The height on this one was changed...

Making it not much higher than 900' would barely differentiate it from the height of this tower.

^One Chicago Square and the new Tribune Tower I believe as well.

This really isn’t applicable. We have of course seen buildingings get taller than initially proposed. The question here is with regard to buildings seeing an increase where there was already an explicit cap on the developments height.

I think Mr D has covered this more thoroughly in this thread before, but there is more than just a single lot zoning consideration here. Limit has to do with net density of the neighborhood. Generally speaking, the likelihood of it getting built taller is much less than what to normally hope for and certainly isn’t similar to the alleged ‘dozens’ of other examples.

My "dozens of examples" had to do with multiple things, most notably, the recent rezoning of multiple neighborhoods by Rahm in the last couple of years. I guess one could say that is not dozens and just a few fell swoop moves, but I thought of it as changing the heights of projects within multiple areas by proxy

That would still allow a ~950 foot building, that'd be pretty awesome. Provided there are not zoning changes which hopefully there could be.

This again is rather non specific.

I mean here is just a general bit from the city itself showing that anything can get changed with permissions: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...mendments.html
There's an attached pdf to the page to show you what one must do to change zoning for a lot.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/7/27...nance-approved Here was when Lincoln Yards became a viable project

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...-fulton-market Same idea here, with no office size limits being put in. Prior, the limit was pretty harsh at 9,000 sqft. That being said, this zoning change had nothing to do with height. Still though, my main point was centered around major zoning changes being a thing since it was in response to "it can't be this big since it isn't zoned to be this big"

This was the general upzoning I was referring to from a couple years back: https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/4/15...od-zoning-plan

https://www.post-gazette.com/life/tr...s/200705180367

Here was when the Spire received the zoning change back so so long ago...

Anyway, this plus the recent zoning changes at LSE(https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/8/30...opment-meeting), and Wolf Point(https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...roved-it-twice) should suffice for my point.

From Loomis just north of Roosevelt:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Mg...=w1274-h955-no

Zoning changes happen all the time. I'd guess thousands happen every year in this city. You can see the list that gets voted on by city council and it's pretty long every month.

You may be thinking of a Planned Development which is a negotiated zoning change between developers and the city for larger/more important projects.

Once a PD is in place it's harder (but not impossible) to change zoning within it.

I'd guess this tower sits within a PD, but the lot next to it may or may not be included.

Here's the ordinace that outlines all details of this PD plus all (yes zoning changes) to it since it was created: https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/gi..._pds/PD499.pdf

Thanks for adding in the more accurate language I was looking for. I am trying to find the comments from earlier in this thread that spelled this out, but search on this site is a bit limited. My recollection is that as far as the height limit is concerned it related to limits in the PD.

PD 499 covers this tower and the lot next to it, and most of (all?) of central station.


Like you say, not impossible to change but much harder. Enough so that you can't just hand wave the height limit away as something that typically changes.

Cool perspective SIGSEGV! Looks like the church steeple has some competition

County BBQ recently reopened so had to get head over to Taylor Street to get my brisket and pork puppies

Actually PDs are no harder to change. It's the exact same process actually, it's just that getting a PD in the first place is a lot more work because you are essentially writing a custom zoning code for that parcel. In the case of a height increase that's very simple for an existing PD. All you would have to do is file for an amendment to the existing PD which is a document that let's you make minor changes to the PD without much debate. As with anything else in Chicago, if the alderman supports it then it's a shoo in.

The best example of this process is the LSE PD which has already been amended countless times to change heights and shift density around since it was first enacted. Most notably the Vista site required an amendment to the PD which allowed a building up to 1200' with it's current configuration of hotel and residential units.

Changing the allowed height for the Michigan and Roosevelt site would be no harder than changing the PD was for Vista to allow a 1200' building instead of 850' or whatever the limit was before. In fact, it would be literally the exact same process except they would likely not be requesting any shifts in density or unit count since they are already planning max density on that corner and almost none on the town homes site just South on the east side of Indiana. From that perspective the process would be simpler than what was required to make Vista a possibility.

one other complicating factor is that the zoning or the pd or whatever this restriction is, is also based on the number of residential units within the district, not just building heights. so if there are 3000 allowable units and 2500 are built or are under construction, you can only build 500 units in the second tower (it's been over two years since I worked on the design for the second tower so I don't recall the exact numbers of units, so just making these numbers up.) obviously that affects building height also.

https://i.imgur.com/mE10jnE.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/qQ2rLtF.jpg

01/03/19

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...579556/enhance

^^A true Chicago beast^^One of its best views. Nice shot Bvic.

Excellent pic and is that the same type of grating they're going to use for Vista's blow through?

^^^ Vista's blow thru will be open, no grates or panels. Has to be in order to have the desired aerodynamic effects.

This tower is very Searsy, loving it. The grates themselves harken back to Sears hardcore.

another great one

Is this Toronto? Unrecognizable Chicago here.

Look, I worked on this project (a little) when I worked for Vinoly. But I can't understand why its "hearkening" to the Sears tower makes it great. Sears is great because its bundled tubes were innovative at that time, and using them as it does creates nice architecture.
Copying it doesn't make OGP great, it's just a copy. And not even an authentic copy, as it doesn't use the same structural system, which is what dictates Sears' architectural form. It just tries to copy the look of the form, just on a smaller scale, and in white instead of black.

^ It's obviously Vinoly's take on a Chicago icon. Sears is great, and OGP is inspired by greatness. Its verticality, smoke glass, white lines and black louvers are a perfect fit for this town and hardly a copy of Sears. What's there not to like?

Let's thank Vinoly for channeling Sears Tower energy and not some tower in Miami!

It's invoking the Sears tower, but isn't a copy. You seem to have a very strong negative opinion of the tower for whatever reason, but I don't understand why. The tower's design wraps around itself like a spiral staircase going 900 feet into the sky. That is unique in its own right and very different from the Sears tower. I'm not gonna try and argue over something subjective, since you have your mind set that the tower is awful, but for most people, this tower will be iconic.

Tallest all residential in the city as well might I add ;)

Wow, this one is really looking great too. This and Vista are the top two new towers by far.

I like the building, I just don't understand how people think that "invoking" another building, or whatever you want to call it, makes a building great. That is postmodern poison.
Just being tall doesn't make it great either. NY WTC pre 9-11 comes to mind.

I think one could argue that great buildings are in a dialogue their site and surroundings. And one of the most important surroundings is other buildings. "Dialogue" doesn't mean "mindlessly replicate", but it does mean responding to or building off of it in an interesting way. That could be putting your own spin on similar ideas, or it might mean doing something totally different and complementary.

In this case, one of the surroundings is another building, which is incredibly important and iconic. NEMA borrows some ideas from Sears, puts its own spin on it, and marries it with the particular needs of its own site and program. The end result enhances both NEMA and the broader skyline, IMO.

I wasn't implying that, it was just a fun side note I wanted to add

Well virtually all the buildings in that shot are from the 90s or more recent so that's maybe why it looks a little Toronto-ish.

I hope you guys like LEGOs.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7823/...fa0125b7_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4887/...0332cef5_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7880/...bbb63153_h.jpg

So if a building is great because it is "in dialogue" with its surroundings, then those surroundings are demolished or drastically altered for some reason, is the building no longer great?
No, a great building has to be able to stand alone as well.
What buildings is the Empire State Building "in dialogue" with? I would argue none. Not the Chrysler, that's not even in the same neighborhood. Nor does it really care about its surroundings. It's the Empire State Building, its surroundings can kiss its ass as far as it's concerned.

I very much love LEGO (not to be that guy, but there is no plural btw).

Great little build though!

No one implied that the only thing that makes a building great is it being in perfect dialogue with everything around it. The Sears tower and ESB are buildings that make an impact on their surroundings, and everything else adapts around them. I'd argue the incoming tower, One Vanderbilt is a perfect example of a tower being in dialogue and invoking the ESB with a modern look.

You are taking people very literally, and again, not everything has to be in concert with one another, but when it is done well, it's obviously a plus. NEMA is an example of this. I take it you aren't very poetic with your overtly literal interpretations of buildings and how people describe their impact/influence on the urban environment/fabric.

wut?

YAY! :cheers:

You should make its twin, too.

Exactly

Are you an architect? Whether you are or not, having worked in Vinoly’s office I would think you would be familiar with the words architects use to talk about their design work. It is VERY common for architects to use words such as “having a dialogue with”, “referencing”, “creating a vernacular vocabulary”, etc., etc. IIRC, Vinoly himself used such rhetoric to explain the design of this building...

So, it appears to me that criticizing a fellow former for utilizing this language would be misguided.

I am an architect, I did work for Vinoly, I am very familiar with the language you describe. I also disagree with a lot of it. It's not misguided, it's called thinking for yourself.
I do agree that buildings designed with their environments and surroundings make for the best buildings. But I don't agree that they have to have a dialogue with surrounding buildings in order to be great. Buildings have to be able to stand on their own and considered independent of other buildings. As I said earlier, if the surrounding buildings are demolished, that should not detract from the building's greatness.

I don't think anyone ever said this? I think Bonobo put it well:

Come talk to us when someone decides to tear down the Sears Tower...


Design isn't about just one building anyways, it's about a vernacular. 99% of all Roman buildings constructed in the history of Rome are partially or completely demolished. Yet their design vernacular and vocabulary dominated all of Europe and the Mediterranean for millennia and continued to influence design trends in far flung places like the United States as recently as 100 years ago. To a certain extent their vernacular is still a force to this day. So who gives a shit if all that is left of the Temple of Saturn is a few columns from the portico? Who cares if the forum itself is obliterated except a few chunks of its foundation? The ideas live on and are replicated over and over again.

If in 2000 years people are still building square buildings with lots of cascading setbacks because "that's how they built them in ancient Chicago" then that's a resounding design success. If we are building similar buildings 50 years after the Sears went up, that's also a design success. One of the wonderful parts of Chicago's hallowed design heritage is just how omnipresent the aesthetics and philosophy and engineering of our own little civilization has become. When the product of your society becomes so commonplace that the greatest criticism of it is its ubiquity, then you have succeeded. I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to follow that design school especially given the fact that, unlike Dubai, China, NYC, etc, Chicago continues to be a place highly constrained by economics. A place where highrise design is practical, but must be austere and conservative to succeed.

Let everyone else build "statues of bugs humping each other" as I believe TUP put it. In Chicago we will continue to refine Modernism and adapt the simplicity and efficiency to successive generations of construction. We can leave the construction of the "1 Dildo Place" type buildings to everyone else. What you see as a failure is merely an affirmation of our vernacular, may we see 500 more giant square buildings with nice glass and details and plenty of setbacks.

The exact thing that makes the Chicago skyline so cool is that it is like a city composed as one giant sculpture.

Walking to Soldier Field today :( I noticed how well NEMA adds to it.

I do like this tower a lot but I often get the feeling that Vinoly gets lucky rather than is actually a great designer and architect.

Totally agree and we should count our lucky stars we didn't end up with the walkie-talkie!:runaway:

If that were true, there would never be any innovation.

it did look good on tv a couple of times during the game. I didn't screen-shot it

Very cool--nice job.

I suggest you go study architectural history. That's not how innovation happens. Frank Lloyd Wright didn't just wake up one day and decide to build Falling Water, Robie House, and the Guggenheim just out of the blue. Go visit hi home in Oak Park you tell me design isn't derivative and about a vernacular. His first projects were all psuedo Victorians with maybe a bit of Sullivanesque ornament. He only arrived at his most famous works after decades of refining forms over thousands of projects. This is just an example of one architect of course, though he is possibly the most influential in history, but it illustrates exactly what I said perfectly.

FLW would not be known as such a mensch of design if it were just about ONE of his buildings. In fact, he could never have achieved his most spectacular innovations if not for repeated attempts at perfecting his vision. It's indisputable that FLW's greatness is a result of the vernacular he created and that vernacular is, as I said, a result of thousands of variations on the theme each one advancing his vision only marginally. But look beyond his direct works and consider the effect his designs had on our culture. Literally decades of construction echoed what he did or used some of the best elements of it. THAT is indicative of good design and, though it undoubtedly drove Wright himself nuts, imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Projects like Falling Water and Robie drove an entire generation of suburban design. To this day the themes of his work reverberate through new construction designs. I was just driving through a new subdivision some inlaws of mine bought in in Iowa over NYE and noticed all the lamps, windows, and detailing were unquestionably Prairie Style more than 110 years after Robie House was completed.

FLW succeeded, he created a truly American aesthetic. He could not have had that success without spawning an entire design vernacular that persists in our culture. Now is the subdivision in Iowa as hallowed as Robie House? No, but it doesn't need to be. The same applies to OGP, does it need to be sacred like Sears? No, but it's a damn fine building that may come to be appreciated in much the same way in the future for it's own merits and contributions to the incremental progression of design.

bears talk moved to the general discussions thread: https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/sho...d.php?t=208431

Lets do this conversation without any architect / design language and discuss the reality of the design.

Unless you are building an ultra-luxury condo / Landmark office / public facility (University/event space/hospital/etc) you are not going to have the budget or the inefficiency of space use (eg. wasted space on weird floorplates / dead zones) that would allow something groundbreaking and different.

This project was built in the context of building a typical high end apartment building. To build these, as you must know as an architect, you are in a battle of efficiency to get it to pencil for a developer. You dont have much room to deviate.

So within that context you are left with a lot of glass boxes of varying sizes with slightly different glass colors and minor detailing.

In my view what Vinoly did is take a highly efficient but distinct design of "bundled tubes" (even if thats not the structural system) that maintains all the efficiency of typical apartments but creates something more iconic / distinct. Yes its just a copy and not groundbreaking but it is different / better than the alternative.

I guess my TL:DR is just this isnt high design. Its apartment boxes and we will take what we can get when someone can do something even slightly different.

Also for the 2nd tower. Its in the central station PD, but its still within the downtown zone so buying FAR would be easy. And while there are unit limits for the PD, I would be shocked if any mega-PD like Central Station actually hit their limit. Like LSE has more than enough units, they will run out of density before they run out of allowable units.