CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS - Page 9

Domer2019 · #**161** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 1:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^

Am I the only one on ssp who actually likes the Park Tower and One Bennett?

Both are stunning designs IMO. Especially One Bennett Park.

But I will say this, a 500' tower on this plot is a sacrilege. A monumental waste of space. This location hopefully in time will host something iconic.

SSP has a hate boner for One Bennett, but yeah, I like Park Tower and One Bennett does have potential to look great. I also like 111 Wacker, as quirky as it is. Nonetheless, it's totally silly to call those buildings (above) some of the worst in the city (OMP's crown is it's own discussion).

If the economics line up, there's no reason why they should have to think small or be gimmicky.

Le Baron · #**162** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 12:01 PM**

not trying to defend related, but they weren't the original developer of the three buildings on the right.

Steely Dan · #**163** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 1:37 PM**

* moderator edit *

the off topic city vs. city crap has been deleted.

off topic city vs. city crap will always be deleted.

ChiTownWonder · #**164** Posted **Jun 6, 2016, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I agree, not all Related's stuff is that bad.

The one proposal with the 800 and 1000 foot tower looked pretty decent

Yes I agree Related can build decent towers.

The two tower proposal looks ok because there is nothing it can really mess up on, its way too safe. this lot is the perfect opportunity to create a landmark tower, or even THE landmark tower of Chicago.

Ryan81 · #**165** Posted **Jun 7, 2016, 4:09 PM**

From Today:

http://www.dezeen.com/2016/06/07/gen...go-spire-site/

UPChicago · #**166** Posted **Jun 7, 2016, 4:24 PM**

Clearly the writers of those articles neglected to mention that the design is not a concrete proposal......

The more I see the crutches the more I hate the idea, too gimmicky and doesn't deserve to be included on an otherwise potentially iconic structure.

Steely Dan · #**167** Posted **Jun 7, 2016, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Clearly the writers of those articles neglected to mention that the design is not a concrete proposal......

it's even less than that.

it's not a proposal at all.

it's an in-house design exercise.

headcase · #**168** Posted **Jun 7, 2016, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Clearly the writers of those articles neglected to mention that the design is not a concrete proposal......

The more I see the crutches the more I hate the idea, too gimmicky and doesn't deserve to be included on an otherwise potentially iconic structure.

If the crutches were just crutches, I may agree...but as they are integral to the idea of activating the structure and are integral to the idea of bringing revenue in from multiple sources, I think they are pretty cool. Certainly a lot better than whatever will eventually be built on the site.

SSDD

UPChicago · #**169** Posted **Jun 7, 2016, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by headcase

If the crutches were just crutches, I may agree...but as they are integral to the idea of activating the structure and are integral to the idea of bringing revenue in from multiple sources, I think they are pretty cool. Certainly a lot better than whatever will eventually be built on the site.

SSDD

If the carnival ride was enclosed and more elegant I would be for it, but since it probably would not be feasible anyways, I would prefer perhaps an elegant trench or tunnel under Lake Shore Drive with some sort of screening for the Drive itself.

Tom Servo · #**170** Posted **Jun 7, 2016, 7:57 PM**

dezeen

Ugh. If only.

maru2501 · #**171** Posted **Jun 7, 2016, 8:37 PM**

yeah that's pretty insanely cool in that spot

hopefully that kind of pie-in-the-sky exercise helps reinforce to Related that the section of the populace that is knowing and caring on such matters expects a signature structure there.

at least they have said they wish to do something architecturally significant, whatever it is that means to them...

JK47 · #**172** Posted **Jun 8, 2016, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

Uhhhh... cross braces, the city planners better squash it...

It's cool, even realistic for a fantasy project.

Yes...plus they seem to have forgotten to use blue glass. Insanity.

harryc · #**173** Posted **Jun 12, 2016, 2:09 PM**

6/10

Not just a hole - the site has a 70-80' deep wall around the perimeter - here a bit of the Northern secant wall pokes up.

chris08876 · #**174** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 2:44 PM**

Extra Diagrams:

Credit: Chicagocurbed

ethereal_reality · #**175** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc

6/10

I didn't realize the site looks like that now. Thanks for the update HarryC.

Reinsdorf Sucks · #**176** Posted **Jul 23, 2016, 3:38 PM**

Seems Gensler wasn't invited to the big boy table for real proposals then. Good on them for trying to get their foot in the door though.

BVictor1 · #**177** Posted **Jul 24, 2016, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reinsdorf Sucks

Seems Gensler wasn't invited to the big boy table for real proposals then. Good on them for trying to get their foot in the door though.

Just in-house fun by the firm.

SamInTheLoop · #**178** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 1:39 AM**

^ Yes, but I also think it was a concerted effort to get Related's attention and perhaps a commission.

Gensler's far too corporate for my tastes, however that is not to say they don't also put out some nice work.....

HomrQT · #**179** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reinsdorf Sucks

Seems Gensler wasn't invited to the big boy table for real proposals then. Good on them for trying to get their foot in the door though.

So this proposal wasn't real?

Kumdogmillionaire · #**180** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

So this proposal wasn't real?

It's real in that it has been thought up, but it is not backed by Related(yet)