HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive

    375 East Wacker Drive in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 10:21 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHamp View Post
LSE is essentially a highrise suburb in the heart of the city.
it's not state street, was never intended to be, but it's more than a suburb. wait till it's built out with the park, the parkhomes, the market, etc. this will be a fine place to live if you want the heart of the city but with a bit more of an intimate neighborhood feel. the park in the middle of it all is already a fantastic space, and it's only going to be getting more awe-inspiring as the new towers continue to enclose it. also, some of the projects such as aqua need to be completed so that folks can better understand how the street level elevation changes are going to be handled for pedestrians.

it's not perfect, but it was such a weird piece of land to begin with, especially with all those wacky multi-level roads surrounding the place, that i think they're doing a pretty good job with it. fast forward 20 years into the future, after full build out and some tree maturation, and i think some of the current naysayers will see LSE a bit differently.
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 11:28 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,827
I really don't see any problem with it. Asian cities like Singapore and Hong Kong are full of skyscraper complexes with lots of crazy elevation changes, walkways, and terraces, and you don't really see those cities suffering for it. They keep building more, in fact.

While I wouldn't suggest such an urban design for most neighborhoods in Chicago, this area, because of its residential nature, tremendous height, and quirky site can be allowed such a design.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 11:54 PM
DHamp DHamp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 195
I never said that I loathe LSE. In fact, I rather applaud it and I'm not nearly as harsh on some of the buildings (like the Regatta) as some of the forumers here. I'm just simply stating that the community is suburban in design -- just with highrises instead of single family homes. And you're right it is for people who want a more intimate neighborhood feel. It seems to be largely intended to attract empty-nest baby boomers back into the city, and to that end it's working reasonably well.

Again, I'm not a LSE naysayer. I've walked over there and tried to imagine it fully built out, and it still feels like a hirise suburb to me -- not that that's a bad thing. It just doesn't feel connected to the busy city that surrounds it, and that's by design. It's straddling a fence fairly well, I think, and many of the real naysayers probably will change their minds 10-20 years in the future.
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 12:16 AM
Pandemonious's Avatar
Pandemonious Pandemonious is offline
Chaos Machine
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,290
I'd like to see site O as a really tall mixed use building. I think it would make sense to stack some uses above an office portion anyway, since the hulking BCBS with the added height totally kills all southern views. There was originally supposed to be some office space in LSE, has that been completely scratched??
__________________
My Diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m2346
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 12:49 AM
HK Chicago HK Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Aqua looks great in that full LSE image (try to imagine that it doesn't glow for an accurate impression).

I'm looking forward to potential improvements to this tower because even if it's built & detailed well as is I still believe there's a better overall design for this building program. It is better than any of the Loewenburg designed towers. (What an opportunity was lost to have The Tides & The Shoreham complement this centerpiece tower)
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 3:09 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
steely, why don't you just make a LSE thread?
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 3:19 AM
jcchii's Avatar
jcchii jcchii is offline
Content provider
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: city on the take
Posts: 3,119
strikes me as an asian-type living complex

singapore. not suburbs
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 4:00 AM
DePaul Bunyan DePaul Bunyan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianXSands View Post
...oh well, so they aren't 1000', what's the big deal? bragging rights? huh...


this whole lse development REALLY gets to me: what's with all the excessive amount of landscaping; the whole development is right across the street from one of the biggest parks in the city, yet there's a MASSIVE park in the middle, and why does aqua need a forest around it? all around i think lse is kind of a planning nightmare. too much open space and all the buildings are just kinda randomly placed... there's absolutly NO uniformity at all. and what's up with those townhomes? ugh, just look at that site plan... it's a big jumbled mess! and has anyone tried to walk around over there? it's insane! i'm sorry, but looking at that site plan just really got me going...
Take a look at the existing buildings to the south and east of LSE. They pretty much block out the view of Grant Park. If the LSE high-rises don't have "park-views" then the price points take a huge hit. If LSE didn't have the (award-winning, if I'm not mistaken) park in the middle, the condos would command a lower price, and we'd get less height. It's either a big park in the middle surrounded by a gaggle of 800-1,000 foot buildings or a bunch of crap in the 35-40 story range.
__________________
"Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads?"

-Hunter S. Thompson (click for full quote)
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 1:01 PM
brett7three brett7three is offline
Insert Cheesy Slogan Here
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The day before tomorrow
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
Looking at Archytype's fine rendering, the Arquitectonica proposal being boxy, fits very well in the skyline with Aon, as well as with Watertower and IBM. From a structure/massing perspective it looks a lot like Watertower.
I think it looks fine there.
The Rendering is great!

I would really like to see some more variation than the "Box Type" buildings that we get too often. It's really time for Chicago to build more "Avante Garde" style buildings. It would be nice to see Chicago embrace more unique designs, or at least, embrace a higher percentage of unique designs.
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 1:39 PM
trvlr70 trvlr70 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 2,228
[QUOTE=AdrianXSands;2856220this whole lse development REALLY gets to me: what's with all the excessive amount of landscaping; the whole development is right across the street from one of the biggest parks in the city, yet there's a MASSIVE park in the middle, and why does aqua need a forest around it?

It is exactly these open spaces that makes so Chicago both unique and livable and why it looks and feels so different from NYC or other great urban centers.
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 2:23 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 776
A Closer Look

Based upon some of the previous designs with a similar vocabulary, I would suggest that this project will be all about the details, texture, and pattern-making.

It appears to me that the elevations will be a richly textured facade with significant shadow play....for example, has anyone else noticed that the balconies appear to be framed by large fins of glass?

If this project comes anywhere close to the level of novel detail I see in the rendering, it should truly be a ground-breaking project...perfect for Chicago and it Miesien history of celbrating the details....

Last edited by Steely Dan; May 25, 2007 at 2:34 PM.
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 2:30 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianXSands View Post
...oh well, so they aren't 1000', what's the big deal? bragging rights? huh...


this whole lse development REALLY gets to me: what's with all the excessive amount of landscaping; the whole development is right across the street from one of the biggest parks in the city, yet there's a MASSIVE park in the middle, and why does aqua need a forest around it? all around i think lse is kind of a planning nightmare. too much open space and all the buildings are just kinda randomly placed... there's absolutly NO uniformity at all. and what's up with those townhomes? ugh, just look at that site plan... it's a big jumbled mess! and has anyone tried to walk around over there? it's insane! i'm sorry, but looking at that site plan just really got me going...
Would you rather it be a concrete jungle or another Illinois Center? They've tried to make it inviting and intimate. I do agree that the sidewalks should be wider, and I think it will be more conjected than planned, but nothing's perfect.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 2:34 PM
wrab's Avatar
wrab wrab is offline
Deerhoof Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
.....It appears to me that the elevations will be a richly textured facade with significant shadow play....for example, has anyone else noticed that the balconies appear to be framed by large fins of glass?.....
Good shadow play can make an otherwise decent project into a very good project. Here, with a Southern face and lots of refracted lake light to the East, the opportunities are rich.

Must have more renders!
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 5:20 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 6,374
neat. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 5:32 PM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,059
LSE=Hong Kong in America

And when I say that I am saying that it is a good thing , in NIMBY circles it wouldnt be.
__________________
Devout Chicagoan, political moderate and paleo-urbanist.

"Auto-centric suburban sprawl is the devil physically manifesting himself in the built environment."
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 6:28 PM
rgolch's Avatar
rgolch rgolch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by archytype View Post
This picture cinches it for me. If it has that look and height, it will look great in the skyline. I actually love it. Not sure why this one is hated by so many. There is nothing particularly offensive or ugly about it's design. It's a relatively ornate box with a large void at the top. What's to hate?
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 7:46 PM
forumly_chgoman's Avatar
forumly_chgoman forumly_chgoman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago --- RP
Posts: 407
Is it me or is the "background photo" about a year old or so....basing on 340 development?? ALso I think there is more going on in Streeterville, trump area / river north, and along the river in LSE if the photo was current


Nice job though
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 7:52 PM
forumly_chgoman's Avatar
forumly_chgoman forumly_chgoman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago --- RP
Posts: 407
If someone w/ photoshop magic could throw in CS, Trump, cityfront plaza buildings, 351 clark, the elysian, the Canyon Ranch proposal, Mandarin, the 40 story proposal for the Doral, the 50 story Arquitectonica hotel on Mich (problematic they may be no rendering), a couple of other west of michigan like the chestnut buidling, I think there is one on Ontario as well, as well (name currently escapes me) the Loyola tall old person's home


that would be stunning
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 7:56 PM
BorisMolotov's Avatar
BorisMolotov BorisMolotov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 533
^ Sure let me pull that outta my ass for you.
No but seriously, that would be cool.
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted May 25, 2007, 8:41 PM
2PRUROCKS!'s Avatar
2PRUROCKS! 2PRUROCKS! is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 481
In archytype's aerial view it looks like this building is definitely taller than Aqua, probably 850-900ft tall. This building is fine. I don't hate it, but it is nothing very spectacular.

I am a little sick of all the boxy, flat-topped buildings. Chicago had a history of these with Mies's modernism and the International style, and it seems that a lot of architects that do a building in Chicago think they have to fit this mold. When done well it can work and no doubt Chicago has many great boxy buildings, that is why a lot of people feel they have to do the to fit in and be contextual. But, I fear this can lead to Chicago being stuck in a rut. We need verity, and Chicago wasn't always defined by big boxy buildings. Pre 1950 most of the tallest towers were slender and had some sort of ornamentation on top. A lot of people nock the 80's and early 90's buildings, but buildings like 2Pru, 311, AT&T, 900 NM, and Chicago Title and Trust brought back a decorative flair to the pinnacle that had become lacking in modernism. Don't get me wrong I like modernism and prefer it overall to postmodernism, however I think Chicago needs to get more out of the box not back to it. That is why this tower disappoints me slightly, I felt this was the opportunity for something very unique and different for Chicago, but other than the void there really does not seem to be much "outside of the box" (pardon the pun). It detailed properly this building should turn out fine, but it will be nothing spectacular.

These are the reasons I love buildings like CS, Canyon Ranch, 200 N. Riverside, Aqua, TTC, and 1MP (Aqua is still rather boxy but it offers a very unique and interesting transition between boxy and more organic forms). They all break away from the boxyness in different ways and appear from what I can tell based on limited renderings so far to have much more appealing facade details. These buildings will hopefully spark a new tradition and era in Chicago architecture that can then be broken once it has come to fruition.

I was hoping this new LSE building would be more like 200 N. Riverside but it is still nice.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:41 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.