CHICAGO | 110 N Wacker | 817 FT | 56 FLOORS

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

The Gherkin makes me rejoice. I like it because it reminds me of a queer (as in queer community) depiction of a phallus

Ahhhhh, your aversion to "the box" now makes a whole lot more sense.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Ahhhhh, your aversion to "the box" now makes a whole lot more sense.

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Ahhhhh, your aversion to "the box" now makes a whole lot more sense.

Hahaha not true. I love Zaha Hadid's labial, galactic forms. RIP.

[TimeAgain]

What are the chances this actually gets built? General Growth has the lease until 2019, I believe, so nothing until then.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by TimeAgain

What are the chances this actually gets built? General Growth has the lease until 2019, I believe, so nothing until then.

Again it's about landing an anchor tenant. Once you see a story about letters of intent being signed you'll know the prospects of this getting built rises.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

actually, 150 is the definition of phoned in since its basically a copy of another nearly identical Goettsch building in the UAE

I think you may be forgetting 150's design isn't gratuitous; it's a perfect instance of form-follows-function. The western one-third of the footprint has an active railroad running underneath it, and the eastern one-third enables the riverwalk to be nominally open to the sky in order to satisfy the City. The developer needed to own only the middle third. I believe the earlier Abu Dhabi complex didn't have such pressing parameters. So you could even kind of think of 150 as the initial true iteration of this design and the earlier UAE building as a kind of gratuitous, version 0.9 design (and engineering, and economics) study.

[Notyrview]

Form-follows-function is lovely, and I don't hate it or advocate for its demise, but it's not the only guiding principle of design in the 21st century. As a culture, we've moved beyond seeing design exclusively in terms of efficiency. There are human factors to consider - psychological, political, sociological - as well as aesthetic considerations and engineering innovations that are impossible to execute solely within a 20th century framework.

Efficiency is not the only manifestation of authenticity. A building is in a constant dialogue with people, and designing to influence that dialogue is equally authentic. Designing for progress and sustainability is authentic. In short, there's more than one way to do it, and denying that literally boxes one in. The solution to the age-old masculine-feminine binary problem is balance. Design philosophies don't have to be mutually exclusive. Our buildings can take the best from so-called rationality and so-called passion and design for both.

[sentinel]

Congrats, BVictor1, you got a nod from the Cheeto-fingered whatevers at ChiArchBlog

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

conceivable? perhaps.

likely? i seriously doubt it.

is there a way for us to make a bet that our great-grandchildren will honor? because i'll totally take that bet.

Longbets is what you're looking for.

[vexxed82]

Forgive me if it's already been posted somewhere...to my surprise I haven't seen it in the forum yet. But Curbed posted a piece yesterday with some details and renderings of 110 N Wacker (General Growth Properties site)

800-foot riverfront tower proposed to replace Chicago’s old General Growth Building

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Congrats, BVictor1, you got a nod from the Cheeto-fingered whatevers at ChiArchBlog

They refer to BVictor1 as a "SkyscraperPage user".

Maybe it's just me, but "user" sounds a little belittling.

Looks like they're a little jealous over at ChiArchBlog.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

Authenticity is an inextricable aspect of aesthetics, but an undying adherence to it is also a handicap and its own curious form of ego. It's an excuse to hide behind gilded principles while proposal after proposal does little more than tweak a previous design, often less successfully than before. The fact is that we haven't seen a masterpiece like the Hancock since 1969 and the mandate "the site on Wacker doesn't call for anything more than a solid, well-proportioned, intensive use of the site" pretty much guarantees we're not going to any time soon.

The Gherkin makes me rejoice. I like it because it reminds me of a queer (as in queer community) depiction of a phallus, and that's refreshing, and sociologically valuable, especially in the context of commerce. It's a confrontational design, not an irrational one. Regardless of its sexual politics, it's undeniable that the cladding is superbly refined and far surpasses anything you will see on Wacker. I do agree that not all sites must dazzle, but at 800 feet, this tower is clearly trying to show off. As such, I am holding it to a higher standard.

One could argue, with the scope of this discussion sufficiently broadened, that ego is the origin of all decisions (Hobbes would certainly think so). However, even accounting for that, I still think that there an effective distinction between vanity and performance, and the Wacker tower ought to perform (barring the ought/should debate...). It is 800 feet precisely because they are trying to extract the maximum square footage from the site.

I won't say that I wouldn't enjoy something more ambitious, were the developer to sacrifice the bottom line for the public realm. But given the context, it seems totally unnecessary.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the opinion that it's "not enough" seems to stem from the belief that Chicago has lost it's edge or isn't a big enough part of the urban zeitgeist or some such thing, and I don't even care if that's true. We do and will continue to produce great things, and while the cultural climate in which those things are conceived may not be as painfully obviously sexy as other cities, it is from a humble desire to get things done and done right, and so be it. And yes, that's probably my ego talking .

Oh, and your rationale of the Gherkin, while not shared by me, is sound, and it was enlightening.

[Clarkkent2420]

#

[nomarandlee]

My two cents.

I think this building will not win any awards but it does have the potential to be the best out of any of the N-S Wacker line up. I especially think that the tiered windows on the east face have the potential to look fantastic.

The lobby while minimalist looks like it has potential to be a beauty with view corridors from Wacker side though the building looking across over the river.

The riverewalk looks great as well. It looks like there is effectively two levels. I am a little perplexed by the bottom level. Is there going to be some sort of glass enclosed dining/commercial space there like 150 Riverside or is it more likely to some sort of hardform barrier like Riverpoint with concrete/vegetation. Also, I don't see any stairs and I wonder how people transfer through the two levels. Is it only going to through the building that one can transfer through the two riverwalk levels?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

My two cents.

I think this building will not win any awards but it does have the potential to be the best out of any of the N-S Wacker line up. I especially think that the tiered windows on the east face have the potential to look fantastic.

The lobby while minimalist looks like it a potential beauty with view corridors from Wacker side though the building looking across over the river.

The riverewalk looks great as well. It looks like there is effectively two levels. I am a little perplexed by the bottom level. Is there going to be some sort of glass enclosed dining/commercial space there like 150 Riverside or is it more likely to some sort of hardform barrier like Riverpoint with concrete/vegetation. Also, I don't see any stairs and I wonder how people transfer through the two levels. Is it only going to through the building that one can transfer through the two riverwalk levels?

The tiered windows are on the west face along the river.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I think this building will not win any awards but it does have the potential to be the best out of any of the N-S Wacker line up.

yep.

i really don't know what the underwhelmed crowd was expecting from this project. once we knew that o'donnell was in on this development, we knew there was a 99.999% chance that goettsch would be designing it. and we also knew there was a 99.999% chance that goettsch wasn't going to give us a super-tall sky penis or some other some such whimsy. that's not how goettsch works.

you can lament the fact that's not how goettsch works.

you can lament the fact that o'donnell exclusively works with goettsch.

you can lament the fact that o'donnell is developing this site.

but all of that was known shit prior to the release of the design. what were people honestly expecting?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yep.

i really don't know what the underwhelmed crowd was expecting from this project. once we knew that o'donnell was in on this development, we knew there was a 99.999% chance that goettsch would be designing it. and we also knew there was a 99.999% chance that goettsch wasn't going to give us a super-tall sky penis or some other some such whimsy. that's not how goettsch works.

you can lament the fact that's not how goettsch works.

you can lament the fact that o'donnell exclusively works with goettsch.

you can lament the fact that o'donnell is developing this site.

but all of that was known shit prior to the release of the design. what were people honestly expecting?

And it's not a horrible design. The structural transfer elements on the west side are interesting.

This looks better than small resolution image we saw a month or two back.

I don't think we were expecting 800'. And it'll be interesting to see if that height is to the underside of the higher occupied floor or to the top of the tower?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

And it's not a horrible design. The structural transfer elements on the west side are interesting.

Oh yeah. It's way, WAY, WAY beyond horrible. As nomar said earlier, it probably won't be winning design awards or gracing the cover of AR upon completion, but it looks to be a very good design. A bit safe perhaps, but still good. Some people seemed to have had unreasonably high expectations for this project, despite what we knew about it and who was behind it. those of us here in reality-land knew where to set our expectation bar.

It will not become legendary, but this will likely be a very solid addition to the south branch canyon, should it get built.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

Form-follows-function is lovely, and I don't hate it or advocate for its demise, but it's not the only guiding principle of design in the 21st century. As a culture, we've moved beyond seeing design exclusively in terms of efficiency. There are human factors to consider - psychological, political, sociological - as well as aesthetic considerations and engineering innovations that are impossible to execute solely within a 20th century framework.

Efficiency is not the only manifestation of authenticity. A building is in a constant dialogue with people, and designing to influence that dialogue is equally authentic. Designing for progress and sustainability is authentic. In short, there's more than one way to do it, and denying that literally boxes one in. The solution to the age-old masculine-feminine binary problem is balance. Design philosophies don't have to be mutually exclusive. Our buildings can take the best from so-called rationality and so-called passion and design for both.

Fwiw I agree with this very much, and I wasn't invoking form follows function as a justification for all designs and design elements; I was only making the narrow point that the highly peculiar massing was uniquely justified by the site program, and thus wasn't a thoughtless carbon copy or design whim.

I think Chicago is much poorer for the pervasive lack of curves. I thought 1001 S State was a big deal, for example. Unfortunately we can expect precious few gherkins or tapering Pelli towers (which I like because the elemental geometric forms mimic so many shapes in nature) because rents are stratospheric at the top of skyscrapers and our developers see only $$$ signs when there's an opportunity to maximize floor area way up high.

[10023]

Why don't they ever build to the lot line anymore? Makes it hard to have retail, which is essential for street life (they need to start requiring ground floor retail in the West Loop, for instance).