HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:52 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
in fact, in chicago's entire infamous career of ripping down the old to erect the new, there's only one single lone example of a tower over 500' tall being taken down: morrison hotel (the building, not the doors' album) back in the '60s to make way for first national plaza.
What the hell! They couldn't have found another place to put the newer building and leave this beauty up??



Image from http://www.adsttc.com
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. The Smith Center - Las Vegas, Nevada - David M. Schwarz Architects - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo

Last edited by HomrQT; Jan 20, 2017 at 6:11 AM.
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:54 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
huh?

i think you need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.

i didn't blindly attack or blindly defend anything.

what i did do was address notyourview's confounding lament about chicago building something other than boxes when 3 of the most recent 4 major office tower designs aren't boxes (including this one).
YEAH, this building isn't a box, it's a series of boxes! Learn the difference pal!
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. The Smith Center - Las Vegas, Nevada - David M. Schwarz Architects - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 6:59 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
YEAH, this building isn't a box, it's a series of boxes! Learn the difference pal!
exactly.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 7:29 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
Vooft. I didn't mean to personally attack anyone. I just think that for a city with such an incredible design heritage, Chicago can do better. I get sick of looking at boxes. And I know I'm not alone. 👊🏾 At some point, a dogmatic reverence for boxy efficiency is a cop out for a lack of inventiveness or willingness to make progress.

I don't think 150 or River Point are challenging buildings. I think they are fine buildings, but there's nothing we haven't seen before there.

To the point of novelty: Remember how proud we all were to have that giant "dildo" The Spire under construction? That cheap comparison by some couldn't undermine the unmistakeable ingenuity of it.

When I think about The Gherkin in London, Hearst Tower in NYC, Salesforce Tower in SF, and even The Mark in Seattle, I applaud their originality, I wonder, why can't Chicago build something that's not a box, because it's possible. It's happening in other, lesser, cities.
I agree with a part of this, but it's admittedly out of ego. More often than not, novel buildings are false symbols of a city's being on the supposed cultural vanguard. The Gherkin is irrational (and makes me revulse, frankly); the Hearst looks overwrought, albeit well-proportioned and graceful; Salesforce is pleasing and elegant but is nothing more than a tapered box. Authenticity is an inextricable aspect of aesthetics: When a building is conceived to employ modern materials and methods for the purpose of more effectively fulfilling its aims, then it's magic (cf. Hancock, Seagram, etc.). Exploiting that ideology by working backwards from an 'iconic' design rings false, and I'd rather have true architecture than superficial credibility. Now, that doesn't wholly apply to the case of this particular building, but it's a useful rubric for making that distinction.

Even leaving all of that aside, the site on Wacker doesn't call for anything more than a solid, well-proportioned, intensive use of the site. I see the N/S portion of Wacker Drive as the epicenter of modern commerce in Chicago. It's a collection of buildings that are fully representative of the modern era (for better and for worse) that are designed to perform, not dazzle with architectural pretense. In sum, they represent a dynamic, healthy city. Just like the innumerable blocks of anonymous office towers of midtown Manhattan do. For a site with visual prominence, like Wolf Point, the opportunity calls for something more aspiring. The Wacker site needs to deliver the functional goods and provide a welcoming presence to the public to which this building will be a daily physical presence, and the arcades on the Wacker and river side and the grand, transparent lobby should address this well. The tower mass itself is handsome and dignified, and based on Geottsch's track record, the detailing will be subtly sophisticated.
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 7:46 PM
Kenmore Kenmore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Uptown
Posts: 626
looks pretty good to me
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 7:51 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
I'm not arguing this point. See my post above......

Also, you shouldn't be comparing Goettsch and Mies. You know better....that's embarrassing.


One additional note - name an example 50 years ago, where a single private developer put up several large Mies-designed office towers in succession in one city, one after the next after the next after the next after the next....? I'm struggling to think of one.....because it didn't happen to my knowledge.....
One private developer perhaps not, but one location would be Illinois Center and its master plan and design.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
Goettsch doesn't need to retire as someone suggested and I don't think they are a lazy firm. Working within a theme doesn't mean the architect is lazy in fact it often means they are going to get the nuances and details right where a architect that changes styles for every project like Gang won't.
Goettsch does fantastic work. I would just rather see office designs by other Chicago firms like BKL, Krueck and Sexton, Ronan etc. before more Goettsch

When you reference Gang remember she's done residential. You want all her buildings looking the same like SCB? She's never done an office tower or series of them so it's strange to compare.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 7:59 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
I agree with a part of this, but it's admittedly out of ego. More often than not, novel buildings are false symbols of a city's being on the supposed cultural vanguard. The Gherkin is irrational (and makes me revulse, frankly); the Hearst looks overwrought, albeit well-proportioned and graceful; Salesforce is pleasing and elegant but is nothing more than a tapered box. Authenticity is an inextricable aspect of aesthetics: When a building is conceived to employ modern materials and methods for the purpose of more effectively fulfilling its aims, then it's magic (cf. Hancock, Seagram, etc.). Exploiting that ideology by working backwards from an 'iconic' design rings false, and I'd rather have true architecture than superficial credibility. Now, that doesn't wholly apply to the case of this particular building, but it's a useful rubric for making that distinction.

Even leaving all of that aside, the site on Wacker doesn't call for anything more than a solid, well-proportioned, intensive use of the site. I see the N/S portion of Wacker Drive as the epicenter of modern commerce in Chicago. It's a collection of buildings that are fully representative of the modern era (for better and for worse) that are designed to perform, not dazzle with architectural pretense. In sum, they represent a dynamic, healthy city. Just like the innumerable blocks of anonymous office towers of midtown Manhattan do. For a site with visual prominence, like Wolf Point, the opportunity calls for something more aspiring. The Wacker site needs to deliver the functional goods and provide a welcoming presence to the public to which this building will be a daily physical presence, and the arcades on the Wacker and river side and the grand, transparent lobby should address this well. The tower mass itself is handsome and dignified, and based on Geottsch's track record, the detailing will be subtly sophisticated.
Nice assessment this
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 8:01 PM
Near North Resident Near North Resident is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 469
I hope they use silver mirrored glass, this building could look fantastic
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 8:03 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyked3 View Post
Interesting. Seems like O'Donnell and Hughes are trying to position this tower as a really premium product - like 150 Riverside. Even more premium than 130 N Franklin, which I assume is their main competition. Too bad Sidley decided to stay. I'd feel more optimistic about one or both of these towers happening then. I don't know who else is shopping for anchor sized space right now.
There are at least 3 big ones in the market now. Perhaps 4. One I know the identity of....one I'm 80-90% certain I'm guessing correctly and the other 1 or 2 I don't know....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 8:15 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,882
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017...ghes-riverside

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen DNAinfo pull directly from SSP. Nice work BVictor1!
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 8:34 PM
FlashingLights FlashingLights is offline
Chicago Kid
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago, IL, St. Charles, IL
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
huh?

i think you need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.

i didn't blindly attack or blindly defend anything.

what i did do was address notyourview's confounding lament about chicago building something other than boxes when 3 of the most recent 4 major office tower designs aren't boxes (including this one).
My point was your repeating the same thing over and over just like the person you were arguing with. Obviously a decent amount of people felt underwhelmed by this design.

I guess I don't care if its a box or not it's not a anything that stands out.
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 8:36 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashingLights View Post
My point was your repeating the same thing over and over just like the person you were arguing with.
and yet you apparently didn't also feel the need to personally call out the person i was "arguing" with too.

curious.



on second thought, i don't think you had a point because i didn't do what you accused me of doing.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 8:39 PM
FlashingLights FlashingLights is offline
Chicago Kid
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago, IL, St. Charles, IL
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
and yet you apparently didn't also feel the need to personally call out the person i was "arguing" with too.

curious.
Don't take it personal I'm saying the design is underwhelming for some of us.

It being a box or not a box isn't really the issue at hand. Sorry if I took your post out of context or singled you out.

You haven't made an argument that convinces me that this is anything other than just an above average blue addition to wacker though.

Not horrible not something amazing either.
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 8:42 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashingLights View Post
You haven't made an argument that convinces me that this is anything other than just an above average blue addition to wacker though.
i wasn't aware that it was my responsibility to make such an argument.

where have i indicated that i believe this design to be "anything other than an above average blue addition to wacker" ?




Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashingLights View Post
Sorry if I took your post out of context or singled you out.
apology accepted.

moving on......
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"

Last edited by Steely Dan; Jan 18, 2017 at 10:57 PM.
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 8:59 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
When you reference Gang remember she's done residential. You want all her buildings looking the same like SCB? She's never done an office tower or series of them so it's strange to compare.
I wasn't hating on Gang or architects that change their style on each project. Different people have different design approaches and those approaches have different strengths. One of the strengths of approaching it the way Goettsch seems to (working within a theme or series) is that the details tend to get better over time.

Like if you are a painter and you paint oil based portraits exclusively you will probably become very good at mixing flesh tones, using oils, painting detailed shadows, lighting a figure etc. You're probably going to be better at those details than the painter that jumps from one style to another and one medium to another. That doesn't mean they aren't also a great artist or that their approach is bad.
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 10:45 PM
mbuci mbuci is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2
It sounds like there may be a few anchor tenants out there. What level of commitment does it normally take to green light an office building like this?

Is an anchor tenant required to secure financing or just highly recommended? I'm new to this and don't know much, but it surprises me to look at the highrise list of 48 buildings currently under construction and only see four office towers (625 Adams, CNA Center, 150 Riverside, and River Point). Does the 'residential boom' increase demand for office at all?
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 10:51 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuci View Post
It sounds like there may be a few anchor tenants out there. What level of commitment does it normally take to green light an office building like this?

Is an anchor tenant required to secure financing or just highly recommended? I'm new to this and don't know much, but it surprises me to look at the highrise list of 48 buildings currently under construction and only see four office towers (625 Adams, CNA Center, 150 Riverside, and River Point). Does the 'residential boom' increase demand for office at all?
Developers secure the financing from lenders, tenants usually sigh a letter of intent detailing on how much space they're committed to leasing for any duration. It's usually easier for a developer to obtain financing once an anchor tenant signs on.

Sometimes a developer will build on spec (no anchor), but that's becoming more rare and with smaller projects.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 10:59 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 871
So these are the office projects looming without anchor tenants that we know of:

1. 625 Adams (Under construction on spec, but no major leases AFAIK)
2. 130 N. Franklin
3. 590 W. Madison
4. Post Office
5. Sterling Bay SOM Proposal (? – claims to have tenants to lease in their proposal, still need selection from Union Station)
6. 311 S. Wacker twins
7. 110 N. Wacker

I personally hope 130 N. Franklin and the Post Office land anchor tenants first, assuming Sterling Bay is selected and has enough tenants for their SOM proposal.
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 11:52 PM
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
I agree with a part of this, but it's admittedly out of ego. More often than not, novel buildings are false symbols of a city's being on the supposed cultural vanguard. The Gherkin is irrational (and makes me revulse, frankly); the Hearst looks overwrought, albeit well-proportioned and graceful; Salesforce is pleasing and elegant but is nothing more than a tapered box. Authenticity is an inextricable aspect of aesthetics: When a building is conceived to employ modern materials and methods for the purpose of more effectively fulfilling its aims, then it's magic (cf. Hancock, Seagram, etc.). Exploiting that ideology by working backwards from an 'iconic' design rings false, and I'd rather have true architecture than superficial credibility. Now, that doesn't wholly apply to the case of this particular building, but it's a useful rubric for making that distinction.

Even leaving all of that aside, the site on Wacker doesn't call for anything more than a solid, well-proportioned, intensive use of the site. I see the N/S portion of Wacker Drive as the epicenter of modern commerce in Chicago. It's a collection of buildings that are fully representative of the modern era (for better and for worse) that are designed to perform, not dazzle with architectural pretense. In sum, they represent a dynamic, healthy city. Just like the innumerable blocks of anonymous office towers of midtown Manhattan do. For a site with visual prominence, like Wolf Point, the opportunity calls for something more aspiring. The Wacker site needs to deliver the functional goods and provide a welcoming presence to the public to which this building will be a daily physical presence, and the arcades on the Wacker and river side and the grand, transparent lobby should address this well. The tower mass itself is handsome and dignified, and based on Geottsch's track record, the detailing will be subtly sophisticated.
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.
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 11:58 PM
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
So these are the office projects looming without anchor tenants that we know of:

1. 625 Adams (Under construction on spec, but no major leases AFAIK)
2. 130 N. Franklin
3. 590 W. Madison
4. Post Office
5. Sterling Bay SOM Proposal (? – claims to have tenants to lease in their proposal, still need selection from Union Station)
6. 311 S. Wacker twins
7. 110 N. Wacker

I personally hope 130 N. Franklin and the Post Office land anchor tenants first, assuming Sterling Bay is selected and has enough tenants for their SOM proposal.
Ditto
     
     
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 11:50 PM.

     

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