HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2301  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 6:36 PM
Toasty Joe Toasty Joe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Posts: 374
seems like it could've used another setback topped by a decorative crown... or something more in Goettsch's palette
     
     
  #2302  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 6:41 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe View Post
seems like it could've used another setback
For sure.

And the original design had a 2nd setback that was unfortunately VE'd out of the final design.

__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
     
     
  #2303  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 7:20 PM
kolchak's Avatar
kolchak kolchak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
For sure.

And the original design had a 2nd setback that was unfortunately VE'd out of the final design.

Although more interesting looking for sure, the three tier design wasn't VE'd out but rather was a victim of the building's expansion, which added several hundred thousand sq feet by making the north side sheer to the top after the first setback.
     
     
  #2304  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 7:38 PM
donnie's Avatar
donnie donnie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe View Post
seems like it could've used another setback topped by a decorative crown... or something more in Goettsch's palette
If a three tier design is what you like look up the road at the BMO tower under construction...
     
     
  #2305  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 7:44 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolchak View Post
Although more interesting looking for sure, the three tier design wasn't VE'd out but rather was a victim of the building's expansion, which added several hundred thousand sq feet by making the north side sheer to the top after the first setback.
Right, it wasn't a technical VE call, like "that decorative glass fin detailing is too expensive, get rid of it", but it was still an economic-driven design change as in "hey, for a few extra million bucks worth of materials, we can add a crapload of extra leasable square footage if we just get rid of that upper set back."

The achitect's original design intention was clearly for the tower to have the more elegant three tier form. We got the current design because money.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
     
     
  #2306  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 8:45 PM
Toasty Joe Toasty Joe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
We got the current design because money.
agreed and a damn shame... hopefully they're kicking themselves now realizing how outdoor space has become and will continue being even more of a premium, and likely would've paid off to have another terrace.
     
     
  #2307  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 10:14 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryc View Post
Sept 21

OT but... is there enough clearance above that bus? If someone stands do they get decapitated?
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
     
     
  #2308  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 10:54 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS! View Post
This tower is at the bottom of the list you gave. River Point is my favorite... I think it does everything well. It has a great base with a very nice plaza, Riverwalk and now art work with the Calatrava sculpture. The tower itself is nice as it rises above the base with its gentle horizontal curve. Finally the top is very good with the arch sloped inward. I just wish the top was lit up at night. 150 Riverside is great as well. The base is of course very well done. I like the wavy verticals fins but I wish they were more robust. The building kind of falls apart at the top. This is the tallest building west of the river and should make an emphatic skyline statement. Instead it looks like the top was an after thought. I think BMO will be great as well. The base and glass look awesome so far and the top looks at least like some effort has been made from the most recent renderings. I think this may end up being Goettsch's best work so far. I think WPS will be excellent based on how WPE has turned out but I wish it would be taller and a bit more daring. 110 N Wacker is fine but nothing great especially for the tallest office building built in Chicago since the early 1990's (soon to be surpassed by WPS).

I'm with you. Partial to River Point. I have high expectations though for WPS to potentially rival River Point in a couple years. 110 Wacker is not a bad tower per se, but it's less than inspiring. It's big.....it's chunky. It has a Riverside arcade with some nice engineering. It doesn't inspire. It certainly doesn't soar. I don't hate it, but it absolutely leaves me unsatisfied and wanting more.

Look, they do some nice towers, but as always we could do with a little less Goettsch in general (more variety in large office tower design architects around the Loop would be a good thing).
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #2309  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 11:19 PM
southoftheloop southoftheloop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 98
Despite the disappointment is has received on these boards, I think WPS will turn out to be the beautiful centerpiece of the confluence, and all its slightly smaller new siblings will just be there to complement.
     
     
  #2310  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 1:46 AM
Toasty Joe Toasty Joe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by southoftheloop View Post
Despite the disappointment is has received on these boards, I think WPS will turn out to be the beautiful centerpiece of the confluence, and all its slightly smaller new siblings will just be there to complement.
Yes but:
a) the similar blue glass surrounding it detracts from its status as a centerpiece
b) the other "centerpieces" in the city have turned out much more magnificent, and we should be building to that standard for such a prominent and historic spot.... other centerpieces being Board of Trade viewed down LaSalle, Hancock when viewed from the northern beaches, Trump Tower down Wabash, St Regis through Grant Park... hell even The Robey up near me
     
     
  #2311  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 2:08 AM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe View Post
seems like it could've used another setback topped by a decorative crown... or something more in Goettsch's palette
I agree on both parts. If I had to choose, I would accept a crown (which would hopefully add another floor or two worth of feet to this tower's height).

I also wouldn't mind another bold (in color) sculpture on the north end of the lot similar to River Point.
     
     
  #2312  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 7:06 AM
kolchak's Avatar
kolchak kolchak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe View Post
agreed and a damn shame... hopefully they're kicking themselves now realizing how outdoor space has become and will continue being even more of a premium, and likely would've paid off to have another terrace.
I don't think a terrace would have made them more money than the ton of additional sq footage. Its hard to blame the developer here for what is ultimately a big gain financially and frankly the tower looks not much different imo. Its great where it meets the ground and maybe just ok when the (admittedly high quality) glass takes over. The third setback wouldn't have taken it much higher - asthetically speaking.
     
     
  #2313  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 5:20 PM
Toasty Joe Toasty Joe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolchak View Post
I don't think a terrace would have made them more money than the ton of additional sq footage. Its hard to blame the developer here for what is ultimately a big gain financially and frankly the tower looks not much different imo. Its great where it meets the ground and maybe just ok when the (admittedly high quality) glass takes over. The third setback wouldn't have taken it much higher - asthetically speaking.
Ok but developers will almost always be looking for a mix between maximizing profit and building something aesthetically pleasing, if not inspiring. My point is that, I wonder if their calculations would be different now given the state of the world and how outdoor space is driving more profit. Not saying it has to be 1:1 with the revenue they'd rake in with the additional sq ft, but it's a factor, plus keeping the original (objectively nicer) design helps with their brand.

And hard to blame the developer? I find it incredibly easy.... The vertical fins on the north facade and more pronounced fins at the crown in the rendering suggest more than just the setback was VE'd. Bank of America, one of the largest banks in the world, was a signed tenant in the tallest office building in Chicago since the 90s... holy crap let's hold the bar a little higher here, can we? Some trident pillars and a landscaped walking path are nice, but compared to its neighbors and 2Pru and the Franklin Center (last tallest offices built), it's an inferior building.

When developers choose to prioritize returns and do not dare to put up something other than a blue box (with one side of serrated edges that kinda disappear at distance), that is within their right. But also within our right to voice opinions & try to hold them accountable for the crap they spring up around our cities. While this may not qualify as crap, it doesn't feel like a winner.
     
     
  #2314  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 8:05 PM
kolchak's Avatar
kolchak kolchak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe View Post
I wonder if their calculations would be different now given the state of the world and how outdoor space is driving more profit. Not saying it has to be 1:1 with the revenue they'd rake in with the additional sq ft, but it's a factor.
I am pretty sure no amount of increased desire for outdoor space would come close to offsetting even a small percentage of the revenues from that much additional sq footage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe View Post
And hard to blame the developer? I find it incredibly easy.... The vertical fins on the north facade and more pronounced fins at the crown in the rendering suggest more than just the setback was VE'd. Bank of America, one of the largest banks in the world, was a signed tenant in the tallest office building in Chicago since the 90s... holy crap let's hold the bar a little higher here, can we? Some trident pillars and a landscaped walking path are nice, but compared to its neighbors and 2Pru and the Franklin Center (last tallest offices built), it's an inferior building.
We agree absolutely here. But I think the blame for this design's weaknesses lies with Goettsch themselves. It is a great concept engineering wise, which is displayed in the beautiful way the base meets the River and environs, but the top 80% of the building feels like an afterthought - much like it's predecessor 150 North Riverside. The effect is a smart tower with a good street presence but one that is bland and uninspired from a skyline perspective. No additional setback would have fixed this.

Franklin Center is, btw, one of my all time favorite Chicago buildings. I worked on LaSalle Street when it was being built and that was a satisfying construction project to watch from start to finish. Its a great POMO tower.
     
     
  #2315  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 8:30 PM
Toasty Joe Toasty Joe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolchak View Post
I am pretty sure no amount of increased desire for outdoor space would come close to offsetting even a small percentage of the revenues from that much additional sq footage.
in the long run, agree 100%. but we're looking at a few years of decreased office presence downtown when this building will be the shiniest and newest it'll ever be (aka charge the highest $$), and if an additional balcony could secure some big name tenant(s) in the short term, who knows what developers would've done differently. Just a thought.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kolchak View Post
We agree absolutely here. But I think the blame for this design's weaknesses lies with Goettsch themselves. It is a great concept engineering wise, which is displayed in the beautiful way the base meets the River and environs, but the top 80% of the building feels like an afterthought - much like it's predecessor 150 North Riverside. The effect is a smart tower with a good street presence but one that is bland and uninspired from a skyline perspective. No additional setback would have fixed this.

Franklin Center is, btw, one of my all time favorite Chicago buildings. I worked on LaSalle Street when it was being built and that was a satisfying construction project to watch from start to finish. Its a great POMO tower.
So yes agree some of this comes down to Goettsch's design palette, and all we have to go on is the original rendering, but I can imagine this turning out much better towards the top... like a mix between BMO and One Chicago maybe.

And love the Franklin Center. Worked in there for the past 3 years before COVID and unfortunately my company has since moved offices. Will miss the 44th floor tenant lounge.
     
     
  #2316  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 8:42 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,453
we'd also likely be more enthused by Goettsch office towers if they didn't get the commissions to design so damn many of them.

Over the past 2 decades, chicago has built 12 new office towers over 600' tall.

7 of them have been designed by Goettsch Partners (or predecessor Lohan Associates).

58% of the recent major office towers all coming from one firm is too much, IMO.



and the other 5 office towers over 600' since 2000?

Pickard Chilton - 2

Pelli Clarke Pelli -1

Pei Cobb Freed - 1

Lohan Anderson - 1
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"

Last edited by Steely Dan; Jan 29, 2021 at 9:52 PM.
     
     
  #2317  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 9:00 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
^ Yes! Especially for a market that is as big, and has as much development as Chicago there is no plausible excuse for having that high a percentage of the largest office towers in recent decades begin designed by one architect. In a city so steeped in architectural accomplishment, with this much design talent - and which should by any reasonable measure have projects that attract a lot of talent from elsewhere? It's actually preposterous.

Much of it seems to concern The John Buck Company - at least historically - which for many years seemed to hire nobody other than Lohan/Goettsch. And then, John O'Donnell left John Buck Co to form Riverside Development, and seems to have taken that practice with him (so perhaps he was the one at Buck that had an ongoing tight relationship with Goettsch?)

Again - they are fine towers, generally speaking, on their own. Some of them are quite good. But for development at this scale, in this particular town, it's hard to argue that that is not just plain lazy.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #2318  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2021, 3:56 AM
killaviews's Avatar
killaviews killaviews is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 490
The 3-4 story tall lobby levels are something special. Goettsch seems like the firm to deliver impressive/powerful/corporate/finance at a human level. And they do it well. At skyline level, they kinda all blend in. But it says something that I’m always happy and willing to take a jog in my direction to walk under 155 N Wacker and now this tower.
     
     
  #2319  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2021, 6:08 AM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
we'd also likely be more enthused by Goettsch office towers if they didn't get the commissions to design so damn many of them.

Over the past 2 decades, chicago has built 12 new office towers over 600' tall.

7 of them have been designed by Goettsch Partners (or predecessor Lohan Associates).

58% of the recent major office towers all coming from one firm is too much, IMO.



and the other 5 office towers over 600' since 2000?

Pickard Chilton - 2

Pelli Clarke Pelli -1

Pei Cobb Freed - 1

Lohan Anderson - 1
Definitely! I mean Goettsch does an amazing job (especially at street level) but I would love to see some other firms get more work. I'm still sad Kreuck Sexton's design for 130 N Franklin wasn't built.
     
     
  #2320  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2021, 3:36 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Island City, NY
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
That and Chicago is huge (and tall). One of the few skylines that can make 800' look like nothing.
New York and Chicago are just about the only skylines that can absorb an 800 footer without making a visible impact on it from a distance. Even Philly, LA, Atlanta, or Houston would be noticeably different with an office tower of this size.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:29 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.