CHICAGO | 110 N Wacker | 817 FT | 56 FLOORS

[left of center]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Have you ever been inside of a timber frame warehouse? If not then stop spouting your nonsense. These buildings are incredible gems and should be preserved at every opportunity. These things are made of a whole forest of 250+ year old old growth trees that were cut down 100 years ago. Once they are gone you can't get it back. Period.

This has nothing to do with "architecture students" and everything to do with not being a totally classless barbarian.

This... is very accurate.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Have you ever been inside of a timber frame warehouse? If not then stop spouting your nonsense. These buildings are incredible gems and should be preserved at every opportunity. These things are made of a whole forest of 250+ year old old growth trees that were cut down 100 years ago. Once they are gone you can't get it back. Period.

This has nothing to do with "architecture students" and everything to do with not being a totally classless barbarian.

Absolutely agree.

[Clarkkent2420]

#

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420

...But the site’s width at 180 won’t accommodate anything that is economically viable. Maybe you could build a hotel there, but in all likelihood the highest and best use is the building in its current form.

When you have two of the 19th century Butler Brothers warehouses LITERALLY directly across the river, it’s probably a stretch to say it’s barabarism to tear down a tiny, less historically significant iteration. But I digress.

The age of the building lends value/architectural significance to it. The downtown area is not in abundance of 1800's architecture anymore. Every piece torn down means it's gone forever and that style of architecture downtown is not likely to make a comeback anytime soon.

[left of center]

^ In some ways this makes me a bit envious of the development patterns of downtown Los Angeles. They retained much of the old midrise, early 1900's character and buildings of their "old" downtown south of Pershing Square (Hill, Broadway, Olive, etc.), with the modern international style skyscrapers of "new" downtown being primarily north and west of Pershing Square.

It would be interesting if downtown Chicago developed in the way way, with most new highrises being built say west or north of the Loop, with the Loop proper maintaining much of its historic architecture. Of course, this would be unlikely given the transportation access the Loop has, which is what allowed such a hyper dense core to develop in the first place.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Have you ever been inside of a timber frame warehouse? If not then stop spouting your nonsense. These buildings are incredible gems and should be preserved at every opportunity. These things are made of a whole forest of 250+ year old old growth trees that were cut down 100 years ago. Once they are gone you can't get it back. Period.

This has nothing to do with "architecture students" and everything to do with not being a totally classless barbarian.

This.

Also part of what makes the river so grand is that it creates space allowing sunlight in and allowing people to take in the wonderful architecture that lines it's banks. What I love about 180 aside from it being a charming piece of historical architecture is that it does the same thing. It opens up views from Randolph, Orleans St, W. Wacker, the confluence etc. and let's some sunlight in. It makes all the other buildings around it seem much more grand with it's humble stature.

[10023]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

Without getting into some nonsense no one but architect students care about, what's the best thing about the building other than the brick/window/ivy melange? It's fine. If the market demands a high rise there, it won't be a big deal. It'd be nice if that melange remains but it's fine if it doesn't.

It looks nice. And it looks nicer at street level than anything they would build now. That’s enough.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Final comment I'll make on this, but I don't get why some people have a hard on to make every single site a high-rise when there's literally space for dozens of skyscrapers within a few blocks of here that don't involve the massacre of historic building stock. Like don't you want to see WPS built sooner? You realize an office building here is going to sap demand for that. Don't you want to see all the remaining lots West of the river developed? Don't you want to see 130 Franklin built? Why the hell would you want to do more damage to this city where there's already an abundance of epic preservation fuck ups to replace?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by left of center

^ In some ways this makes me a bit envious of the development patterns of downtown Los Angeles. They retained much of the old midrise, early 1900's character and buildings of their "old" downtown south of Pershing Square (Hill, Broadway, Olive, etc.), with the modern international style skyscrapers of "new" downtown being primarily north and west of Pershing Square.

It would be interesting if downtown Chicago developed in the way way, with most new highrises being built say west or north of the Loop, with the Loop proper maintaining much of its historic architecture. Of course, this would be unlikely given the transportation access the Loop has, which is what allowed such a hyper dense core to develop in the first place.

I don't know enough about LA history to understand why the highrise core ended up on Bunker Hill instead of the traditional downtown. Maybe it's because planners expected everyone to drive, so they tried to concentrate highrises within a few blocks of the 110. That plus huge sums of urban-renewal slum clearance funding allowed LA to offer a blank slate to developers.

That being said, there's still tons of historic midrises in the Loop. Virtually all of State and Wabash and most of LaSalle, with surrounding streets being roughly an even split between historic and non. To me the interplay of historic and modern is what makes the Loop such a dynamic place.

Bunker Hill in LA sucks urbanistically, because developers were able to remake the urban fabric and not just individual buildings. The Loop is great because developers still had to plug their modernist buildings into a 19th-century street grid and respect their neighbors to some degree.

[harryc]

March 13





A snow machine on a different day - "mister" being used to keep down the dust - One of the Heneghan guys explained that at $70k it's a lot cheaper than a dude with a hose.

[Siriusly]

Originally Posted by harryc

A snow machine on a different day - "mister" being used to keep down the dust - One of the Heneghan guys explained that at $70k it's a lot cheaper than a dude with a hose.

You can't be serious, was he joking? 5 guys with a hose would be cheaper than $70k. Locals 1 and 150 have excellent contracts and it would be nowhere near that amount.

[left of center]

Is $70k the total cost of the machine, or just the rental cost? If its the latter, then over time (think years of use in the machine's lifetime) it definitely becomes cheaper than paying several people to spray a hose all day.

[Siriusly]

Originally Posted by left of center

Is $70k the total cost of the machine, or just the rental cost? If its the latter, then over time (think years of use in the machine's lifetime) it definitely becomes cheaper than paying several people to spray a hose all day.

I'm not sure, I took it as the rental cost which seems astronomical. No doubt over time it would save money if it was a one time cost. Either way I'm surprised a union worker would talk like that. Usually you aren't happy the company chose a machine to replace a job a man could have done.

[left of center]

I feel like no one in the union aspires to be 'the hose guy' but I could be wrong, lol

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Siriusly

I'm not sure, I took it as the rental cost which seems astronomical. No doubt over time it would save money if it was a one time cost. Either way I'm surprised a union worker would talk like that. Usually you aren't happy the company chose a machine to replace a job a man could have done.

That is the purchase price, not the rental. I'm actually in Vail skiing right now, lol.

[Siriusly]

Originally Posted by left of center

I feel like no one in the union aspires to be 'the hose guy' but I could be wrong, lol

lol...No one really does but for people on restrictive duty, green apprentices or an old timer needing hours/insurance I'd rather see the money go to a person. It particularly bothers me because I'm a Millwright which involves a lot of machinery erecting and robotics that put people out of work. I go in to Chrysler for example and install the equipment that will leave auto-workers on the unemployment line. We even work on 'misters' in the steel mills and the mill hiring people to hold hoses all day would be ridiculous. But on an outside construction short term demo gig it seems like a way to bring a few more men in for good paying work.

[Skyguy_7]

^ The solution is not to hinder progress. When robots start replacing people, it's time to learn how to build robots.

[Siriusly]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^ The solution is not to hinder progress. When robots start replacing people, it's time to learn how to build robots.

My work is fortunately future proof. I feel bad for the truckers of the future though.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^ The solution is not to hinder progress. When robots start replacing people, it's time to learn how to build robots.

I'm fairly confident that robots will be better at building robots than most people.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I'm fairly confident that robots will be better at building robots than most people.

Yep, the answer is working smart, not hard in the future.