HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    OneEleven in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #561  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:03 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago View Post
I never liked the original Waterview design, so this is a bit of a relief for me. But I know that many of you are disappointed not to get a supertall here... so in consolation let me point out one little-realized but very big disadvantage of a very tall building on this site:

111 West Wacker happens to be directly in line between the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Center. If it were over 1000 feet, it would largely obscure the view of each from the other, from the observation decks. Granted this only considers 2 viewpoints, but these are two of the most popular places to view the city. When I first went up the JHC it took my breath away to see the Sears Tower looking across downtown like that. Don't know if anybody else cares, but at least now we won't lose these sightlines.
Wow, never realized that, I can't imagine seeing the Incredible Sears Tower being obscured like that. There is nothing like seeing the shiny black facade and its bright shining spires at night.

just look at this pic, and you can see how much it would have obscured the view of the Sears

[MODERATOR EDIT = IMAGE REMOVED]

Last edited by Tom In Chicago; Jun 5, 2012 at 5:41 PM. Reason: No image credit
     
     
  #562  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:07 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
^ from that angle, pretty much none of the sears tower would have been obscured by waterview tower.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
     
     
  #563  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:14 PM
Dan in Chicago's Avatar
Dan in Chicago Dan in Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 612
I could be slightly wrong - in that photo Waterview would've been a bit off the line between Sears & JHC, but it's close enough to make the view kind of awkward.
     
     
  #564  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:23 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago View Post
I could be slightly wrong - in that photo Waterview would've been a bit off the line between Sears & JHC, but it's close enough to make the view kind of awkward.
The picture is weirdly angled, let me find a better one
     
     
  #565  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:28 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 346
Here, see it would have covered part of the right portion of it

[MODERATOR EDIT = IMAGE REMOVED]

Last edited by Tom In Chicago; Jun 5, 2012 at 5:41 PM. Reason: No image credit
     
     
  #566  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:36 PM
Dan in Chicago's Avatar
Dan in Chicago Dan in Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 612
Yeah thanks, that makes it more clear. It certainly would have crowded Sears, and it would have risen above the horizon.
     
     
  #567  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:36 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
^ yep. from that angle, waterview would have obscured a portion of the sears tower from the obs. deck of JHC, but it wouldn't have blocked out the view of sears tower altogether, including its obs. deck, roof, and antennas.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
     
     
  #568  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:49 PM
Standpoor's Avatar
Standpoor Standpoor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
why? a parking spot is a parking spot, regardless of who's parking there.

besides, with the number of people who would be taking a taxi to their hotel from o'hare, a downtown hotel should actually provide even less parking per unit than a residential building.
Seriously? Are you saying that the seven eleven at the corner should have the same amount of parking as my house because the lot sizes are the same. Or the number of units is the same. If there are going to be a lot of parking spaces I rather have it be in a building that was going to have a lot of turnover and have commercial uses, a hotel, a bar, a restaurant. Now we have a giant apartment building with a huge parking base whose only driver of traffic is the people who live there, who will probably only use about 45 percent of the spaces. It will become a haven for office workers in nearby buildings. Yes it is true that hotels have less of a requirement for parking but I don't like residential units that have a lot of commercially available parking.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
So... the previous design gets a pass for an even worse parking ratio because it was taller?
Yes it does. At least I could look at it and say it was tall. Now I have to look at this and see a short tower with the same parking ratio. You guys are acting like the parking ratio has improved tremendously. Its an 8 percent decrease. Am I supposed be doing flips in the street because it dropped 8 percent. So what am I supposed to hang my hat on: its not tall, its not particularly attractive, it has horrendous parking ratio. Where is the good. At least Waterview was tall. Now I have nothing. Now all I am supposed to say as I give a tour of the loop is, you see this building, it doesn't block the view between Sears and Hancock. As we sat on this hulking mess for the past years there was always the hope that something great would be built there. There was always the remote chance a miracle would happen and we would get something great. Now that hope is over.

Let me say, I understand why. Having such a large number of parking spaces to market will only make this property more profitable. I understand the downgraded height. I understand the change from the cantilever. I understand. It does not mean that I have to like it.

Am I supposed to be happy because it is only 439 parking spaces right on Wacker as opposed to 1285 at the end of a cul de sac. No, they both suck.

Last edited by Standpoor; Jun 4, 2012 at 8:54 PM. Reason: added the bit about wolf point
     
     
  #569  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:58 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standpoor View Post
You guys are acting like the parking ratio has improved tremendously. Its an 8 percent decrease. Am I supposed be doing flips in the street because it dropped 8 percent.
absolutely no one in this thread is "acting like the parking ratio has improved tremendously". all that has been stated is that the parking ratio per unit has decreased. this is a fact. but no one is doing back flips about it. don't be absurd.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Standpoor View Post
its not particularly attractive,
to you, perhaps not, but some of us find this design more attractive than the original waterview design, and that's certainly something i'll hang my hat on.

short and good is better than tall and bland. overall, this is now a better project than waterview was in my opinion.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Jun 4, 2012 at 9:10 PM.
     
     
  #570  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 9:04 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 7,285
Can we get some credits associated with those images please?!? I will remove them if they're still here when I come back. . .

. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
     
     
  #571  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 9:20 PM
Standpoor's Avatar
Standpoor Standpoor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
to you, perhaps not, but some of us find this design more attractive than the original waterview design, and that's certainly something i'll hang my hat on.

short and good is better than tall and bland. overall, this is now a better project than waterview in my opinion.
Ha, I'll take that back. I did not mean to sound too pissy. With such a large amount of parking to begin with, it was a given that anything that was built here was going to have a high ratio and this rendering is actually quite nice. I think the parts above the current portion are going to look really nice. The lower parts on the other hand were the parts I was referencing. I think the bulge, the glass over the parking garage and this:
(from http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Building/1181/Waterview-Tower.php) will look a little weird. I actually like this better than the cantilevered design, even though that was more daring.
     
     
  #572  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 9:23 PM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
It does throw up a powerful, monolithic slab to reinforce the Wacker Drive street wall. A few subtlety articulated setbacks near the top would do wonders for the design, IMO.
__________________
To have ambition was my ambition - Gang of Four
     
     
  #573  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 9:30 PM
ChiTownCity ChiTownCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, USA
Posts: 1,163
Another blue glass box....
     
     
  #574  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 10:02 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago View Post
Can we get some credits associated with those images please?!? I will remove them if they're still here when I come back. . .

. . .
They were on another site, but the person who posted them said that they weren't theirs. So honestly I have no idea who took the pictures, remove them if you must
     
     
  #575  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 11:42 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
I like Handel's work, for the most part. As someone also mentioned, I'm glad it's not SCB... we need more diversity.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #576  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 1:29 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Boring as hell.

The letdown I expected.

Hudson Yards gets something interesting and we get dreck.

And BFD if it did block the view of Sears or Hancock from said perspective. B buildings do that in big cities right?
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #577  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 3:48 AM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,245
Angry

this building height is really the biggest dissapointment...design i can live with but its way to short for this site...this building was supposed to be one that broke through that platuea height of buildings on the wacker riverfront wall...atleast if it was 800ft plus like the orginal waterview tower it would be up create a peak ..i dont understand related trying to be so conservative on such an important site ... This really sucks
     
     
  #578  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 4:44 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
I don't see that as the case at all. I am on the side of the ledger that rather liked the original version but if there isn't a super tall to push the street wall up I actually find it kind of appropriate that it this building stays in the approximately 650 ft. range to form a continuation that goes along with the United Building and Leo Burnett Building.
     
     
  #579  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 5:03 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
This is going to be a giant albatross. Related is going to give us some cheap, un-detailed, plastic-wrap facade with Related's standard super-reflective glass. It does nothing to address it surrounding buildings. Its totally un-innovative. And it doesn't even matter that its "not" SCB because it easily could be their project. It really pains me to see what should have been a successful, ambitious project reduced to some redundant, lets-just-do-something banality.

Related should be embarrassed that this is their plan when they advertise such creative plans on their website. Such a prominent location deserves better.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
     
     
  #580  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 5:40 AM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
This is going to be a giant albatross. Related is going to give us some cheap, un-detailed, plastic-wrap facade with Related's standard super-reflective glass. It does nothing to address it surrounding buildings. Its totally un-innovative. And it doesn't even matter that its "not" SCB because it easily could be their project. It really pains me to see what should have been a successful, ambitious project reduced to some redundant, lets-just-do-something banality.

Related should be embarrassed that this is their plan when they advertise such creative plans on their website. Such a prominent location deserves better.
I wish they would reconsider the cantilever design
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.