CHICAGO | OneEleven - 111 West Wacker | 630 FT | 59 FLOORS | COM - Page 21

jcchii · #**401** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 7:15 PM**

it's a good test of the market, for sure

Chicago_Forever · #**402** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 5:03 AM**

I'm usually just a lurker around here so I hope I'm doing this right. I went looking for updates on this project and found a very recent (4/18/12) and interesting video on Related Midwest's website. A new design is shown in the video and it looks like an SCB design but I like it although it's not as funky as the Destefano design.

Anyway here is the link to the video:http://www.bloomberg.com/video/90868145/

RobertWalpole · #**403** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 6:47 AM**

That design is very disappointing. Thanks for the update though.

denizen467 · #**404** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 6:57 AM**

Dayum, nice find.

Great interview too - looks like Related has a great leader here.

I'm sure some of the graphics whizzes here can convert the panned video image (see 1:09; also repeated at 3:30) into a JPG to post here. In the interview he says it will be 57 stories tall.

But the design doesn't suggest SCB to me. Certainly could be a DeStefano (I could not find a website for whatever successor firm would be designing this) I would say. It's kinda unique, it's a bold presence on the river, but it's not earthshattering, and certainly isn't exciting without an evident cantilever.

However, the video's 500 N LSD design is out-of-date, so maybe this is not a final design.

People complaining about the lack of unity between the original base and the resumed tower will be happy with the uniform style though.

Illithid Dude · #**405** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 8:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467

and certainly isn't exciting without an evident cantilever.

However, the video's 500 N LSD design is out-of-date, so maybe this is not a final design.

I thought that the building had to be cantilevered? For that reason alone, I doubt the validity of the design.

denizen467 · #**406** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 9:07 AM**

IIRC the original design had no floors above the SE corner of the podium, so for Related to build square floorplates in their tower, I think the cantilever would have to be on that corner. These renders suggest a massing similar to Waterview's original massing. But maybe there is cantilever happening that is not obvious from the angle visible in the video.

J_M_Tungsten · #**407** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 2:03 PM**

I really dislike the updated design. This is the best I could do to get the images from the video.

ChiPhi · #**408** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 3:27 PM**

I like the design, but it could have looked a lot cooler with the cantilever. We'll see how "final" this is or whether this is just a random graphic that they threw in...

Also, about the cantilever, it is possible to build the structural transfer floor essentially as close or far from the floor below with little additional cost. This seems like (if it is final design or is close to the final design) they decided to forgo the visual cantilever to "play it safe" as many midwesterners simply couldn't handle it. "It looks too unstable." The design also looks a little like it is the same shape (ie no transfer floor) but shorter. Who knows? We'll wait for more I guess...

That being said, the design, had it not been a letdown like this, is quite nice (if it is actually the final design). It does appear to be even shorter than the United Building next door. But on the bright side, this thing will actually get to be u/c again...

jc5680 · #**409** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 6:03 PM**

The design is certainly less bold, which is kind of a shame. It does look less like a franken-bulding which I like. Did it get shorter too?

rgolch · #**410** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 6:47 PM**

Not as good as the first two tries, but I like it.

ardecila · #**411** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 9:01 PM**

Buckman821 · #**412** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 9:11 PM**

Wow. I am crushed.

untitledreality · #**413** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I thought that the building had to be cantilevered? For that reason alone, I doubt the validity of the design.

I don't... this new design makes much more sense considering the new signage up at the site: "111 W. Wacker is about to turn a corner"

Buckman821 · #**414** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 10:21 PM**

I don't doubt the validity either. Also remember that the cantilever was apparently only a necessity if they wanted to go back to using the entire footprint of the building. It's tough to tell given the limited view, but it looks as though this design is following the shape of the former waterview much more closely, whereas the destefano design used the cantilever so that they could essentially undo the transfer floor and go back to full floor plates. At least that was my understanding, but I am no engineer. I believe this to be the design. I'm bummed but this design was probably far more economical.

ardecila · #**415** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 11:58 PM**

Well, we still have a rendering reveal for Wolf Point that should be coming up soon. Of course, I can't remember the last time Pelli did anything daring like a huge cantilever...

sentinel · #**416** Posted **Apr 22, 2012, 12:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I like it - it's simple, understated and very visible where located. Hopefully, the detailing on the curtain-wall will redeem the project in the eyes of naysayers.

bnk · #**417** Posted **Apr 22, 2012, 12:34 AM**

I can live with it I quess. Anything more than 20 stories on top of the non productive and not utilized parking podium is better than it being torn down and left as an empty plot for the next 20 years is better than the former.

I know us Chicagoans should have very high standards and all but ....

This will be viewed by millions over the many years on arch tours... so I hope for the best design but I would rather have it built out than torn down right now at this point... The foundation is substantial and should be used as much as possible, I would say the same thing for the Chicago Spire too at this point. Utilize what is built thus far and accept what is put in its place on present economics.

Chicagoguy · #**418** Posted **Apr 22, 2012, 12:36 AM**

You would think that if they were sticking more with the original shape of Waterview Tower that they would build a little taller given the smaller floor plates? This design, with 10 or 15 additional stories, would make a very dramatic impact!

Roadcruiser1 · #**419** Posted **Apr 22, 2012, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicagoguy

You would think that if they were sticking more with the original shape of Waterview Tower that they would build a little taller given the smaller floor plates? This design, with 10 or 15 additional stories, would make a very dramatic impact!

The current plan is cheaper. Maybe they can't afford to make the tower taller, or they sold some of the air rights.

ardecila · #**420** Posted **Apr 22, 2012, 1:45 AM**

Air rights can't be transferred between parcels like that in Chicago. I believe there are only two reasons to buy air rights - to build a building or projecting feature over something else, like a railyard or roadway, or to prevent a neighboring property owner from doing so (such agreements are common in order to put windows on lot lines without violating fire code).

There are any number of reasons why the building massing is shifted, though - it's possible that it was cheaper to use the building in roughly its original configuration than to build a complex and costly transfer floor (with/without cantilever) to change the floorplate size. Neighboring property owners may have objected to a bulky square tower that filled the lot.