CHICAGO | One Chicago | 971 FT & 574 FT | 78 & 49 FLOORS

[rgarri4]

Originally Posted by Hoosier388

With all this construction going on in the Downtown area in and around the river. Just imagine what Chicago will look like 10 years from now. Hope the old Spire site get a proposed building on top of it soon. Being that Chicago is sort of land locked by lake Michigan really the only choice developers have is to build up. For us folks that like architecture and build design in high rises and super tall buildings. Let's see where the next 10 years takes us with all these new buildings going up.

[Mr Roboto]

Awesome massing models, thanks a ton!

Is there one for the Thompson center I see?

[Domer2019]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

Awesome massing models, thanks a ton!

Is there one for the Thompson center I see?

Looks to be Jahn's version



https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/1/20...enter-proposal

[donnie]

Originally Posted by Hoosier388

With all this construction going on in the Downtown area in and around the river. Just imagine what Chicago will look like 10 years from now. Hope the old Spire site get a proposed building on top of it soon. Being that Chicago is sort of land locked by lake Michigan really the only choice developers have is to build up. For us folks that like architecture and build design in high rises and super tall buildings. Let's see where the next 10 years takes us with all these new buildings going up.

Land locked?

[The Lurker]

^^^ Yes, by one of the world's largest lakes and a river. Duh

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by donnie

Land locked?

Quite a bit, to be fair. If you drew a circle centered on the Loop 50km in radius, 40% of it would be undevelopable - mainly due to Lake Michigan.

In fact, Chicago has the 23rd highest percentage of undevelopable land among MSAs in the US with populations above 500k. This is not much less than Seattle (43.6%) and is more than Boston (33.9%).

See Table 1 (http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Eco...z_QJE_2010.pdf)

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

Quite a bit, to be fair. If you drew a circle centered on the Loop 50km in radius, 40% of it would be undevelopable - mainly due to Lake Michigan.

In fact, Chicago has the 23rd highest percentage of undevelopable land among MSAs in the US with populations above 500k. This is not much less than Seattle (43.6%) and is more than Boston (33.9%).

See Table 1 (http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Eco...z_QJE_2010.pdf)

The definition of landlocked:

"(especially of a country) almost or entirely surrounded by land; having no coastline or seaport."

Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, Denver are landlocked. Chicago is not landlocked.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

The definition of landlocked:

"(especially of a country) almost or entirely surrounded by land; having no coastline or seaport."

Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, Denver are landlocked. Chicago is not landlocked.

Oh haha I didn't realize he used the wrong word, but I think we got what [I hope] he was trying to say

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by rgarri4

If all that gets built its going to destroy the "3 peak" nature of the skyline. In a good way.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by aaron38

If all that gets built its going to destroy the "3 peak" nature of the skyline. In a good way.

People in 30 years will look at old photos of Chicago from 2018 and wonder why the skyline looked so sparse

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by left of center

People in 30 years will look at old photos of Chicago from 2018 and wonder why the skyline looked so sparse

Here's the skyline in 1990, almost 30 years ago:

Edit: Blank unless I find a legit 1990's pic.

[Steely Dan]

^ neither of those shots are from 1990.

In the first image, park tower (2000) is clearly visible, so it's at least post-2000.

In the second one, 3 First National (1981) is clearly visible, but One Mag Mile (1983) is absent, so it's in that gap (1981-1983).

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ neither of those shots are from 1990.

In the first image, park tower (2000) is clearly visible, so it's at least post-2000.

In the second one, 3 First National (1981) is clearly visible, but One Mag Mile (1983) is absent, so it's in that gap (1981-1983).

Ouch. The internet lied to me!

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Here's the skyline in 1990, almost 30 years ago:

Edit: Blank unless I find a legit 1990's pic.

90Chgo 014BcLEME2colormancer_web3 by Jan Smook, on Flickr



Chicago Skyline from John F. Kennedy Expressway, 1990 by Steven Martin, on Flickr

'96



Chicago Skyline from Shedd Aquarium, July 1996 by Steven Martin, on Flickr

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

90Chgo 014BcLEME2colormancer_web3 by Jan Smook, on Flickr



Chicago Skyline from John F. Kennedy Expressway, 1990 by Steven Martin, on Flickr

'96



Chicago Skyline from Shedd Aquarium, July 1996 by Steven Martin, on Flickr

Thanks for stepping in on it. I legit couldn't find a farther away skyline shot in 1990 though so we could compare overall density. I spent a good 30 minutes looking and came up empty handed.

[the urban politician]

^ The advantage of that middle pic is that you also have some cars there to help you age the picture

[Rail Claimore]

Is it me, or does this seem like Chicago's answer to One57 in New York? Looks great!

[LouisVanDerWright]

The best feature of this development is the fact that it will finally block the River North Beige Patch from the NW. This two tower project will turn all the mid 2000's crap in River North into background noise.

[10023]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ The advantage of that middle pic is that you also have some cars there to help you age the picture

And in the last one, you have hairstyles.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The best feature of this development is the fact that it will finally block the River North Beige Patch from the NW. This two tower project will turn all the mid 2000's crap in River North into background noise.

I hadn't even thought of that, the monotony of beige being broken up will do wonders aesthetically speaking. You've got me even more excited for this project now