CHICAGO | InterContinental North Tower | 850 FT / 259 M | 71 FLOORS | PRO - Page 13

jcchii · #**241** Posted **Jun 2, 2007, 8:54 PM**

version 2 is much better

ardecila · #**242** Posted **Jun 3, 2007, 7:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

LaGrange designed this!!???

Is there such thing as precast glass?

Lagrange also designed Erie on the Park, one of the best modern buildings in the city in several years It's right up there with Skybridge/Contemporaine.

honte · #**243** Posted **Jun 4, 2007, 3:21 AM**

^ Agreed. Kingsbury on the Park isn't bad either.

But LaGrange is a real crap-shoot; I think he deserves a lot of the criticism he gets. He offered the excuse (paraphrasing), "I wouldn't do anything like this on North Michigan Avenue," when someone asked why Erie was so much better than Park Tower. Yet, with this proposal, he's doing exactly that.

Needless to say, I'm glad he had second thoughts!

ardecila · #**244** Posted **Jun 4, 2007, 3:36 AM**

I'm not sure where Lagrange's real strengths/preferences lie. Obviously, the firm tries to specialize in neo-Parisian design, incorporating some Art Deco and Art Nouveau. However, they have a strong portfolio of modern design as well.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure that developers have a good idea of what they want when they come to Lagrange. Since they have a reputation of doing traditional design, they stick with it since it brings in the money/clients. The clients who request a modern design, or are unsure of what they want, end up with something like X/O, where Lagrange let his designers run wild.

With few exceptions, Lagrange actually produces fairly good designs in the traditional styles he employs. Everything you can throw at his buildings is a direct result of the developers' bottom lines (such as the Farwell Building or the precast concrete), and not Lagrange's architectural prowess.

BVictor1 · #**245** Posted **Jun 4, 2007, 3:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

^ Agreed. Kingsbury on the Park isn't bad either.

But LaGrange is a real crap-shoot; I think he deserves a lot of the criticism he gets. He offered the excuse (paraphrasing), "I wouldn't do anything like this on North Michigan Avenue," when someone asked why Erie was so much better than Park Tower. Yet, with this proposal, he's doing exactly that.

Needless to say, I'm glad he had second thoughts!

I don't know if it had anything to do with him, or his cloents insistence. I like the diagrid version, but would be quite happy with either of these modern proposals.

BVictor1 · #**246** Posted **Jun 7, 2007, 8:16 PM**

I went to the LaGrange lecture at Friends of Downtown. I asked him about this project and he said that they'd be moving forward soon.

I also asked about the diagrid design, and he said that one wasn't being used.

Steely Dan · #**247** Posted **Jun 7, 2007, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I also asked about the diagrid design, and he said that one wasn't being used.

i know some people really loved the diagrid version, and i would have no problems if they had gone in that direction, but the other design is really solid too, so i don't think there's any reason to get terribly upset by this news.

it's awesome that he was optimistic about it moving forward soon. after the spire and aqua, this one is probaly my most anticipated tall proposal currently on the table.

nomarandlee · #**248** Posted **Jun 7, 2007, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

BVictor1;2883745]I went to the LaGrange lecture at Friends of Downtown. I asked him about this project and he said that they'd be moving forward soon.

Quote:

I also asked about the diagrid design, and he said that one wasn't being used.

Oh well, at least the first version is solid. I got a question though. In such instances of unused renders and versions like V2 who ends up controlling the rights of those plans for whatever their worth?

forumly_chgoman · #**249** Posted **Jun 7, 2007, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i know some people really loved the diagrid version, and i would have no problems if they had gone in that direction, but the other design is really solid too, so i don't think there's any reason to get terribly upset by this news.

it's awesome that he was optimistic about it moving forward soon. after the spire and aqua, this one is probaly my most anticipated tall proposal currently on the table.

Steely

I am a big fan of this myself & have been hoping for positve news, but do you really like it more than Park Michigan?

HK Chicago · #**250** Posted **Jun 8, 2007, 12:18 AM**

^ We shouldn't miss the diagrid version, it was pretty junior compared to Hearst or the Bow. The good news is this may still happen, as it's a great site for skyline enhancement.

APPRAISER · #**251** Posted **Jun 8, 2007, 1:27 AM**

So they're still going to build this thing soon?!

honte · #**252** Posted **Jun 8, 2007, 2:20 AM**

^ You know exactly as much as we do.

djvandrake · #**253** Posted **Jun 8, 2007, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I went to the LaGrange lecture at Friends of Downtown. I asked him about this project and he said that they'd be moving forward soon.

I also asked about the diagrid design, and he said that one wasn't being used.

Well that's awesome news! I really didn't care for the diagrid version of this tower. I felt it far too busy and very much out of context for the southern end of the mag mile. The first design is very attractive. Slender, sleek, with good height. If they execute the design with quality materials, this will be a stunner.

Alliance · #**254** Posted **Jun 8, 2007, 4:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by forumly_chgoman

Steely

I am a big fan of this myself & have been hoping for positve news, but do you really like it more than Park Michigan?

I know you addresses steely, but I actually like this more than Park Michicgan for this location.

however, Park Michicgan is pretty stellar too, especially what it means given its location.

Chi_Coruscant · #**255** Posted **Jun 8, 2007, 4:09 AM**

Thanks for the scoop, BVictor. I am so glad to hear that plan is starting to happen. That's too bad they choose not to use the diagrid version. It will improve the bland architecture on Mag Mile. The so-called final version isn't bad. Either version, I am happy with the plan as long as it stays at 850' tall.

Mr Roboto · #**256** Posted **Jun 8, 2007, 1:13 PM**

I actually preferred the psuedo-Hearst diagrid version also. It certainly would have brought a new flavor to the area, but so will the other version I guess. Just glad to hear this proposal is very much alive still.

ardecila · #**257** Posted **Jun 8, 2007, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I also asked about the diagrid design, and he said that one wasn't being used.

Well, I asked about it last September, so... a lot of things can change in 9 months. Good to see it's not off the table.

Knightwing · #**258** Posted **Aug 11, 2007, 6:19 PM**

Updates anyone?

kenc · #**259** Posted **Aug 12, 2007, 2:30 AM**

I don't live in Chicago.....but I have beeen in the Hotel business for 20 years and the info I am getting is that the Hotel Biz is greatly overbuilt in Chicago, as well as the high end condo market. Not just Chicago...but a lot of markets. I doubt if this project will break ground for some years. Just too much product in too short of time.

the urban politician · #**260** Posted **Aug 12, 2007, 3:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenc

I don't live in Chicago.....but I have beeen in the Hotel business for 20 years and the info I am getting is that the Hotel Biz is greatly overbuilt in Chicago, as well as the high end condo market. Not just Chicago...but a lot of markets. I doubt if this project will break ground for some years. Just too much product in too short of time.

^ Thanks for the input.

But damn, this as prime a location as any. Right smack dab on the famed Mag Mile. I don't think another hotel is planned at such a prime location in Chicago. I know the Ritz Carlton residences are planned, but that's not a hotel, is it? (and even if it were, I'm assuming we're talking about hotel-condos, not a hotel proper)