CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS - Page 22

BVictor1 · #**421** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 4:54 PM**

Approved by plan commission

go go white sox · #**422** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Approved by plan commission

Cool I do like the previous design more but this will be a nice tall tower for the south loop and really help balance the skyline.

BVictor1 · #**423** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 8:56 PM**

Minor render updates...

The developer said he'd like to open the sales center for the condos within the next six months at 1006 S. Michigan and construction probably wouldn't begin until third quarter of 2017 or depending on how sales for the condo portion go.

braun06 · #**424** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 9:42 PM**

edit

the urban politician · #**425** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 10:04 PM**

Awesome. When does the foundation equipment arrive?

Swicago Swi Sox · #**426** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 1:50 PM**

We can move this to U/C, right?

Steely Dan · #**427** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 1:56 PM**

^ huh?

Bvic just reported that the developer told him they'd like to start Q3 2017, depending on how sales go.

so no, we won't be moving this one to U/C anytime soon, if ever.

Swicago Swi Sox · #**428** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 2:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ huh?

Bvic just reported that the developer told him they'd like to start Q3 2017, depending on how sales go.

so no, we won't be moving this one to U/C anytime soon, if ever.

Sorry...that was a little attempt at friday morning sarcasm...next time I will use a

Steely Dan · #**429** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 2:14 PM**

^ gotcha

maru2501 · #**430** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 3:29 PM**

topped out

sentinel · #**431** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 3:30 PM**

The glazing design at the base appears to match the crown much better in the updated renderings.

Ned.B · #**432** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 3:42 PM**

It looks like the curve at the lobby and 12th floor recesses were also added to tie to the upper tower.

r18tdi · #**433** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 6:57 PM**

The base and tower look much more cohesive now. I'm glad they cleaned it up.

Kngkyle · #**434** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

The base and tower look much more cohesive now. I'm glad they cleaned it up.

I wouldn't say 'much more'.. I think there is still ample room for improvement. It is at least heading in the right direction though.

r18tdi · #**435** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I wouldn't say 'much more'.. I think there is still ample room for improvement. It is at least heading in the right direction though.

I say 'much more' because it was so damn sloppy and confused before.

BVictor1 · #**436** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I wouldn't say 'much more'.. I think there is still ample room for improvement. It is at least heading in the right direction though.

The thing with the base and the tower.....

I still believe that the connectivity of the two can be enhanced and refined, but I also realize what they're trying to do with making the base fit into the stratal with the horizontal/vertical proportioning, while trying to make the tower more 'sculptural'.

I think it's the southern side disconnect of the cantilever and tower that visually throws me. That transition should be more integrated while still showing an overall separation of base from the tower.

ithakas · #**437** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I think it's the southern side disconnect of the cantilever and tower that visually throws me That transition should be more integrated while still showing an overall separation of base from tower.

Yep, this is spot on. They should also consider expanding the vertical bands of the base upwards toward the top of the tower.

Ned.B · #**438** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I think it's the southern side disconnect of the cantilever and tower that visually throws me That transition should be more integrated while still showing an overall separation of base from tower.

Looking at these new renderings, I think a good solution may actually be to disconnect the tower a little more on the south side. If the transition floors were set back more prominently, creating a visual void, there wouldn't be the awkwardness created by the curve emanating directly out of the straight angled cantilever.

Based on the straight-on distance renderings on the previous pages: does the sculptural part of the tower still get gradually wider toward the top on the south side?

BVictor1 · #**439** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B

Based on the straight-on distance renderings on the previous pages: does the sculptural part of the tower still get gradually wider toward the top on the south side?

Yes

streetline · #**440** Posted **Apr 22, 2016, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B

Looking at these new renderings, I think a good solution may actually be to disconnect the tower a little more on the south side. If the transition floors were set back more prominently, creating a visual void, there wouldn't be the awkwardness created by the curve emanating directly out of the straight angled cantilever.

Based on the straight-on distance renderings on the previous pages: does the sculptural part of the tower still get gradually wider toward the top on the south side?

It might look interesting if the rectangular base didn't flare out at all, and instead the curvy top portion continued down the south side of the base, narrowing until it vanished just above the roof to the south. That way you'd get a purer rectangle for the streetwall, and the curvy part would seem more rooted, as if it were something growing out of the base (or perhaps candle dripping down it's side)...