CHICAGO | OneEleven - 111 West Wacker | 630 FT | 59 FLOORS | COM - Page 25

SamInTheLoop · #**481** Posted **Apr 27, 2012, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago_Forever

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/

By the way - Chicago Forever - despite the, ah, pretty disappointed consensus reaction it's sparked, thanks for finding this!

From Curt Bailey's interview, I get the definite impression - not that this surprises at all - that Related's exit strategy for their current 2 Chicago rental projects is condo conversion, and probably as soon as humanly possible.....I think I may have actually saw him drool slightly when speaking about the decline in unsold downtown new condo inventory......

One other thing that definitely irks me with the hyper-pansy-ass stance most developers in Chicago are taking these days with respect to design, is this false conventional wisdom that many observers seem to hold (a comment I saw in the Curbed Chicago comments on the redesign sparked this), that great design is necessarily 'expensive', even prohibitively so for the pro forma returns developers here can expect. That is truly an absolute nonsense. We have probably some of the most creative architects on planet earth based in our very city, and they are perfectly capable of delivering great design at a variety of price points, and related implications to overall project cost per sq ft. Yes, even value-oriented projects can have superb design....

chicagodesigner · #**482** Posted **May 1, 2012, 3:25 PM**

This has been a fun thread to follow. As far as I know... the lower half of the DP scheme was using the curtain wall that was meant for the original tower; it was purchased and is being held somewhere in the burbs (o'hare?) That's why the bottom half looked the way it did. It was more or less, exactly, what the first 20+ stories were going to look like. I googled and found additional images at http://joshpabst.com/111-West-Wacker-Residential
In regards to the latest design; it is a little deflating, but not at all surprising. If it is SCB, I don't think I would blame them... they have a style and the developer hires them for it. IMHO.

ChiPhi · #**483** Posted **May 1, 2012, 3:42 PM**

^^^
That video is epic. Thanks for finding it.

It makes me realize how much of a silly job this was. It looks like the rendering artist didn;t even bother to touch the bottom, though any good architect would know that it would be necessary to create a cohesive design.

Buckman821 · #**484** Posted **May 1, 2012, 3:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicagodesigner

This has been a fun thread to follow. As far as I know... the lower half of the DP scheme was using the curtain wall that was meant for the original tower; it was purchased and is being held somewhere in the burbs (o'hare?) That's why the bottom half looked the way it did. It was more or less, exactly, what the first 20+ stories were going to look like. I googled and found additional images at http://joshpabst.com/111-West-Wacker-Residential
In regards to the latest design; it is a little deflating, but not at all surprising. If it is SCB, I don't think I would blame them... they have a style and the developer hires them for it. IMHO.

Wow. Thanks for that. I pulled some images from the above site (only the ones I think we haven't yet seen) for the lazy:

I'm also really loving some of these alternative designs, though I still think the cantilever was the best:

And yet we're going to end up with another banal SCB box. What a shame.

Buckman821 · #**485** Posted **May 1, 2012, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

It makes me realize how much of a silly job this was. It looks like the rendering artist didn;t even bother to touch the bottom, though any good architect would know that it would be necessary to create a cohesive design.

I strongly disagree. That was the genius in the design. It told the story of the tower - and in dramatic fashion too.

ChiPhi · #**486** Posted **May 1, 2012, 3:52 PM**

^^^
People keep talking about how it "tells the story of the tower," but I believe that architecture has a job first and foremost to be aesthetically pleasing, and I thought that that tower looked like one building awkwardly and haphazardly designed atop another. A multi multi million dollar project that serves first and foremost as people's homes should not serve to "tell a story" but should be a cohesive, beautiful design. These other designs by Buckman show how great this tower could have been - other than the first which reminds me of SCB's 50 east chestnut.

chicagodesigner · #**487** Posted **May 1, 2012, 4:01 PM**

There would be two reasons to leave the lower as it was (going to be). The first, and obvious from a developer POV would be that there is a few million dollars wrapped up in the already manufactured wall. The second is that you are paying homage to what was going to be there. A sort of cataloging the economic downturn and recognizing its point in history. In doing so you also pay homage to the max height setback along the river from yesteryear and keep that height datum. The cantilever is awesome. Obviously these buildings are all vignettes and would have to be developed and designed further and finessed. But it reminds me of hearst tower in NY

Nowhereman1280 · #**488** Posted **May 1, 2012, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckman821

Wow. Thanks for that. I pulled some images from the above site (only the ones I think we haven't yet seen) for the lazy:

I'm also really loving some of these alternative designs, though I still think the cantilever was the best:

And yet we're going to end up with another banal SCB box. What a shame.

God that's depressing, any one of these designs would have been 20 times better than the shit we are going to get dumped on us by the poop heads at Related. Fuck you Related!

siunate2324 · #**489** Posted **May 1, 2012, 6:16 PM**

although this is all conceptual the 625 w. adams proposal looks pretty sweet too, wonder if there were ever any legs to that..

Standpoor · #**490** Posted **May 1, 2012, 6:21 PM**

I cannot really count so how many floors of this new rendering will be usable space and how many floors will be parking?

10023 · #**491** Posted **May 1, 2012, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Eh.

lakeviewer · #**492** Posted **May 1, 2012, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

Eh.

Has Related come out and said this is the final rendering? If so, I missed that...

rgolch · #**493** Posted **May 1, 2012, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

God that's depressing, any one of these designs would have been 20 times better than the shit we are going to get dumped on us by the poop heads at Related. Fuck you Related!

Agree. I love the top right.

In any case, is it time to update page 1 with new rendering?

ChiPhi · #**494** Posted **May 1, 2012, 8:55 PM**

^^^
I don't think we can do that yet. There has yet to be a press release from Related. We can all hope that this was some crap b-role that Crain's threw in without Related's knowledge...

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**495** Posted **May 1, 2012, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckman821

I strongly disagree. That was the genius in the design. It told the story of the tower - and in dramatic fashion too.

Precisely.

siunate2324 · #**496** Posted **May 1, 2012, 10:19 PM**

personally im gonna reserve my opinion on the 'so-called latest' design change until we can see another angle of the building. If there are similar design elements on either the south or west side it could actually end up being a pretty great design for the situation. the cantilever would have been very cool but the fact is how many developers in an economy like this wanna pay for that type of design yet lose all that space they could generate money with.

BraveNewWorld · #**497** Posted **May 1, 2012, 10:32 PM**

There is no reason to believe the latest design is the final design. It's a low quality render and is nothing to go by.

Nowhereman1280 · #**498** Posted **May 1, 2012, 11:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by siunate2324

personally im gonna reserve my opinion on the 'so-called latest' design change until we can see another angle of the building. If there are similar design elements on either the south or west side it could actually end up being a pretty great design for the situation. the cantilever would have been very cool but the fact is how many developers in an economy like this wanna pay for that type of design yet lose all that space they could generate money with.

It would have actually increased the space they could make money with. This new design has triangular floor plates above the current height. The cantilever had square floors. The cantilever was an innovative solution to build out max FAR without building out max height by shifting the strength of the NW columns to be spread evenly around a square footprint.

ChiPhi · #**499** Posted **May 1, 2012, 11:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by siunate2324

personally im gonna reserve my opinion on the 'so-called latest' design change until we can see another angle of the building. If there are similar design elements on either the south or west side it could actually end up being a pretty great design for the situation.

The view from the Wacker canyon was the most important and really the reason that this lot is considered prominent. This is the angle from which to judge the design.

intrepidDesign · #**500** Posted **May 1, 2012, 11:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

It would have actually increased the space they could make money with. This new design has triangular floor plates above the current height. The cantilever had square floors. The cantilever was an innovative solution to build out max FAR without building out max height by shifting the strength of the NW columns to be spread evenly around a square footprint.

I was wondering about this. It's hard to tell from just one angle, but it appears that the floor plates are similar (if not exactly) to the original Waterview design. I rather like this revised design, while it's not as avant garde as the cantilevered design, it's glassy simplicity reminds me of the current Optima project, which I love. I think the real shame here is the lack of height. There was a photoshop job a few pages back that was spot on. I'm not one to say height for height's sake, but I'd hate to see the river visually plateau simply because the ROI sweet spot is between 600 and 700 ft.

On a separate note, anyone care to guess how many units this will bring to the area?