CHICAGO | One Chicago | 971 FT & 574 FT | 78 & 49 FLOORS

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by rlw777

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:

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.

[Chicago_Forever]

^ 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.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by left of center

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.

[Randomguy34]

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

[rgarri4]

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!

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

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.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

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.

[Mr Roboto]

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.

[UPChicago]

A lighting scheme similar to Aura in Toronto would be nice for the crown

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

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.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

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

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

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.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

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.

.

[BVictor1]

[DrNest]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

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.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by jc5680

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...

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

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.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by rlw777

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'.

[gebs]

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."

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.