CHICAGO | 110 N Wacker | 817 FT | 56 FLOORS

[Toasty Joe]

seems like it could've used another setback topped by a decorative crown... or something more in Goettsch's palette

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

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.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.

[donnie]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

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...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by kolchak

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.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by harryc

Sept 21

OT but... is there enough clearance above that bus? If someone stands do they get decapitated?

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

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).

[southoftheloop]

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.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by southoftheloop

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

[RedCorsair87]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

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.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

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.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by kolchak

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.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

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.

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

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.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by kolchak

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.

Originally Posted by kolchak

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.

[Steely Dan]

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

[SamInTheLoop]

^ 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.

[killaviews]

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.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

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.