HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

    

Old Post Office Redevelopment Tower [1] in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 6:33 PM
773shadow08 773shadow08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by XIII View Post
Vision Video for old post office redevelopment.
It looks like they've modified the tower designs:
http://vimeo.com/42700645
This is more of a realistic proposal since the main tower has been scale back to a more reasonable height and thus the cost of building it reduces as well. Now the developers must work hard in finding possible tenants. The main tower looks to be the same height as either the Trump tower or the Aon building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 6:50 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by XIII View Post
Vision Video for old post office redevelopment.
It looks like they've modified the tower designs:
http://vimeo.com/42700645
As lawfin said, this is simply more Media Puffery to artificially inflate the value of the property in hopes of a resale. There are so many problems in that 'vision plan' that it isn't even worth the time to analyze.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post
That looks awesome, I am surprised to see this move forward. When will we know whether it was approved ?
It isn't moving forward... and it will never be approved or built. At most we might see the area rezoned before being sold to another developer down the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 773shadow08 View Post
This is more of a realistic proposal since the main tower has been scale back to a more reasonable height and thus the cost of building it reduces as well. Now the developers must work hard in finding possible tenants. The main tower looks to be the same height as either the Trump tower or the Aon building.
The height of the main tower was the least of this proposals problems. Altering the Old Post Office, obscuring view corridors of the Post Office, spanning the Eisenhower with another tower, spanning the Chicago River, 14million square feet of build out... none of those are even REMOTELY feasible, irregardless of the economic climate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 7:13 PM
N90 N90 is offline
Voice of the Modern World
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Haha before posting here, I had already viewed that thread. Uninformative to say the least, it was filled with speculation, pessimism, and doubt. While there's every reason to be any of the three characteristics above, its also not informative.

I'll just look into the project every couple of weeks to see if its going anywhere I suppose.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 7:17 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
The height of the main tower was the least of this proposals problems. Altering the Old Post Office, obscuring view corridors of the Post Office, spanning the Eisenhower with another tower, spanning the Chicago River, 14million square feet of build out... none of those are even REMOTELY feasible, irregardless of the economic climate.
I've never really understood the love everyone has for the Post Office. It blocks the most significant view corridor of the Burnham Plan and it's ugly as sin. The two end portions are nice and should probably be redeveloped but the gigantic portion in the middle should probably be demolished, at least partially... there's no way to get light into the center so that space is virtually useless.

If there is some crazy desire to save the Post Office and maintain the blocked vista, then I don't see why we also need to preserve views of the Post Office. It's not beautiful; we shouldn't curtail the rights of surrounding property owners so that we can stare at the 1930s monstrosity for all time... especially the east facade, which is by far the ugliest, most awkward part of the design.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 7:44 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
It blocks the most significant view corridor of the Burnham Plan
What view corridor? There is none until you pass under the Exchange building... then you're obstructed by the L... then you're obstructed by the rise over the IC... then FINALLY, when you apex the IC bridge you see Buckingham Fountain and the Lake. And going the other way? Would you rather just look down the Eisenhower?

Meanwhile, the Post Office building provides a Westward view termination point so we are not forced to look over the the Eisenhower... and for Eastward travelers it acts as a significant place holder... that you have 'entered' Chicago.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
there's no way to get light into the center so that space is virtually useless.
Then program that space with something that doesn't require a natural light source... or tear out a internal courtyard. There are a myriad of possibilities on how to reuse this building, it would be a shame to see someone just demolish parts and pieces of it... thank goodness it has local protection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 7:51 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I've never really understood the love everyone has for the Post Office. It blocks the most significant view corridor of the Burnham Plan and it's ugly as sin. The two end portions are nice and should probably be redeveloped but the gigantic portion in the middle should probably be demolished, at least partially... there's no way to get light into the center so that space is virtually useless.

If there is some crazy desire to save the Post Office and maintain the blocked vista, then I don't see why we also need to preserve views of the Post Office. It's not beautiful; we shouldn't curtail the rights of surrounding property owners so that we can stare at the 1930s monstrosity for all time... especially the east facade, which is by far the ugliest, most awkward part of the design.
Yeah, I am loving the pessimism in this thread, the chances of this getting built are small, but it has been proposed, and the funding is there for the the first phase.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 7:57 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by 773shadow08 View Post
This is more of a realistic proposal since the main tower has been scale back to a more reasonable height and thus the cost of building it reduces as well. Now the developers must work hard in finding possible tenants. The main tower looks to be the same height as either the Trump tower or the Aon building.
I would say the height of this scaled back design still has a roof height of probably 400-450 meters
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 8:39 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,105
I couldn't find a picture, and I can't take the clip out of the video so I made my own massing model of the new design. If you look closely at this design in the front and the back it looks very similar to the never fully completed Metropolitan Life North Building in New York.

Massing model.


Metropolitan Life North Building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 9:06 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 9,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawfin View Post
Approved? Come on seriously. This is little more than modern media puffery. It ain't going to happen ok.

6.2 million sq feet of entertainment space
4.1 million sq feet of hotel some 7500 rooms


3.8 million sq feet of residential

Those numbers are massive. In perspective when the WTC complex was destroyed if I recall that was in total some 12 million sq feet of space this is planned at 2 million larger than that if you believe it you are a fool.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing, although if this thing ever did happen the it would need a massive casino and hotel.

A 7500 room hotel would be in the top three of the largest hotels in the world.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_in_the_world

List of largest hotels in the world

Las Vegas has 16 hotels in the top 27 by number of rooms and the largest hotel in the world.
The largest Chicago hotel is ranked #53.
__________________
facebook

Last edited by bnk; May 25, 2012 at 9:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 9:15 PM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
I was laughing as I watched this. Where does he think the tourists will come from to fill 7500 rooms? And 2 million sq ft of office? 3.8 million of residential? The market simply doesn't exist in Chicago right now. Of course, this is not directly comparable to the WTC as Lawfin pointed out because it is mixed use, but many said that that project could never happen because it would flood the market and never find tenants. It is (very slightly) possible that, if done right, the complex could create the demand by becoming the biggest mall in America (Mall of America is 4.2 million sq ft. with 2.5 mil as retail space; this proposes 6.2 million sq ft. as "entertainment including retail and restaurants") with a supertall, maybe a casino et al.

Even given the slight chance Davies is able to pull this off and isn't just trying to flip it as he always does and this becomes the next Mall of America, do we really want that in the middle of our city? If it gets built (Bill Davies claims he is proffering the opportunity to middle eastern investors - sounds like The Spire and that turned out so well) I would still be unhappy. The design is a little better than the previous: the towers are more well articulated though not spectacular and the curtain wall facing east is nice, but blocks a landmark building. Moreover, a city within a city is an awful idea. What we need is not a giant enclosed, car-centric complex at the edge of the loop. Is this 1975? I hope Davies sells this off already so we can see some good (and realistic) proposals already.
__________________
“The test of a great building is in the marketplace. The Marketplace recognizes the value of quality architecture and endorses it in the sales price it is able to achieve.” — Jon Pickard, Principal, Pickard Chilton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 10:11 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,105
The only other project I can think of that is similar to this besides the World Trade Center is the Hudson Yards project in New York City. I can't think of any other project this massive going on around the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 10:46 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Coast to Cali
Posts: 3,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawfin View Post
Approved? Come on seriously. This is little more than modern media puffery. It ain't going to happen ok.

6.2 million sq feet of entertainment space
4.1 million sq feet of hotel some 7500 rooms

3.8 million sq feet of residential

Those numbers are massive. In perspective when the WTC complex was destroyed if I recall that was in total some 12 million sq feet of space this is planned at 2 million larger than that if you believe it you are a fool.
well obviously someone wants to put something on that site, but I agree, it will likely be scaled back considering that is a ridiculous amount of space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 10:50 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is online now
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,484
I particularly despise the way this project does not conform to the grid.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 10:51 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Coast to Cali
Posts: 3,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by 773shadow08 View Post
This is more of a realistic proposal since the main tower has been scale back to a more reasonable height and thus the cost of building it reduces as well. Now the developers must work hard in finding possible tenants. The main tower looks to be the same height as either the Trump tower or the Aon building.
the very last couple seconds of the video the tower looks about 1300 or so feet compared to 311 whacker drive, the angle is weird and sears is hardly visible.

I think this should be moved to the proposal section, now that it has been scaled back to a comprehendible size, I don't see why there is no potential of this going through someday.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 10:51 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Is the redesign also by Booth Hansen?

One litmus test as to whether even they are taking themselves seriously is whether or not the multi-story skywalk allows the legally required clearance above the river. Additional issues with it are whether it's even conceivable a private structure like this would be permitted to be built spanning the river (regardless of clearance), and why anyone would build a skywalk 8 stories tall. Did Larry Booth farm this out to his grandson or something?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 11:05 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
The only other project I can think of that is similar to this besides the World Trade Center is the Hudson Yards project in New York City. I can't think of any other project this massive going on around the world.
How about the 1100 meter Kingdom tower complex ?

Maybe this is Davies dream, who knows... but this is a possible proposal, now it's not very likely, but maybe, just maybe it could happen. Either way this should be moved to proposals, since it has been proposed

If Chicago built America's largest mall, that would bring a lot of tourists, could be a great move for Chicago
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 11:06 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
The video also includes the incredibly (and in the end absurdly) ambitious idea of decking over part of the Eisenhower a block west of the main structure - by building another low-rise about half the size of the post office itself.

Edit - just realized that was in the original proposal. Guess I never paid any of the details here much attention.

---

I think at this point we should stop panning these guys, because it's so pie-in-the-sky that even they probably aren't taking themselves seriously. Instead, since most agree this whole thing is vapor anyway, let's just appreciate they are toying with random visions for this part of the Loop, which nobody has really done before so expansively. Why not just let them dream, sell our city to the world, and maybe end up with at least 1 or 2 cool ideas (like doing some kind of decking of the expressway) at the end of the process?

Part of hosting NATO (among other city efforts) was to attract world interest in Chicago, so if deep-pocketed dreamers from 4000 (the UK) or 7000 (the Gulf) miles away get interested in building large projects here, why take potshots at them? No need to get offended that they are trying to fool us because we here get what is going on. Let's root for naive investors bringing $$ and redevelopment here.

Last edited by denizen467; May 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 11:10 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Coast to Cali
Posts: 3,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post
. Either way this should be moved to proposals, since it has been proposed
Agreed, while this may be an out there proposal, it's still a proposal and not a vision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 11:17 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Agreed, while this may be an out there proposal, it's still a proposal and not a vision.
Exactly, whether they want to think it's a vision or a proposal, it has been submitted for approval, which makes this an official proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 11:33 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Coast to Cali
Posts: 3,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
As lawfin said, this is simply more Media Puffery to artificially inflate the value of the property in hopes of a resale. There are so many problems in that 'vision plan' that it isn't even worth the time to analyze.


It isn't moving forward... and it will never be approved or built. At most we might see the area rezoned before being sold to another developer down the road.


The height of the main tower was the least of this proposals problems. Altering the Old Post Office, obscuring view corridors of the Post Office, spanning the Eisenhower with another tower, spanning the Chicago River, 14million square feet of build out... none of those are even REMOTELY feasible, irregardless of the economic climate.

It doesn't look to be 14 million square feet anymore, not even half that. If it wasn't a proposal then why did they go to all the trouble to make a video about it and change the massing of the building? I've also heard the project is set to go through an approval process sometime this year, but I can't verify that, I'll go look through SSC to see where that piece of information was.

I don't know why there would be all this hype if there was no actual plan to go through with it. I'm not saying it's likely to happen, but a vision means that it is pure fantasy, this is a feasable project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:13 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.