HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


One Chicago Square in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 10:44 AM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: HOU->CHI->CMH->DC->CHI->OAK
Posts: 7,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
There is no confirmed new height. Roof height doesn't mean that building height has been changed.
Don’t know if this counts as “confirmed,” but the DNA Info article states:

Quote:
At 962 feet, the taller of the two proposed towers would be nearly as tall as the 1,127-foot John Hancock Center or Two Prudential Plaza, 180 N. Stetson Ave. The rest of Chicago's top-five tallest towers include Willis Tower, the Trump International Hotel & Tower, the Vista tower underway on Wacker Drive and the Aon Center. The Franklin Center at 227 W. Monroe St., which is 1,007 feet when including its spires, and Two Prudential Plaza (995) would also be taller.

The project's height presented Tuesday was cut down slightly from the 1,011-foot height shown in JDL's zoning application earlier this month.
So not only would it be below the 1k foot mark, it’s below the 300 meter mark as well, and therefore represents a missed opportunity for another supertall in the city. Granted it’s possible the size could increase back to 1,011 feet, but at the moment it seems like the development might just miss the mark.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 12:01 PM
Chicago_Forever's Avatar
Chicago_Forever Chicago_Forever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chi-River North
Posts: 419
^ DNA info could be wrong too and that wouldn’t be the first time. The diagram clearly shows this thing reaching at least 1,000ft. Until the developer comes out and says otherwise, there’s hasn’t been a height reduction. Btw, the diagram also shows park Tower at 824ft but it’s really 844ft after the decorative roof.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 12:16 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 left of center View Post
Oh man, so deco! Love it!

The fact that the alderman wants to mimic 57th St. in New York also bodes well.
SO DECO!!!

And huge praise to the alderman that's set on making downtown Chicago bigger and grander. So sick of people keeping these large projects on a short lease. Move to the burbs if you want short you bastards.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 12:53 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,714
Now that I think about it, I don't know if a single project has faced massive opposition on Chicago Ave yet. 805 N. Lasalle had overall support, and no one seemed to oppose 808 Wells when it was proposed. Odd since projects 2 blocks north and south of Chicago Ave tended to face a lot of opposition. Lol, maybe this street is a magical corridor where anyone can propose anything
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 1:01 PM
rgarri4's Avatar
rgarri4 rgarri4 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 872
Well..there it is...It looks like the elevations...not bad.

I guess I was kinda hoping for more articulation in the facade especially in the crown. Maybe it was all the talking on here about "art deco art deco" that I was expecting a little more. That teaser image also lead me to believe that the tower would have dark steel with dark tinted glass with that minimal ornamentation happening more than just near the base. Without that it very much looks like an asymmetrical wolf point sitting on a base. It's not a bad thing but that was my first reaction to the renders.

The second tower for sure seems like an after thought. Did they mention if this would be built in phases or all at once? I laughed when I saw the render with the Diner on the corner. Free publicity I guess.

Overall not too many surprises from what we already knew about it. I'm happy with it and hope this gets built. Please be over 1000 feet!
__________________
Renderings, Animations, VR
Youtube
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 1:03 PM
marothisu marothisu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
Now that I think about it, I don't know if a single project has faced massive opposition on Chicago Ave yet. 805 N. Lasalle had overall support, and no one seemed to oppose 808 Wells when it was proposed. Odd since projects 2 blocks north and south of Chicago Ave tended to face a lot of opposition. Lol, maybe this street is a magical corridor where anyone can propose anything
I used to live, until semi recently, a few streets north of this. I think for the stuff west, there wasn't a lot of high rises anyway so people weren't concerned on average about their view. Regardless, the census tract where I lived was the densest tract in the entire city (not counting that weird very small tract in Edgewater that's only 2 buildings). People in my opinion are more used to the density. I never heard any of my neighbors complain when that State and Chestnut building was being built, or No 9 Walton. Most people seemed to like it.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 1:06 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Island City, NY
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
Now that I think about it, I don't know if a single project has faced massive opposition on Chicago Ave yet. 805 N. Lasalle had overall support, and no one seemed to oppose 808 Wells when it was proposed. Odd since projects 2 blocks north and south of Chicago Ave tended to face a lot of opposition. Lol, maybe this street is a magical corridor where anyone can propose anything
That's an astute observation. Part of the magic of Chicago avenue, besides easy access to both the Red and Brown/Purple lines, is that current occupants include a lot of groups that wouldn't be bothered by tall buildings - Moody's, rental towers like Astoria Plaza, the recently-converted Bush Temple of Music, etc. Can you think of a condo tower association that would be upset about the height of this proposal along Chicago Ave.? I can't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 1:54 PM
Mr Roboto Mr Roboto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chi 60616
Posts: 3,577
Put a 40' 'spire' on it as an 'architectural feature' and call it a day. It would be nice to for them to market it as a supertall, although to be honest it doesn't really matter much either way. Its a great building, and would be a welcome addition in that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 2:01 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 786
A lighting scheme similar to Aura in Toronto would be nice for the crown
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 2:07 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
Now that I think about it, I don't know if a single project has faced massive opposition on Chicago Ave yet. 805 N. Lasalle had overall support, and no one seemed to oppose 808 Wells when it was proposed. Odd since projects 2 blocks north and south of Chicago Ave tended to face a lot of opposition. Lol, maybe this street is a magical corridor where anyone can propose anything
That’s because Chicago Avenue from State on West is depressing. A fugly garage, low density nonsense, followed by that sales center/single story commercial replacing what was once a nice, historic building that was demo’d for a failed condo project.

Aside from the Bush Center rehab, Chicago Ave is an embarrassment. It’s time for some serious building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 2:10 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
Don’t know if this counts as “confirmed,” but the DNA Info article states:



So not only would it be below the 1k foot mark, it’s below the 300 meter mark as well, and therefore represents a missed opportunity for another supertall in the city. Granted it’s possible the size could increase back to 1,011 feet, but at the moment it seems like the development might just miss the mark.
DNAinfo must be wrong
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 2:19 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller View Post
That's an astute observation. Part of the magic of Chicago avenue, besides easy access to both the Red and Brown/Purple lines, is that current occupants include a lot of groups that wouldn't be bothered by tall buildings - Moody's, rental towers like Astoria Plaza, the recently-converted Bush Temple of Music, etc. Can you think of a condo tower association that would be upset about the height of this proposal along Chicago Ave.? I can't.
Not to mention no Nymbys in all those Loyola buildings across the way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 2:43 PM
Halsted & Villagio Halsted & Villagio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Hyde Park
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannedairspray View Post
This is actually surreal.
Lol. Not sure what you mean by this but if you follow the thread I updated my take on the two buildings to concede similarities. Chalk my first statement up to exuberance my friend

I do so love the stately presence of this building though and think it has the potential to be a smash it -- substantially boosting the look/peak level of the skyline while doing wonders for the street presence of that area.

.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 3:04 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,971




__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 3:13 PM
DrNest's Avatar
DrNest DrNest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago View Post
A lighting scheme similar to Aura in Toronto would be nice for the crown
So true, and now that you mention it I can see it as a positive feature. Aura is very distinctive at night, even from many miles away.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 3:30 PM
The Best Forumer's Avatar
The Best Forumer The Best Forumer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc5680 View Post
From Crains I re-hosted a number of the renderings at a smaller size. The article has very large images




]
Meh... I expected something better... but oh well...
__________________
The suburbs are second-rate. Cookie-cutter houses, treeless yards, mediocre schools, and more crime than you think. Do your family a favor and move closer to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 3:33 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
Don’t know if this counts as “confirmed,” but the DNA Info article states:

So not only would it be below the 1k foot mark, it’s below the 300 meter mark as well, and therefore represents a missed opportunity for another supertall in the city. Granted it’s possible the size could increase back to 1,011 feet, but at the moment it seems like the development might just miss the mark.
DNA Info is referencing the roof height mentioned at the meeting but developers often refer to heights that make the development sound shorter than it is. I've heard measurements from the bottom of the top floor before for example. So if you look at any one of the renderings showing the top of the building there is clearly a parapet extending above the actual roof. My guess is that the 962' figure is not including that parapet. I'm guessing that's also why the number 962' on the height comparison diagram appears to contradict the image.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 3:59 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
I've heard measurements from the bottom of the top floor before for example. So if you look at any one of the renderings showing the top of the building there is clearly a parapet extending above the actual roof. My guess is that the 962' figure is not including that parapet. I'm guessing that's also why the number 962' on the height comparison diagram appears to contradict the image.
yes, this seems like what's probably causing the confusion. the 962' figure is probably that weird "underside of the top occupied floor" measurement that the city uses to record building heights.

it's extremely likely that this project will be over, or at least very, very close to, the 1,000' mark if the underside of its highest occupied floor is 962'.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 4:35 PM
gebs's Avatar
gebs gebs is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: South Loop
Posts: 716
Curbed has their take: Proposed Holy Name tower would become Chicago’s sixth tallest skyscraper [Curbed]

"Despite its considerable height, the project seeks a relatively modest Floor Area Ratio of 15.98. This means that while indeed tall, One Chicago Park is not nearly as dense as some of its neighbors. By comparison, Chicago’s John Hancock Center has four times the square footage despite being just around 100 feet taller."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 4:43 PM
rgolch's Avatar
rgolch rgolch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
yes, this seems like what's probably causing the confusion. the 962' figure is probably that weird "underside of the top occupied floor" measurement that the city uses to record building heights.

it's extremely likely that this project will be over, or at least very, very close to, the 1,000' mark if the underside of its highest occupied floor is 962'.
Hehe... Sounds a little like wishful thinking.

It'd be nice to have another "official" supertall. We seem to only get one per boom cycle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:11 PM.

     

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