CHICAGO | Fordham Spire | NEVER BUILT | Former proposal for the Chicago Spire site

Steely Dan · #1 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 7:18 PM**

this thread is a place holder for all of the discussion about this now defunct skyscraper proposal. she was a beauty, but she ain't never gonna get built.

EDIT:

the current project for this piece of land is also being designed by santiago calatrava. it is called "Chicago Spire" and it can be discussed in the following thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=124368

Chicago103 · #2 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 7:24 PM**

You almost made my heart sink Dan when I read this thread title, I thought it meant there was some devastating breaking news and the Spire project was dead all together or you were just being super pessimistic. When I went to the Chicago Spire thread I was releaved to find out that this is refering to the FORDHAM spire whos name and design (the modified design lives on) is now dead. I agree with that, if people want to talk about the original proposal they should do it here.

Alliance · #3 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 7:34 PM**

I still think A was better than B. It was artistically proportional.

i_am_hydrogen · #4 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 7:36 PM**

deleted

BrandonJXN · #5 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 7:38 PM**

Yeah...I'm 23 years old but my heart felt like that of a 110 year old woman trapped in a den of lions. Goodness...

pico44 · #6 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 9:55 PM**

I am not giving up hope on this one quite yet. Just because Chicago real estate prices couldn't justify the construction of this thing, aren't there cities out there that could make this work? So what cities could afford to build version B?

New York might be a stretch because construction costs are so high, but if you put this thing around Central Park then you never know. Weren't condos at 15 Central Park West going for 5,000/sq ft? Then again, all New York would really need is someone as crazy as Kelleher to just go ahead and build the damn thing. It would be nice to see this built in the US.

London could definitely afford to build this, considering real estate is more expensive here than anywhere else right now. Of course, could they really justify an apartment 1600 feet in the air when 50% of the days are overcast? I'd probably go nuts up there.

Dubai is probably the most reasonable choice. Dirt cheap construction costs, a booming housing market, and daring developers. Then again, the burj is still rising and as daring as they seem to be that seems like a bit of overkill. But then again, this is Dubai we're talking about. Another disadvantage in Dubai is the brown, sandy air. Similar to the clouds in London, it will make views poor from the top. But then again, what do they care? They're building a half mile tower for Christ's sake.

Shanghai, Tokyo or Hong Kong are possibilities. Hong Kong and Shanghai might have the advantage of having the Chinese government there to ensure the development of this landmark. I'm not sure about how development works in China, so I might be off base by saying so.

San Fransisco has the housing demands and the prices, but a 2000 footer in a city prone to having earthquakes might not be the best idea.

honte · #7 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

I am not giving up hope on this one quite yet. Just because Chicago real estate prices couldn't justify the construction of this thing, aren't there cities out there that could make this work? So what cities could afford to build version B?

You seem to forget that good architecture is designed for a particular place and time. This proposal was designed for Chicago's lakefront, and nowhere else. To just erect it out of context would be an insult to Calatrava and Chicago.

I doubt Calatrava would let it happen anyway...

:::

Now, Steely Dan, thank you for making this thread.

I vote that all discussion about the benefits / detriments of spires, observation decks, restaurants, or the like also be put in this thread.

pico44 · #8 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

You seem to forget that good architecture is designed for a particular place and time. This proposal was designed for Chicago's lakefront, and nowhere else. To just erect it out of context would be an insult to Calatrava and Chicago.

I doubt Calatrava would let it happen anyway...

You would rather see this die completely than see it built somewhere? A bit selfish don't you think? In regards to context, I disagree. This tower would be completely non-contextual in absolutely any city in the world, most of all Chicago. Thats what would make it an instant landmark in whatever city it was built. I have a sneaking suspicion that Calatrava might tinker a bit with this design for another client. I can't imagine he isn't disappointed that his true masterpiece was disregarded. If I were a politician, I would have encouraged the government to help with construction costs, along with public fundraising. We're spending at least 1.5-2 billion dollars for the landmark train station and memorial at ground zero, why can't we help out a developer with the construction of what would be one of the two or three greatest skyscrapers in the world.

EtherealMist · #9 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 6:03 PM**

Im confused

So there is a proposal still alive for another building called the Chicago Spire that looks similar to this?

spyguy · #10 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

If I were a politician

I'm glad you're not

DePaul Bunyan · #11 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

You would rather see this die completely than see it built somewhere? A bit selfish don't you think? In regards to context, I disagree. This tower would be completely non-contextual in absolutely any city in the world, most of all Chicago. Thats what would make it an instant landmark in whatever city it was built. I have a sneaking suspicion that Calatrava might tinker a bit with this design for another client. I can't imagine he isn't disappointed that his true masterpiece was disregarded. If I were a politician, I would have encouraged the government to help with construction costs, along with public fundraising. We're spending at least 1.5-2 billion dollars for the landmark train station and memorial at ground zero, why can't we help out a developer with the construction of what would be one of the two or three greatest skyscrapers in the world.

You call someone selfish for not wanting B to be built if the current version goes forward, and then you talk about how you want to use public tax dollars to get it built somewhere? It's a condo building, not an essential piece of infrastructure like the WTC Transportation Hub. If you were a politician, you would lose your next election.

honte · #12 Posted **Apr 1, 2007, 12:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

You would rather see this die completely than see it built somewhere? A bit selfish don't you think?

Not at all. It will never die, like all good but unbuilt or demolished buildings. Many of Chicago's most remembered works are either not built (FLW's Mile-High Tower, for example) or sadly demolished (the list is too numerous and depressing to even begin).

I think it's selfish to just take Calatrava's work as an architect and transport it in your mind to wherever you see fit. Unless his design intent was to create something generic, which it clearly was not, you are bastardizing his intention and insulting his ability as an artist, although obviously you mean no harm.

The man is capable - highly capable - and he can produce other masterpieces for other cities when they choose to hire him. He will be inspired by the site and context in which he is working. Simple as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

In regards to context, I disagree. This tower would be completely non-contextual in absolutely any city in the world, most of all Chicago.

It's also very rude to Chicago as a place and a built environment to insist that the site and buildings surrounding the Fordham / Chicago Spire had absolutely no impact on Calatrava's methods or final design. He himself said "I am learning from Chicago" (although granted, before anyone jumps down my throat, this quote came at a later time than version B).

A design need not be overtly Contextual (eg Trump Tower) to fit in to its locale. This building provided counterpoint, but it was not detached from its surroundings. You can't pretend the first base didn't have echoes of Frank Lloyd Wright - just one of numerous examples.

So, yes, this is a piece of Chicago architecture. It will be copied, like many of the designs that came from here, but I hope never built elsewhere.

WonderlandPark · #13 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 9:33 PM**

same here, had a little heart attack of dissapointment, then , oh, yeah

headcase · #14 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 9:43 PM**

spyguy · #15 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 10:03 PM**

I'm sure someone, Carley perhaps, owns the design.

Aleks · #16 Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 11:32 PM**

yeah the old design is way better than the new one
i really liked the spire at the top

but the new one seems flat at the top and for a building with so many curves i dont think a flat roof is a good idea

UberAlles · #17 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 1:03 AM**

Some of the lesser known renders. Beautifully done in black and white.
The transition from the square bottom to the round top is pure genius.

honte · #18 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 1:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberAlles

The transition from the square bottom to the round top is pure genius.

Yes, that is exactly what made the proposal so beautiful. I thought it justified the twisting. The new Chicago Spire, while I am thrilled about it, lacks this sense of design purpose.

bnk · #19 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 2:57 AM**

Thanks to Dan for this outlet.

The best version of any building in the world, at least on paper, is [B].

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberAlles

Some of the lesser known renders. Beautifully done in black and white.
The transition from the square bottom to the round top is pure genius.

Good post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

I am not giving up hope on this one quite yet. Just because Chicago real estate prices couldn't justify the construction of this thing, aren't there cities out there that could make this work? So what cities could afford to build version B?

New York might be a stretch because construction costs are so high, but if you put this thing around Central Park then you never know. Weren't condos at 15 Central Park West going for 5,000/sq ft? Then again, all New York would really need is someone as crazy as Kelleher to just go ahead and build the damn thing. It would be nice to see this built in the US.

London could definitely afford to build this, considering real estate is more expensive here than anywhere else right now. Of course, could they really justify an apartment 1600 feet in the air when 50% of the days are overcast? I'd probably go nuts up there.

Dubai is probably the most reasonable choice. Dirt cheap construction costs, a booming housing market, and daring developers. Then again, the burj is still rising and as daring as they seem to be that seems like a bit of overkill. But then again, this is Dubai we're talking about. Another disadvantage in Dubai is the brown, sandy air. Similar to the clouds in London, it will make views poor from the top. But then again, what do they care? They're building a half mile tower for Christ's sake.

Shanghai, Tokyo or Hong Kong are possibilities. Hong Kong and Shanghai might have the advantage of having the Chinese government there to ensure the development of this landmark. I'm not sure about how development works in China, so I might be off base by saying so.

San Francisco has the housing demands and the prices, but a 2000 footer in a city prone to having earthquakes might not be the best idea.

But I would rather not see the B built anywhere else if the version G-H-I is built in Chicago. It would seem to be a rip off of the first Cal S Chicago building built.

Maybe in a thousand years some young architect will look at the masterpiece of what it was an build it someday. What Cal S did with B will not be lost forever I believe.

EtherealMist · #20 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 1:10 AM**

I think its a bit overpowering. Chicago's skyline is great because of the three peaks of the Aon, Sears, and JHC give you a good sense of scale.