CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS - Page 43

Fvn · #**841** Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 2:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

Hell yeah. Thats a good sign?

Its been there for a while. Looks like they changed it from just saying seek beauty to 1000m // seek beauty though

HomrQT · #**842** Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 4:23 AM**

Whaaa a 1000 meter tower??? Cheers to everyo- ah right it's the address...

Domer2019 · #**843** Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 5:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Whaaa a 1000 meter tower??? Cheers to everyo- ah right it's the address...

R.I.P.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/3/1/...1000m-revealed

donnie · #**844** Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 7:07 AM**

I liked the height of the original but the newer rendering is way more sexy!

Domer2019 · #**845** Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 7:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie

I liked the height of the original but the newer rendering is way more sexy!

A new base that's frankly cringworthy, and no more cantilevered massing, that's enough for me to decide...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...002-story.html

KWillChicago · #**846** Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 12:36 PM**

Definetly wish we were getting the original. Vertical block building is just simply...chicago.

And does that original drawing give anyone else a craving for madarin oriental to re-appear? Whats going on with that site? Thats some prime land.

jc5680 · #**847** Posted **Jan 20, 2018, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie

I liked the height of the original but the newer rendering is way more sexy!

No it's not

HomrQT · #**848** Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 7:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie

I liked the height of the original but the newer rendering is way more sexy!

Gotta disagree with you there. IMO the original was drastically superior design.

left of center · #**849** Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 7:25 PM**

The new design has grown on me, especially after the release of the video, but I still have not-so-minor concerns about how the tower meets the base. It still looks awkward and fairly forced.

The original design is definitely superior. The cantilevering seems more abrupt and unapologetic, in a very cool and visually pleasing way.

JMKeynes · #**850** Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019

A new base that's frankly cringworthy, and no more cantilevered massing, that's enough for me to decide...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...002-story.html

I love the older version, but it's like a shorter, less complex version of 2 WTC which everyone purports to hate. It makes no sense.

Also, there's a condo planned for downtown Brooklyn which is basically the same design as the old, cantilevered version.

Anyway, I think that the new design is beautiful too.

Domer2019 · #**851** Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I love the older version, but it's like a shorter, less complex version of 2 WTC which everyone purports to hate. It makes no sense.

It may use the same design feature, but they look vastly different. Do Sears and Burj Khalifa look the same?

10023 · #**852** Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019

R.I.P.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/3/1/...1000m-revealed

The left one is vastly superior.

JMKeynes · #**853** Posted **Jan 21, 2018, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019

It may use the same design feature, but they look vastly different. Do Sears and Burj Khalifa look the same?

Hi, fellow Domer. (I'm a double.)

2 WTC is vastly superior to the old proposal for 1000 S Michigan.

It 2 WTC were proposed for any other city, it would be enthusiastically embraced.

marothisu · #**854** Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 12:09 AM**

^ I actually feel that 2 WTC was a bit too stubby at each step. I actually prefer the old 1000 S Michigan design to it but both are good.

Domer2019 · #**855** Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Hi, fellow Domer. (I'm a double.)

2 WTC is vastly superior to the old proposal for 1000 S Michigan.

It 2 WTC were proposed for any other city, it would be enthusiastically embraced.

I'd just like to point out that I have made 0 comments on 2WTC's quality so far. As I was trying to say,

["2 WTC which everyone purports to hate. It makes no sense."]

you can't just conclude that liking baseball and disliking cricket exposes some hypocrisy when they're not the same thing. I don't see how that tower is relevant at all.

JMKeynes · #**856** Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019

I'd just like to point out that I have made 0 comments on 2WTC's quality so far. As I was trying to say,

["2 WTC which everyone purports to hate. It makes no sense."]

you can't just conclude that liking baseball and disliking cricket exposes some hypocrisy when they're not the same thing. I don't see how that tower is relevant at all.

I didn't say that you did. I said that others have.

You and I are united in interest, friend.

https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-g...ica-Winter.jpg

chris08876 · #**857** Posted **Jan 22, 2018, 2:38 AM**

The new rendering/design for this looks like a clone of 50 West. Given that Helmut Jahn designed both, it's kinda bordering on unoriginal.

Granted it would still look okay, but another 50 West?

Reminds me of a Pelli design, where they all share a very similar theme. Salesforce, Torre Costanera, Torre Sevilla, and even 30 Hudson (Jersey City).

Repetitious themes can work sometimes, but if a tower is going to look like a clone of another, best to just throw away the blueprint, smoke some budd, and think of new ideas.

One Chicago Square > 1000 S Michigan.

I'm not seeing originality in this one.

jc5680 · #**858** Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 8:39 PM**

AJ Latrace has a short write up at Chicago Mag about sales so far.

No concrete numbers, unfortunately - but they do say that they are close to hitting their 1st quarter targets.

However, the line: "We’ve definitely pushed the price in the neighborhood.” sounds a little to me like interest could be less than expected.

dropdeaded209 · #**859** Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 8:17 AM**

regarding the design, i discussed the original version with helmut recently and he told me he preferred the step back look but the developer told him they had to scrap it and start over because "it looked like the tower was falling over".

Helmut's response was pretty perfect--"Vell, it doezzen't look zat vay to me."

KWillChicago · #**860** Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 8:36 AM**

I wish the architect could tell the developers to fuck themselves. I know they never would cuz they would lose their job, but just let the people that know what their doing do their thing. Thats like going to an expensive resteraunt and telling the chef how to cook your meal. Theres a reason your paying them good money, their reputation, background, and because you trust them. So let them go to work. But hey, I'm not the one fronting $750 million, so i guess I'll shut up.