CHICAGO | Tribune Tower Addition | 1,442 FT | 113 FLOORS

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't think you understood me.

regardless of any surrounding economic conditions, there will always be naysayers whenever a chicago supertall is proposed. it's as reliable as the tides because, as i said, chicago skyscraper nerds have been burned so many times by so many failed supertall efforts over the decades. it's entirely natural to be skeptical when you've been burned so many times in the past.

as for this project's odds of happening, i think 50/50 is a safe and meaningless enough starting point. it might happen. it might not.

Yeah i concur with this as a matter of experience. When all that stuff in 2005 was announced i was so giddy, and now I respond with a very detached outlook. The Spire and Waterview's concurrent demise were just too much to bear. That said, this project is really, really big and expensive project, more expensive than Vista, so even without that history, the stars really have to align to make it happen.

Thank you, rgarri4!

[rgarri4]

Originally Posted by left of center

Amazing renders, rgarri4, as always!

One minor request... can you give us a surface level perspective from say LSD & Roosevelt, if at all possible? I'd like to see how much it would potentially tower over the north wall of Grant Park... assuming its not entirely blocked by Aon?

It's completely blocked.
I made Wolf Point South 950 feet.

[wrab]

Awesome visualization aid, rgarri4! Thanks for doing this.

[HomrQT]

The height on that thing is very commanding. Great work as usual rgarri4.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

I'm so confused with all of the negative opinions of this design, I wonder what most of you actually think is a good design....

I don't think the building is a bad design, just wrong for our city and it does not pair well with the Tribune Tower.

My current favorite buildings:

9 Dekalb in Brooklyn:

https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...ng-777x740.jpg


111 West 57th in Manhattan:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chor...w-render.0.jpg

If we would have gotten something like one of these I would have been over the moon happy.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by rgarri4

Still need to smooth out edges and materialize it but here's some views.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

Yeah i concur with this as a matter of experience. When all that stuff in 2005 was announced i was so giddy, and now I respond with a very detached outlook. The Spire and Waterview's concurrent demise were just too much to bear. That said, this project is really, really big and expensive project, more expensive than Vista, so even without that history, the stars really have to align to make it happen.

Thank you, rgarri4!

Same here. Better to set my expectations low and be pleasantly surprised than the other way around. Waterview really upset me. There's only so many riverfront parcels, would've been great to have another 1000 footer right in the heart of the main branch.

Originally Posted by rgarri4

It's completely blocked.

Haha, damnit I knew it! Thanks for getting us that perspective, dude!

[LaSalle.St.Station]

So when does O'Reilly announce the obligatory 20 % downsizing due to the community's density concerns.

[230Roberto]

Can someone put this in the diagrams? I swear there was a page to request drawings can't seem to find it though.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...418-story.html

Tribune Tower plans would energize an old landmark, but don't yet create a new one

Blair KaminContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune

April 18, 2018

Holy architecture, Batman! Two developers want to build a skyscraper next to Tribune Tower that would be Chicago’s second-tallest building and more than three times taller than the neo-Gothic landmark. As one of the developers acknowledges, the flaring walls of the skyscraper’s top would resemble the ears of the Batman mask. What are we to make of this Gotham-meets-Gothic mashup?

Here’s a first impression: The plans, which also seek to convert historic Tribune Tower into condominiums and carry an anticipated cost that tops $1 billion, are an impressive work of urban design and architectural recycling. But the design of the proposed skyscraper doesn’t strike a persuasive balance between respecting one of Chicago’s most distinctive towers and creating a presence all its own.

Made public Monday by Chicago-based Golub & Co., which is co-developing the project with CIM Group of Los Angeles, the proposals should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. True, interior demolition is already readying Tribune Tower for its anticipated conversion to 163 condos due to open in 2020. Yet the proposed mega-skyscraper a hotel-residential combo scheduled for completion in 2023, may or may not come off, depending on the vagaries of the real estate and stock markets. Cue the unbuilt Chicago Spire, poster boy for dashed architectural aspirations.

The aspirations of the new skyscraper, by Chicago supertall-building specialists Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill are clear: Respect, don’t replicate, Tribune Tower. And give Chicago, whose current high-rise building boom has sorely lacked architectural innovation, something gutsy and fresh.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I don't think the building is a bad design, just wrong for our city and it does not pair well with the Tribune Tower.

My current favorite buildings:

9 Dekalb in Brooklyn:

https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...ng-777x740.jpg

111 West 57th in Manhattan:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chor...w-render.0.jpg

If we would have gotten something like one of these I would have been over the moon happy.

So which is it, are we going to be critical of the design because it resembles buildings built elsewhere or are we going to be critical of this design because it doesn't resemble buildings that you like that were built elsewhere?

[donnie]

Great renderings, this sob really stands out in a good way!

If you are the same man at 50 that you were at 20 then you have wasted 30 years!

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Kamin's title is kind of silly. It's impossible for a 1,400 foot tall building to not become a landmark(by definition) in the United States, let alone Chicago...

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by JK47

So which is it, are we going to be critical of the design because it resembles buildings built elsewhere or are we going to be critical of this design because it doesn't resemble buildings that you like that were built elsewhere?

I have to believe you're just being intentionally dense about the difference between East Asia and North America and the fact that one of these two buildings in NY has a Gothic influenced style, which would pair much better with the Tribune Tower than what has been proposed..

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by rgarri4

Really interesting how the supertalls are spaced out north to south.
There are now three distinct clusters. The Loop, the east river, and north Michigan.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't think you understood me.

regardless of any surrounding economic conditions, there will always be naysayers whenever a chicago supertall is proposed. it's as reliable as the tides because, as i said, chicago skyscraper nerds have been burned so many times by so many failed supertall efforts over the decades. it's entirely natural to be skeptical when you've been burned so many times in the past.

as for this project's odds of happening, i think 50/50 is a safe and meaningless enough starting point. it might happen. it might not.

A lot of my skepticism stems from the fate of past gems like Waldorf and the Spire (a different market/time period but still). Theoretically if this were to have a 50/50 chance that would be good enough for me since Chicago is overdo for something like this.

On the bright side, Chicago did manage to put up a ~450 meter roof back in the early 70's which was the tallest in the world for decades, so not unfeasible that we could start seeing some amazing projects during this boom.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Fvn

Just to be absolutely clear, before there’s an OBP style argument 5 years from now if and when this is built... the entire design hinges on those bronze finials.

If those get VE’d out, or made less prominent, or don’t extent all the way to the top, then this design sucks.

Core-Ten steel would also work nicely.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

A lot of my skepticism stems from the fate of past gems like Waldorf and the Spire (a different market/time period but still).

that's all understandable, but it doesn't make this tribune tower redevelopment plan a fake proposal.

it's a very real proposal with very real big-time development companies backing it up (CIM & Golub).

this isn't a case of an irish immigrant house-painter trying to bite off WAY more than he can chew.


now, none of that means that this tower will be built as currently proposed (that's for the market to decide), but the development team isn't proposing this plan for shits and giggles. it's quite real.

[Jibba]

One thing that would get me more on board is a change in how the N and S elevations culminate. Rather than having the facade end in a cleanly sculpted arch, it would be great if the material gradually decreased in density, leaving just the scaffolding of the frame at the very top. It would look like it's dissolving into the sky as it ascends and wouldn't feel as clipped off.

As it is now, it's a little too smooth and honed for me. I'd rather have it be more ethereal and suggestive of ascension than be a shiny, precise object. It would help the convex form on those sides from feeling too static and self-contained (i.e., bloated).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Jibba

One thing that would get me more on board is a change in how the N and S elevations culminate. Rather than having the facade end in a cleanly sculpted arch, it would be great if the material gradually decreased in density, leaving just the scaffolding of the frame at the very top. It would look like it's dissolving into the sky as it ascends and wouldn't feel as clipped off.

As it is now, it's a little too smooth and honed for me. I'd rather have it be more ethereal and suggestive of ascension than be a shiny, precise object. It would help the convex form on those sides from feeling too static and self-contained (i.e., bloated).

an intriguing idea.

if i'm following what you're suggesting, it could be a contemporary take on the delicate tracery often found in gothic architecture, tying the new tower back into tribune tower, without being too literal.