HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 2:43 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
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).
this building would be built to the lot lines on the south and east property lines.

the west side of the site is the river where there will be a city mandated river walk, but the upper levels will extend over the river walk out to the river's edge with a nifty serrated edge.

the only side not built to the lot line is the north, where there is a small public plaza, probably mandated by pander-hack reilly.

check out the ground floor and upper level plans. i believe orange is retail space on the ground floor plan:




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

Last edited by Steely Dan; Jan 20, 2017 at 4:51 PM.
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 2:52 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,391
Brilliant floor plan from a leasing perspective, 15 corner offices per floor. 11 of which have direct river views. Law firm crack right there.
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 4:22 PM
woodrow woodrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 868
^^Not so much anymore. The trend now for large law firms is smaller offices, either one or two sizes fit all. More glass walls, more communal gathering and working spaces.

Don't get me wrong, this project will definitely be pitched to the big law firms, but the corner office perk is not as big a draw as it used to be. Becomes a headache for the firm leadership and designers.
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 5:03 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,963
From the City of Chicago Planning & Development
C/O (http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...-north-wacker/)



























__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 11:28 PM
KWILLSKYLINE's Avatar
KWILLSKYLINE KWILLSKYLINE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
Nice work BVic!!!
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 11:57 PM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,133
1.4 million sq. ft. at only 52 floors....Massive!
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 12:26 AM
Rocket49 Rocket49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 163
Looking at the drawings, I'm a bit confused by what the planned height of the building is.

There is quite a bit of detailed info in the drawings. But when it comes to height, the drawings say "Overall building height up to 800'-0"

Do the drawings indicate a building that's planned to be 800' high?

Or do the drawings indicate a building planned to be say 780' high but whose height could increase provided it doesn't exceed 800'
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 2:19 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,391
It probably just means that they don't know the exact final height yet because they probably don't have full engineering drawings yet. Either that or perhaps they are considering dropping the ceiling heights to save a few bucks.
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 1:36 PM
Ned.B Ned.B is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 572
Planned Development drawings are legally binding, and must go through an amendment process if anything significant changes. So that language may have been used so that no changes have to be made to the PD if the final building is 795 (like where 150 N Riverside was shortened 6 feet in value engineering).
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 4:24 PM
Rocket49 Rocket49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 163
Very interesting. Thanks for the info, guys.

Since it sounds like the building may lose a couple feet to "value engineerining", I'm a bit disappointed the initial plan wasn't for say 810 feet. To my ear an "eight hundred and ..." foot tall building sounds a bit more impressive than a "seven hundred and ...." foot tall building

Last edited by Rocket49; Jan 31, 2017 at 4:35 PM.
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2017, 5:49 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,133
^^^ I can agree with that also!
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2017, 2:33 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Island City, NY
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket49 View Post
Very interesting. Thanks for the info, guys.

Since it sounds like the building may lose a couple feet to "value engineerining", I'm a bit disappointed the initial plan wasn't for say 810 feet. To my ear an "eight hundred and ..." foot tall building sounds a bit more impressive than a "seven hundred and ...." foot tall building
What if you think of it as a 242.3 meter building instead of a 243.8 meter building? It matters not. The impact on the skyline will be the same give or take a few feet or meters.
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2017, 2:46 PM
Rocket49 Rocket49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller View Post
What if you think of it as a 242.3 meter building instead of a 243.8 meter building? It matters not. The impact on the skyline will be the same give or take a few feet or meters.
Very true from a skyline perspective. But from a bragging rights perspective it's nice to surpass a threshold rather than come up a bit short.

A number of people seem to care about whether a building is "supertall" or not.

And if I were a developer and was constructing a building about 70 stories high, I'd like it to see it a bit above 300 meters and called a "supertall", rather than build something that ends up being 299 meters tall.
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 10:03 PM
rgolch's Avatar
rgolch rgolch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 885
I don't believe this building is on the proposal list on pg1 of the highrise projects thread.
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 1:12 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,963
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...w-chicago-home

February 02, 2017
Could this be Bank of America's new Chicago home?
By RYAN ORI



Quote:
Bank of America is eyeing a potential lease of more than 500,000 square feet in downtown Chicago, with a Wacker Drive development along the Chicago River believed to be a top contender to land the deal.

The bank is in talks for space in a big office tower proposed for 110 N. Wacker Drive, according to real estate sources. That's where mall owner GGP's low-slung headquarters building now stands.

But two other locations also appear to be in the running: a proposed development on Franklin Street, and Willis Tower.

Sources say developers Howard Hughes and Riverside Investment & Development are in advanced talks with Bank of America to anchor a more than 50-story office tower they're proposing on the GGP site. That redevelopment would spell the end for the gray GGP building, a squat structure that is eye-catching because it is surrounded by office high-rises.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2017, 2:51 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,963
The renderings don't seem to be high-res.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20%281%29.pdf
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2017, 4:03 AM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,705
Next month's plan commission agenda has 110 N. Wacker being the only highrise (although several +80' buildings are listed), but holy crap the FAR 110 N. Wacker is seeking is 17.81 added on top of the DC-16 zoning, bringing the total FAR to a whopping 33.81. To give an idea of how much that is, the Chicago Spire sought about 25 FAR. That will be a lot of money added into the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund:
https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...017_Agenda.pdf
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2017, 12:16 AM
KWILLSKYLINE's Avatar
KWILLSKYLINE KWILLSKYLINE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
110 n. Wacker is going infront of plan commission next month again. Dropped parking from 150 to 87 spaces.
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2017, 2:08 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
110 N. Wacker is seeking ... a whopping 33.81 FAR.
I believe that will set a new record:
Three First Nat'l Plaza 32.7
181 W Madison 28.55
55 W Monroe 28.53
300 N LaSalle 25.95
Park Tower 23.9
(Waterview Tower was approved for 34.85).
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2017, 6:05 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
On Mar Plan Commission Agenda

Just thought I'd post the news in this thread that the project is showing up on the Plan Comission meeting agenda in 2 weeks....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
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 1:45 PM.

     

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