SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S. Michigan) | 832 FT | 76 FLOORS (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218947)

The Pimp Mar 4, 2016 5:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview (Post 7355430)
Steely is correct. The first design was a Chicago building, it was also more cerebral. This one is for consumers but i guess that's the game.

No disrespect to anyone. But I'm saying bs.

Sorry... that was harsh.

Sequenza Mar 4, 2016 6:35 AM

Ha! Love the background on the rendering from the southwest – places AT&T Center to the left (south) and Sears/333 South Wacker to the right (north).

Every time I look at the base I can't help but be reminded of the Ebony Building pre-renovation.

Notyrview Mar 4, 2016 2:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pimp (Post 7358543)
No disrespect to anyone. But I'm saying bs.

Sorry... that was harsh.

Don't worry i'm not offended.

I'm not even sure what the criticism is. I'm saying the first design was more cerebral because it challenges you to think about what a building should look like, or the limits of structural engineering. Commodities don't do that. They rely on provoking impulse, like "wow, i want that shiny sports car'. I'm okay with sports cars btw.

BVictor1 Apr 5, 2016 1:15 AM

Also, can a moderator change the rendering that represents 1000 South Michigan Avenue?

Plan Commission agenda (April 21, 2016) meeting 10:00AM

Quote:

A proposed Residential Business Planned Development and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Application No. 677 (Private-Use Zone), submitted by the Applicant, 1000 South Michigan Equities, LLC, for the property generally located at 920-1006 South Michigan Avenue and 1011-1015 South Wabash Avenue. The Applicant intends to create two subareas within the overall 46,287 square foot site. Subarea A, located at 920 South Michigan Avenue will be redeveloped with an 832’ residen- tial building with 506 dwelling units, 486 parking spaces and ground floor commercial space. Subarea B, located at 1006 South Michigan Avenue and 1011-1015 South Wabash Avenue is improved with an approximately 102’ commercial building and parking lot, respectively, and will remain as such. The overall site is currently zoned DX-12 (Downtown Mixed-Use District) and DX-16 (Downtown Mixed-Use District) and will be rezoned to a unified DX-16 prior to establishing the proposed Residential Business Planned Development. (4th Ward)

Tom Servo Apr 5, 2016 1:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James_Mac (Post 7355666)
How could he think this is "graceful?" It's a mess. If someone gave me a vase like that, I'd return it.

Because Kamin is an idiot NIMBY, posing as an architectural critic. His opinion is useless. He's only calling it a successful redesign because it's 200 feet shorter, and NIMBY morons are notoriously afraid of tall buildings.

Tom Servo Apr 5, 2016 1:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019 (Post 7358164)
It honestly looks like some 333 Wacker/River Point combo on a cheap, awkward podium

It looks like a confused, sloppy mess. The design is horrible. Just horrible.

I almost feel like it's a collective "fuck you" from the Jahn office to the clowns that opposed the original, brilliant, design.

They're all probably sitting back laughing, making jokes about how fucking stupid developers and community groups in this city are.

The original design would have been groundbreaking and an instant icon.

r18tdi Apr 5, 2016 2:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7394731)
The original design would have been groundbreaking and an instant icon.

Haven't you heard? Instant icons are bad.

Chicago is a city defined by its old icons and knee-jerk mass hang-wringings over any sign of change.

bcp Apr 5, 2016 2:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7358418)
Folks who want to study the details a bit may want to look at the large versions of the renderings:

Perspective from northeast
Perspective from southeast

One good question is whether the curved corners will actually have curved glass. The renderings suggest no. I asked the developer about it Monday, and he seemed to indicate it was possible—but that may have been wishful thinking on my part.

Thanks for these...two questions if you have the developers ear:
- why the green walls? And how do they relate to the green walls in the crown?
- base looks like different plate thickness on south and east sides...or this is ornamental on the east...or just an error in rendering..any insights?

Tom Servo Apr 5, 2016 2:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 7394770)
Haven't you heard? Instant icons are bad.

Chicago is a city defined its old icons and knee-jerk mass hang-wringings over any sign of change.

Huh?

Kngkyle Apr 5, 2016 3:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7394731)
It looks like a confused, sloppy mess. The design is horrible. Just horrible.

I almost feel like it's a collective "fuck you" from the Jahn office to the clowns that opposed the original, brilliant, design.

They're all probably sitting back laughing, making jokes about how fucking stupid developers and community groups in this city are.

The original design would have been groundbreaking and an instant icon.

For once, you are spot on. This is terrible architecture.

Mr Downtown Apr 5, 2016 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 7394788)
two questions if you have the developers ear

Sorry, but I've had no contact at all with the developer. The only meeting about this has been the one convened on March 31 by a developer organization. Without a Fourth Ward alderman, community groups are left just whistling in the dark, not sure what to do.

sentinel Apr 5, 2016 11:50 AM

I honestly wish they could just lop off the base and push the rest of the building down, I don't care if it would be about 200' shorter; quality over quantity.

new.slang Apr 5, 2016 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 7395128)
I honestly wish they could just lop off the base and push the rest of the building down, I don't care if it would be about 200' shorter; quality over quantity.

For real. this new design is actually sad. i almost wish we hadn't seen the original design to spare us from the disappointment of this generic MESS. the original fit chicago so well :hell:

pilsenarch Apr 5, 2016 4:06 PM

ditto on Kamin is a hack, nimby tool, and Jahn either handed this off or is going senile

aaron38 Apr 5, 2016 4:36 PM

^^^ He designed metal curves, he designed a metal box. Then he put curves on top of a box. About what passes for modern design these days. Unless of course we're being punked.

braun06 Apr 5, 2016 5:41 PM

If you make something amorphous because people were reacting to architecture with a statement, then it just becomes meaningless noise. This is exactly what the neighborhood wanted, something that doesn't stand out. It screams code and community based design. Now to see if people buying into an expensive price point image will to pluck down big bills to be inside Moby Dick standing on his tail above Spongebob Squarepants. I would rather buy into Crescent Heights or Wanda.

sox102 Apr 5, 2016 7:02 PM

The problem is the owner has set a budget for the exterior facade that won't work for anything they design. The budget will get the owner window wall, not a fancy unitized curtain wall skin. Cheap, cheap, cheap.

rlw777 Apr 5, 2016 7:19 PM

The design obviously needs some work and the base currently looks like an afterthought. I won't be surprised to see that change before any construction begins.

r18tdi Apr 5, 2016 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7395925)
The design obviously needs some work and the base currently looks like an afterthought. I won't be surprised to see that change before any construction begins.

Fingers crossed. The transition between the tower and base is currently a hot, wet mess. :yuck:

BVictor1 Apr 6, 2016 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7395120)
Sorry, but I've had no contact at all with the developer. The only meeting about this has been the one convened on March 31 by a developer organization. Without a Fourth Ward alderman, community groups are left just whistling in the dark, not sure what to do.

There've been two meetings on 1000 S. Michigan. One for the previous design and one for the current design.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.