PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : CHICAGO | Grant Park 3 & 4 | (3) 790' - 73 FLOORS | (4) 900' - 83 FLOORS NEVER BUILT



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Alliance
Oct 8, 2007, 4:05 AM
Well, in order to blend with the overall conservative and understated look of the Grant Park walls, I'd really love for them to avoid the all-glass look. Actually Park Tower would look just great there. Kind of a big brother to the Columbian. I'm just not sure that blue glass is going to stand the test of time, unless you throw in some good detail like 340 on the Park.

Overall, the more I think about it, the real problem here is that there's just nothing south or southwest of these buildings. The lack of massing leads to that "build tall because it's cool, not because it's necessary" feel that you see in some other cities.

Density will grow in time. You forget the South didn't have a skyline four years ago.

I think Waterview would be a good model for GP4. Park tower would be too much like the existing buildings and not at all like OMP-GP3. A park tower like building needs to go behind OMP imo.

kalmia
Oct 8, 2007, 5:35 AM
Huh? There is no station there.

The original PD obligated Central Station to build a "shell" for a new Roosevelt Road station south of Roosevelt. At the time it was thought there might be a significant hotel and office component. But Metra and the city have decided to build a new platform in the current location at 11th Place.

Really? What is that place where the trains stop under Millennium Park, near Randolph and Michigan?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Randolph_station.jpg

(photo by: http://www.chrucky.net/co13.php)

Mr Downtown
Oct 8, 2007, 2:15 PM
Millennium Station, formerly Randolph Street Station. But only the South Shore platform is under the park. Metra Electric platforms are all north of Randolph Street.

aaron38
Oct 8, 2007, 2:30 PM
I think Waterview would be a good model for GP4. Park tower would be too much like the existing buildings and not at all like OMP-GP3. A park tower like building needs to go behind OMP imo.

Yes I agree, GP4 needs a facade that isn't 100% glass. From what we've seen of Waterview's curtain wall, I think that would look good. GP4 should be glass, steel and a non painted concrete stone.

Steely Dan
Oct 8, 2007, 5:11 PM
One final shot

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/564220.jpg

awesome victor!

this image clearly shows how the residential units go all the way down to the 2nd floor on the roosevelt and indiana facades. no ugly parking podium walls above the retail level here, just people's actual living spaces from the 2nd floor on up.

wrab
Oct 8, 2007, 5:22 PM
Yeah, I have to agree with Honte and Spyguy. The wavy elements feel like a fad, rather than great architecture that will hold up for the long haul.
Even the sail element doesn't feel right in the overall render of the streetwall.
That outward bulge should be at the end of a wall, not in the middle of it.

It doesn't look bad, but it could, and should, look a lot better.

I'd be happier with GP3 if the bulges were tied into sightlines or were otherwise functional as well as distintive - the upper halves of both the N & E bulges will just bake away come mid-day, given the angle of the glass - capricious, perhaps (unlike Aqua, where these factors are integrated into the design). Not a bad design, GP3, just a bit silly. The main "sail" faces East and gives me the impression that GP3 is dissing the Park somehow, turning away from it. Eye candy - empty calories - fun to look at, but you tire of it quickly once you register the novel form - there really isn't much else to sustain your interest.

But I'm psyched nonetheless. The views from inside should stun an ox! And, if GP1 is any indication, the fit & finish will be first rate.

aaron38
Oct 8, 2007, 9:22 PM
Looking at it more, I think it should be flipped. The Sail should face Roosevelt and Grant Park. The wavy element should face Indiana.

Alliance
Oct 9, 2007, 3:45 PM
I'd 100% agree, but then the park side is more podium and less building.

the urban politician
Oct 9, 2007, 4:16 PM
From my non-expertise POV, GP3 is going to look stunning when viewed from the park. And there's a little person inside of me hoping that they use some kind of white colored stone along GP4, not only to contrast all of the glass along the Grant Park south wall buildings, but perhaps to tip its hat to the Aon building across the park.

Alliance
Oct 9, 2007, 6:52 PM
perhaps they could actually use the same granite in some panelling...similar to Waterview :haha:

cubbbyblue
Oct 9, 2007, 8:03 PM
The curved faces of this buildings should give the tenants some interesting perspectives from their baclonies. On the top building it will be neat to see the building curving away from the viewer, and standing on the balcony on the north facing side, just where the wave hits the valley should make it look as if the building is falling towards the person when looking up at it, obviously they would have to peek up over the side since there are balconies above....vertigo anyone?

Nowhereman1280
Oct 9, 2007, 9:21 PM
^^^ Count me in! I love vertigo, it scares the shit out of me, but I love it.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5796/cliffbz7.jpg

This is me on top of a 1800' cliff this summer. When I was standing on that edge, I was experiencing the scariest vertigo ever. The whole time I was up there I was thinking "This is what it would be like to live on top of the CS, wow..."

I have more pictures from up top if anyone wants to see them. Just let me know and I will post them in the "General Photography" subforum.

Marvel 33
Oct 9, 2007, 11:01 PM
Here is a high-resolution image of the Grant Park south wall and the link to the article regarding the project:

http://www.newcityskyline.com/NewGrantParkTowers.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/Marino33/CentralStation-GrantParkSouthWall.jpg

Copyrights of the image belong to: © Enterprise Companies

Alliance
Oct 9, 2007, 11:16 PM
The NCS article says both GP3 and GP4 will go for LEED certification.

10023
Oct 9, 2007, 11:41 PM
It's like Salvador Dali meets Ridley Scott. Sort of.

ardecila
Oct 9, 2007, 11:53 PM
And again they persist with that totally-unrealistic depiction of a railroad-free Grant Park.

Alliance
Oct 10, 2007, 12:23 AM
They said they had plans to cover up the tracks south of Roosevelt.

wrab
Oct 10, 2007, 12:25 AM
The balconies look pretty darn good on this one, on all of them so far.

Rocket1
Oct 10, 2007, 12:31 AM
They said they had plans to cover up the tracks south of Roosevelt.

Is this something the developer will be doing with their own money?

Nowhereman1280
Oct 10, 2007, 12:34 AM
^^^ We don't know where the money will come from, that's not clear yet.

honte
Oct 10, 2007, 2:53 AM
Anyone else getting a scary Dubai-like vibe from the southern streetwall? I am all for progressive architecture, just not sure this is the ticket.

Anything but another precast PoMo thing I suppose.

Chicago2020
Oct 10, 2007, 3:39 AM
They said they had plans to cover up the tracks south of Roosevelt.

Who said that???

Alliance
Oct 10, 2007, 3:50 AM
Anyone else getting a scary Dubai-like vibe from the southern streetwall? I am all for progressive architecture, just not sure this is the ticket.

Anything but another precast PoMo thing I suppose.

Yes and I'm VERY concerned. All these "waveforms" are very superficial. All the more reason that the GP4 design is critical to the success of the development.

And we might actually need a precast POMO in this area. Not to mention a few Mies. :haha:

Who said that???

It was posted earlier. Bvic maybe?

APPRAISER
Oct 10, 2007, 4:18 AM
When are the renderings for #4 expected?

Anyone?

sale
Oct 10, 2007, 4:20 AM
When are the renderings for #4 expected?

Anyone?

At the meeting last week, the developer indicated it wouldn't be for quite a while (about 18 months). That puts us at no earlier than April 2009.

BVictor1
Oct 10, 2007, 5:24 AM
I wonder how this tower would look with a different shade of glass? I wonder how the tower would look if the glass was transparent? Or if it has a silver reflective finish during the day like 111 S. Wacker, but became clear at night.

To me, the shade of blue being used is too close to that of One Museum Park and Sky 55.

Is there anyone who can play around with photoshop and change the color of the glass for the tower?

Alliance
Oct 10, 2007, 5:31 AM
At the meeting last week, the developer indicated it wouldn't be for quite a while (about 18 months). That puts us at no earlier than April 2009.
Did he mention if he expected it to be as Dubaified as the rest of these towers?

I wonder how this tower would look with a different shade of glass? I wonder how the tower would look if the glass was transparent? Or if it has a silver reflective finish during the day like 111 S. Wacker, but became clear at night.

To me, the shade of blue being used is too close to that of One Museum Park and Sky 55.

Is there anyone who can play around with photoshop and change the color of the glass for the tower?

Yeah, I can hit it up tomorrow.

Nowhereman1280
Oct 10, 2007, 2:58 PM
I wonder what it would look like with lime green or blaze orange glass like in an old-school Space Set of LEGOs? Maybe it could fade from blaze orange on the bottom to lime green on top? Could you try that one too Alliance? Just for fun?

Haworthia
Oct 10, 2007, 3:07 PM
Anyone else getting a scary Dubai-like vibe from the southern streetwall? I am all for progressive architecture, just not sure this is the ticket.

Anything but another precast PoMo thing I suppose.

I wasn't crazy about GP 3 & 4 before, but seeing this rendering of GP3, I'm blown away. The only real problem I have with them now is that these are so much taller than anything else around. I think the area will catch up within ten years, though.

Alliance
Oct 10, 2007, 3:17 PM
I wasn't crazy about GP 3 & 4 before, but seeing this rendering of GP3, I'm blown away. The only real problem I have with them now is that these are so much taller than anything else around. I think the area will catch up within ten years, though.
At the rate the south loop is going...it might be five:haha:.

Alliance
Oct 10, 2007, 4:47 PM
I wonder what it would look like with lime green or blaze orange glass like in an old-school Space Set of LEGOs? Maybe it could fade from blaze orange on the bottom to lime green on top? Could you try that one too Alliance? Just for fun?

Unfortunately, the rainbow sherbert approach made me want to commit sucide and I had to stop. I can't bring myself to post it.
I wonder how this tower would look with a different shade of glass? I wonder how the tower would look if the glass was transparent? Or if it has a silver reflective finish during the day like 111 S. Wacker, but became clear at night.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e399/delta2094/GP3-Edit.jpg

If you want the full version PM me.

Nowhereman1280
Oct 10, 2007, 5:16 PM
Unfortunately, the rainbow sherbert approach med me want to commit sucide and I had to stop. I can't bring myself to post it.


DARN! I want to see it! Is it so bad that its not even funny?

Alliance
Oct 10, 2007, 5:29 PM
Yeah. I might try again later, but I'm out of time now.

Dr. Taco
Oct 10, 2007, 5:57 PM
DARN! I want to see it! Is it so bad that its not even funny?

why would you want to see that?

10023
Oct 10, 2007, 7:04 PM
The grey tinted glass looks very slick.

Steely Dan
Oct 10, 2007, 7:26 PM
^ yeah it does.

i hope someone from P+H is scoping this thread.

cbotnyse
Oct 10, 2007, 8:14 PM
does anybdy know the total number of units for all 4 buildings?

BVictor1
Oct 10, 2007, 8:16 PM
^ yeah it does.

i hope someone from P+H is scoping this thread.

Well, if Alliance has no issues with it, I certainly have no problems, forwarding "alternate" renderings to the developers.

Nowhereman1280
Oct 10, 2007, 9:02 PM
why would you want to see that?

Because it would either be really awesome (highly unlikely) or it would be hilariously bad (Very Likely).

I actually am kinda interested in what a lime green building would look like. Can they even make glass that color? What about brown glass, they make buildings in all the colors glass bottles come in except brown, whats up with that?

Alliance
Oct 10, 2007, 9:24 PM
Well, if Alliance has no issues with it, I certainly have no problems, forwarding "alternate" renderings to the developers.

I certainly don't, but there are a few more things I want to touch up if its actually going to be presented to developers. I'll finish it up tonight. I also didn't know it the accents on the building were going to be white (as they appear in the render)...or aluminum/stainless/other shiny material...which would be sweet.

I'm more concerned about eliminating any more curve or sail shapes from GP4. What about a neo-modernist tower? Black glass returns! :haha: If we have blue with OMP, Green with OMPW, possibly silver/clear with GP3...black might actually be a logical choice. it would be nice to get some references to traditional Chicago skyscapers (or imitations of them) in the S.Loop.

I think its very cool that we have three areas of the city, the loop has everything and anything of quality...the Northside is begging for modern glass towers as the Southside is begging for some retro influences. We need some tower transplants. :haha:

rascacielos
Oct 10, 2007, 11:15 PM
Because it would either be really awesome (highly unlikely) or it would be hilariously bad (Very Likely).

I actually am kinda interested in what a lime green building would look like. Can they even make glass that color? What about brown glass, they make buildings in all the colors glass bottles come in except brown, whats up with that?

Wynn Las Vegas is Brown.

sale
Oct 10, 2007, 11:30 PM
Did he mention if he expected it to be as Dubaified as the rest of these towers?

Nope. It sounded as if they haven't even begun to think about the design.

Dr. Taco
Oct 11, 2007, 12:00 AM
I certainly don't, but there are a few more things I want to touch up if its actually going to be presented to developers. I'll finish it up tonight. I also didn't know it the accents on the building were going to be white (as they appear in the render)...or aluminum/stainless/other shiny material...which would be sweet.

I'm more concerned about eliminating any more curve or sail shapes from GP4. What about a neo-modernist tower? Black glass returns! :haha: If we have blue with OMP, Green with OMPW, possibly silver/clear with GP3...black might actually be a logical choice. it would be nice to get some references to traditional Chicago skyscapers (or imitations of them) in the S.Loop.

I think its very cool that we have three areas of the city, the loop has everything and anything of quality...the Northside is begging for modern glass towers as the Southside is begging for some retro influences. We need some tower transplants. :haha:

man, alliance, wouldn't that be awesome if your version was presented to them, and they ended up agreeing with you and going with it? that'd be pretty amazing

I really like the idea of not having blue glass in this tower, just because so much blue glass seems to be going up these days. the silver looks sensational

aaron38
Oct 11, 2007, 1:43 AM
I second the motion for the silvery-grey color, looks great.

kalmia
Oct 11, 2007, 2:00 AM
Anyone else getting a scary Dubai-like vibe from the southern streetwall? I am all for progressive architecture, just not sure this is the ticket.

Anything but another precast PoMo thing I suppose.

That cluster of buildings did give me a bit of a Dubai feeling, but that doesn't mean it is bad. Dubai doesn't always mean bad.

man, alliance, wouldn't that be awesome if your version was presented to them, and they ended up agreeing with you and going with it? that'd be pretty amazing

I really like the idea of not having blue glass in this tower, just because so much blue glass seems to be going up these days. the silver looks sensational

Blue could still look good. It's better than having a huge number of beige buildings. The South Loop seems to be getting a bit more color.

Chi649
Oct 11, 2007, 4:13 AM
Another article regarding the GP Towers. There are some interesting comments from various persons in it.

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=3524&TM=84096.12

Alliance
Oct 11, 2007, 4:17 AM
man, alliance, wouldn't that be awesome if your version was presented to them, and they ended up agreeing with you and going with it? that'd be pretty amazing

Heck yes. So I went back and revisited the transparency issue...meaning I increased it.

Holy f*ck. :cool: This tower actually has some amazing potential. Send her away Bvic. Thanks for putting my work to good use :cool:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1014568/GP3-Edit-Final.jpg

A little measure of the work I did:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1014568/GP3-Gif.gif

Chi649
Oct 11, 2007, 4:27 AM
^^ Very nicely done. I do think the lighter color looks better because as Bvic stated, OMP is predominately a dark blue glass, and GP3 too closely resembles it. Also, OMPW is a dark green, so the third tower should be a lighter shade. Then for GP4, go dark again. Black may not be a bad idea but then again, having the tallest of the towers be black might draw too much attention away from the others, do you think?

museumparktom
Oct 11, 2007, 6:18 AM
does anybdy know the total number of units for all 4 buildings?

If you go by the Chicago Journal Article ^^ there are 2845 units in all four buildings. OPM is 95% sold and OMPW is 65% sold.

I answered you in SSC but thought I would do the same here. This is yesterday's Chicago Journal Article on the Community Meeting.

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...24&TM=84096.12

Looks like Ald. Fioretti was very much on board.

hoju
Oct 11, 2007, 8:44 AM
That looks great alliance. The silver color really does a lot to reduce the gaudiness of that wavy facade facing grant park. Also looks contexual to 600nfairbanks with the transparency. Any chance you feel like inserting your new silver version into that picture of the 4 towers together? Also, if you do it, maybe you could tint the massing model of GP4 darker to see what effect that might have on the streetwall. I originally thought that the similar heights of the towers was the main issue with the aesthetic shortcomings of the south streetwall, but I think if the colors are done right, it could look really awesome. Anyways, great work.

Alliance
Oct 11, 2007, 1:41 PM
^^^ That is something I Intend to do, but the render of the 4 together (that Bvic took a photo of) is really crappy. Apparently glass=concrete now because OMPw looks like Carbon and Carbide. I'll have to spruce up OMP and OMPw too, which will take a little time.

I think after doing this, clear or silvery clear/reflective glass is MUST for this project. Its color will tie in with the main core of OMP, but it will bring a whole new dimension to the entire development (which is something every good building should do :cool:)

cbotnyse
Oct 11, 2007, 1:51 PM
I answered you in SSC but thought I would do the same here. This is yesterday's Chicago Journal Article on the Community Meeting.

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...24&TM=84096.12

Looks like Ald. Fioretti was very much on board.dead link...but I got your answer, thanks!

cbotnyse
Oct 11, 2007, 1:52 PM
Alliance is Alliance's biggest fan. :haha:

VivaLFuego
Oct 11, 2007, 2:24 PM
Agreed with the other commenters; good job Alliance, I hope they clad it with your glass instead.

2PRUROCKS!
Oct 11, 2007, 2:35 PM
^^^ That is something I Intend to do, but the render of the 4 together (that Bvic took a photo of) is really crappy. Apparently glass=concrete now because OMPw looks like Carbon and Carbide. I'll have to spruce up OMP and OMPw too, which will take a little time.

Try using the high res rendering Marvel33 posted from the Newcity Skyline article.


I think GP3 looks great! Both before and after Alliance's work. Silver or clear may be better, but I am a little more concerned about there being decent height disparity between the towers to avoid a picket fence effect. I say add 50ft to GP3 and 100ft to GP4. Overall I think the designs and placement of all 4 tower are great. I can see the Dubai effect that some mention. I think this is in part because this is a rendering (so it looks a little fake), it shows 4 completely new towers at once, they have forward looking architecture instead of a retro look, and they are mostly glass. I don't think this is bad at all. How long have most of us been complaining to think outside the box and designs of the present and future instead of looking so much to the past. Now we are getting it and some of us are still complaining;)

honte
Oct 11, 2007, 3:20 PM
^ I'm not complaining about the design per se. I am complaining that it is rather arbitrary and hence "Dubai-like." From what I can see, it is not the product of rigorous theory or investigation, just some kind of funky stuff. Funky is good, but this rarely produces first-rate buildings.

Chicago_Forever
Oct 11, 2007, 3:23 PM
:D Heck yes. So I went back and revisited the transparency issue...meaning I increased it.

Holy f*ck. :cool: This tower actually has some amazing potential. Send her away Bvic. Thanks for putting my work to good use :cool:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1014568/GP3-Edit-Final.jpg

A little measure of the work I did:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1014568/GP3-Gif.gif

I like this building but I don't love it. also, is it me or does it seem like this building could be 3 different towers. Take away the base and separate the remaining 3 portions of this building and you'd have 3 gorgeous towers. Can someone try messing around with this idea and see what it looks like? bvic? thanks guys.

Chi649
Oct 11, 2007, 3:26 PM
dead link...but I got your answer, thanks!try this one:

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=3524&TM=84096.12

cbotnyse
Oct 11, 2007, 4:26 PM
try this one:

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=3524&TM=84096.12it works, thanks again.

Alliance
Oct 11, 2007, 5:39 PM
"makes the city an award-winning architectural gem"...ummm...no? What is Foretti going on about?

However, both GP3 and Aqui should be comming online next Spring. I think those two towers will be a very good test of the market in Chicago. We're talking about river and park views...if those can't sell, I'd think we'd be looking at a boom slowdown. However, I'm rather confident that they'll succeed.

forumly_chgoman
Oct 11, 2007, 5:44 PM
To me GP3 seems to be gimmiky....its a novelty act w/ little substance. Its derivative of all the glass going up in streeterville.

Its tall that is about it.

Alliance
Oct 11, 2007, 5:48 PM
I actually like teh strong central line, and the interplay between the curves, but its too gimicky for my tastes too. However, it IS a drastic improvement over OMPw wich is a "Park Monroe" derivative with its stupid little toupé of a crown. OMPw is a box...get over it. Boxes are ok.

cbotnyse
Oct 11, 2007, 5:58 PM
umm...troll?I'm just jabbing you a little :P ...thats not against the rules is it?

cactus22minus1
Oct 11, 2007, 6:22 PM
As far as Alliance' alternate glass schemes goes- It looks nice, but do you guys really think that the developer/architect hasn't already considered any other facades/colors from the current render? I'm pretty sure the CAD or modeling software they're working with allows them to explore different types of facade materials and glass colors... and a much more accurately than can be done in Photoshop. With the kind of money spent in this process, I doubt someone gave exacting guidlines to adhere to... the design process should be fluid, and I'm sure this exact blue facade was not the first whack at it.

No offense to Alliance as the alterations look nice and is really fun for us to see other possibilities... but maybe it's a little naive to assume you're giving the developers a new idea by sending it?

cbotnyse
Oct 11, 2007, 6:29 PM
As far as Alliance' alternate glass schemes goes- It looks nice, but do you guys really think that the developer/architect hasn't already considered any other facades/colors from the current render? I'm pretty sure the CAD or modeling software they're working with allows them to explore different types of facade materials and glass colors... and a much more accurately than can be done in Photoshop. With the kind of money spent in this process, I doubt someone gave exacting guidlines to adhere to... the design process should be fluid, and I'm sure this exact blue facade was not the first whack at it.

No offense to Alliance as the alterations look nice and is really fun for us to see other possibilities... but maybe it's a little naive to assume you're giving the developers a new idea by sending it?I absolutely agree. There is no way they havent tried it out in different colors. Would colored glass affect the cost? We have to assume they have looked at that, especially with a building of this size.

Alliance
Oct 11, 2007, 7:26 PM
I'm just jabbing you a little :P ...thats not against the rules is it?

No. I just want to make sure its a jab and not something else. :cool:
No offense to Alliance as the alterations look nice and is really fun for us to see other possibilities... but maybe it's a little naive to assume you're giving the developers a new idea by sending it?

Please remeber that it was neither my idea to reskin the building nor my idea to send it to the developers.

I simply offered to reskin it and gave Bvic my permission to send it to the developers if he wanted to. I think its fun to play around with buildings and its also a way to test my skills at digital editing and painting. I honestly did not expect anything beyond an academic exercise that was also a request from a fellow forumer. If Bvic think it might be productive to show it to them, great. He knows how these things work.

I don't know much about the development of these buildings and how they look at them, but maybe they didn't take a specific type of glass into consideration. Regradless, the lighting on their renders was horribly innacurate. I CAN complain about this :haha:.

Alliance
Oct 11, 2007, 9:56 PM
I wonder what it would look like with lime green or blaze orange glass like in an old-school Space Set of LEGOs? Maybe it could fade from blaze orange on the bottom to lime green on top? Could you try that one too Alliance? Just for fun?

Just for you kiddo.
Don't hate me bro, don't hate me!

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e399/delta2094/GP3-DUbai.jpg

Dr. Taco
Oct 11, 2007, 10:01 PM
:lmao: wowwww, I hope the developers see this one :tup:

BVictor1
Oct 11, 2007, 11:17 PM
Good Lord!!!!!

Alliance
Oct 11, 2007, 11:23 PM
Good Lord!!!!!

Well...I aim to please :haha:

If you want the new transparent/shiny/clear one...its on the last page. i can give ya the link if you want.

SNT1
Oct 11, 2007, 11:24 PM
Chicago needs its own NYTT! :D :banana: :jester:

Alliance
Oct 11, 2007, 11:46 PM
Chicago needs its own NYTT! :D :banana: :jester:
/BofA/WTC?

spyguy
Oct 11, 2007, 11:53 PM
Maybe they can use it in a new New Year's Eve tradition. Instead of the ball lighting up as it comes down the spire, the entire building will eerily change colors!

Nowhereman1280
Oct 12, 2007, 12:43 AM
Alliance, that is sooo cool. Its so ridiculous that I want to see it built! Haha.

You're pretty good at photoshop, good job!

cactus22minus1
Oct 12, 2007, 12:55 AM
Haha!! This concept could get VERY entertaining... I motion we start a thread for conceptual PS alterations to either current structures or planned structures! :D

Alliance
Oct 12, 2007, 1:18 AM
Maybe they can use it in a new New Year's Eve tradition. Instead of the ball lighting up as it comes down the spire, the entire building will eerily change colors!

Certainly better than the "drag queen drop"

honte
Oct 12, 2007, 2:43 AM
Alliance, mad props to you. That thing is so funny, you have bought yourself infinite quantities of Trump dissing (IMO).

Small criticism: You left out the palm-tree shaped isle that is to be carved out of Grant Park. The Children's Museum will be located there, either beneath or within the Daley Casino, and the Pritzker family will swim topless like mermaids around in the lagoon.

Alliance
Oct 12, 2007, 3:40 AM
:haha: Excellent. I left it out because nudity is not allowed on the forums ;)

Marcu
Oct 12, 2007, 4:48 AM
Brilliant. All that's missing is a casino on the first floor.

i_am_hydrogen
Oct 12, 2007, 11:32 PM
I know this isn't the OMP thread, but I wanted to post this here because it's basically from the same perspective as the rendering:

Taken today:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4430/omp1012ai7.jpg

Monkey36
Oct 16, 2007, 4:46 AM
I don't believe that the concerns about having these taller buildings built right on GP affecting the possibility of good quality, tall towers to the south really merits much discussion. Have we forgetten about the body of water to the east (I just read thru this new thread and didn't see a single mention that anything built directly behind [south of] these will still have open views of the water, or access to Michigan Ave, or look out west to the growing south loop skyline. Just because it's not ON the park doesn't mean it still doensn't have its perks).

I'm going to have to say I like both renderings (blue and alliances silver/transparent).

bnk
Oct 16, 2007, 4:59 AM
Does anyone else notice the nice convenent covering of the rail tracks in GP and south in this pic.


Let us hope it will not take too long to come to fruition.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/Marino33/CentralStation-GrantParkSouthWall.jpg

djvandrake
Oct 16, 2007, 5:07 PM
^^^ Yes, and it looks awesome. I hope there is some real action being taken on that front and not just a way to pretty up the render. :shrug:

Alliance
Oct 16, 2007, 6:13 PM
There IS action being taken, but the likely hood of it being completed seems to be low. The developer has only mentioned covering up teh tracks South of Roosevelt. Nothing has been said about the tracks to the North.

Steely Dan
Oct 16, 2007, 6:26 PM
There IS action being taken, but the likely hood of it being completed seems to be low. The developer has only mentioned covering up teh tracks South of Roosevelt. Nothing has been said about the tracks to the North.

i wouldn't say that action is currently being taken. the developer has only said that they would like the tracks to be covered up south of roosevelt if the city pays for it, which i read as "ain't never gonna happen".

it's fun to daydream, but the city has much more important fiduciary priorities right now than decking over some old railroad ROW for new park land.

Untitled
Oct 23, 2007, 11:21 PM
RE: Developers having already considered all alternatives.

My design field isn't architecture, but sometimes when I'm considering a plethora of design options I get a little bit of overload and can overlook something that's obviously excellent.

Trust me, it's easy to overthink these things. Even if they already have a rendering that resembles Alliance's silvery option, maybe they'd be prompted to go back and take another look at it if they see folks praising it.

samoen313
Feb 28, 2008, 10:31 PM
what's wrong with boxes?
:ahhh::ahhh::ahhh:

the 70's, 80's and 90's.

there isn't anything wrong with them by any means. but there were so many soulless mega-boxes thrown up in the post-mies, pre-portman, som dictatorship of those three or so decades, that i think they just seem to have a negative connotation to them for most people, no matter how sleek they are.

i agree with you whole-heartedly about this building. it's an example of the pervasively sub-par, throwaway architecture that will inevitably feel misguided and outdated in ten or fifteen years. the firms that design these du jour skyscrapers are, sadly, not going to change their ways any time soon. they make themselves blow-up dolls for developers and more or less give them something inoffensive, using materials that are in right now, without a lot of regard for what looks good in the long-term.

we can always hope for more, but rarely do we get it. that said, the building isn't awful. but, like i said, it will be what many of the 80's streeterville things are now, in fifteen years.

and perhaps we'll get lucky and gp3 will stall in the current housing market, get a more sophisticated redesign three or four years down the road. because if one museum park is average, i think gp3 safely qualifies as ugly. chintzy glass, balconies-a-blarin, and one of the most bothersome, ungainly proportions i've seen on a building. it's a case of a building where there is both not enough, but too much going on.

Eventually...Chicago
Feb 28, 2008, 11:26 PM
yeah i don't know why there is all the hate towards GP3 (and even OMP).

I showed the rendering to a few of my other friends and between us all we have at least 10 degrees in art, architecture or urban planning and generally we all thought the building was pretty cool. It's no tribune building, but again residential buildings are usually nothing special. Hell, i can only name 2-3 iconic resdential buildings in chicago. Beyond lake point tower and maybe marina city, what else is there? I know the spire will be there soon but what else?

And i think it is terribly misguided to hope that a 50+ story residential building doesn't get built just so we can hope for a better design. The positive impact all those new residents will have would justify the ugliest building out there. It is kind of a similar case for block 37. Despite whatever shortcomings you think the architecture may have, the urban impact is significant. Look at NY, they ran out of easy land long ago, yet they continue to build great building after great building. I think we need to fill in all our empty parcels, gas stations and strip malls in the central area first, then we can let the market grab the low hanging fruit to redevelop. Right now, I just want more people living in the central area and whatever it takes to get them here, i'm for.

Not that these two are mutually exclusive, but sometimes i think chicago gets too wrapped up in trying to look like a great city rather than simply being a great city.

Dr. Taco
Feb 29, 2008, 12:01 AM
I think the only thing wrong with it (not that everything else about it is so great) is the cladding. Blue glass cladding? again? I don't want all four buildings to be so similarly clad. if they could mix things up a little for a change, things would be great

F1 Tommy
Feb 29, 2008, 12:09 AM
:previous: Part of that Chicago mentality is caused by the the national
media focus on NY and LA.One way to fix that is only quality growth(we are not Houston).I think this is a nice building and will really set off Grant Park.They already have plenty of boxes around GP anyway.This set of building is so great because of the hight jump away from the south loop.It would be nice to see the same jump north and west of downtown.
:)

honte
Feb 29, 2008, 12:29 AM
because if one museum park is average, i think gp3 safely qualifies as ugly. chintzy glass, balconies-a-blarin, and one of the most bothersome, ungainly proportions i've seen on a building. it's a case of a building where there is both not enough, but too much going on.

Nicely said! :tup:

Steely Dan
Feb 29, 2008, 2:01 AM
the more i stare at GP3's renderings and the more i contemplate it standing over the south end of grant park, the more excited i get about this proposal. i'm a big fan of GP3.

schwerve
Feb 29, 2008, 2:14 AM
the problem with GP3 is not the building itself but how it interacts with the other 2 buildings. MP1 & 2 have stark vertical elements but have excellent horizontal curves hidden throughout. These mesh quite well together but GP3 has strong vertical curves which clashes with the vertical lines of the first two. that's only emphasized by the blue glass which is a stark departure as well. I think if you shifted the building 90 degrees so that upper curve disappeared from the grant park face people would like the building much more.

NYC2ATX
Feb 29, 2008, 10:36 AM
ugh, Tower 3 is UH-GLEE!

Complex01
Feb 29, 2008, 6:17 PM
Wow, that is going to be really nice. Very kewl...

:wizard:

Steely Dan
Mar 1, 2008, 1:39 AM
* many posts deleted *

NEW FORUM RULE: any post in this, or ANY chicago project thread that even mentions the city of dubai is going to be deleted from now on. enough of this constant off-topic distraction. keep on topic, or go start a new thread. if you find that you can't properly express yourself in the chicago project threads without mentioning the city of dubai, then go find a new forum to join, i'm sick and tired of deleting this crap time and time and time again. knock it off!

Tom Servo
Mar 1, 2008, 8:15 AM
yeah i don't know why there is all the hate towards GP3 (and even OMP).

I showed the rendering to a few of my other friends and between us all we have at least 10 degrees in art, architecture or urban planning and generally we all thought the building was pretty cool. It's no tribune building, but again residential buildings are usually nothing special. Hell, i can only name 2-3 iconic resdential buildings in chicago. Beyond lake point tower and maybe marina city, what else is there? I know the spire will be there soon but what else?


:haha: are you serious? :haha:
how about 860-880? the commonwealth promenade apartments? john handcock? the countless residential (landmarked) chicago school buildings? contemporaine? 30 w. oak? and so on?

... maybe aqua ... or 600 n. fairbanks?

maybe it's just me, but it seems as though residential skyscrapers in chicago might be usually something special.
:koko:

also, i'll take good design over, 'pretty cool' anyday.
who was it that said something along the lines of... i'd rather be good than interesting?? hmmm...

brett7three
Mar 1, 2008, 1:28 PM
the more i stare at GP3's renderings and the more i contemplate it standing over the south end of grant park, the more excited i get about this proposal. i'm a big fan of GP3.

The building has a nice shape. Alone, it would be fantastic, I'm just worried that all four buildings toghether have the same look and feel (blue or green glass and balconies)... But heck, why am I complaining.... We're actually getting another streetwall that is sure to become famous and representative of Chicago in postcards, movies, etc.

2016?

Alliance
Mar 1, 2008, 2:37 PM
If its going to be famous, I wish we could make it worthy of such?

honte
Mar 1, 2008, 5:47 PM
^ Everybody needs to cool it. This forum has become so hostile lately, it's become a lot less enjoyable. Let's treat each others' comments and ideas with respect instead of arguing, have a legitimate discussion, and move on. This would result in less repetition of ideas and less frustration overall.

I think we all must be depressed that there isn't a new start each week or something.