a 2000'er, maybe even before NYC, but that's going to take another generation. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nevermind, sigh, i scrolled back a few posts. Anyway, i'm sure Related will use all of its tax cuts to deliver value-engineered dookie bc capitalism is working so well! |
You can always just add a 800 ft spire to get ya there...problemo solved. Sure its the cheapo way to get there but i think its about time Chicago gets to screw some other cities out of the rankings with a spire!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That said, other than the Thompson Center site what are some potential locations? I know there have been huge cancelled projects over the last few decades that never came to fruition - hopefully a few of those sites could still work. Either that or an enterprising developer with a lot of projects in the area might want to push further South and get things going in the area with an iconic tower. |
Quote:
The One Chicago Square block would be another good spot to go very tall. Maybe Rock N Roll MickyD's, if we're dreaming/speculating? |
Quote:
The prison and parking garage between Van Buren and Congress |
MCC not going anywhere
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Or... they can always do it the half ass way and use a nice spire. This would be great. Image from user "Bonsai Tree" Sure its not 600m, but you guys would be lucky if you got this. |
Quote:
It isn't. Chicago hotels live off of Mag Mile shopping and conventions/trade shows. There's a reason more than 90 percent of all Chicago hotel rooms are within 600 feet of Michigan Avenue. Hotel patrons don't pay a big premium for height/views, and hotel rooms make the elevatoring even less efficient. Usually a lot less, since you want separate elevators for hotel and condos. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.