HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 11:02 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 798
Cool CHICAGO | Site I (LSE) | 950 FT | 85 FLOORS


Source: bKL/Curbed


Source: bKL/Curbed


Source: bKL/Curbed

Quote:
Chicago’s Magellan Group and the Australia-based Lendlease have partnered for this portion of the planned development. All three towers proposed for parcels I, J, and KL are designed by Chicago’s bKL Architecture.

The most dramatic of the three towers is the 80-story, 875’ tower planned for Site I on the northeastern edge of Lakeshore East. At the proposed height, the tower would be slightly taller than the 859-foot Aqua but would be considerably shorter than the 93-story Vista, which will stand at 1,186 feet when it is completed. However, the other two towers planned for site will be much shorter. The Site J tower will top out at 550’ or 50 stories while KL will rise to 438’ or 40 stories.

Described as an “iconic” addition to the Chicago skyline by bKL principal Tom Kerwin, the 80-story tower also features a similar modular appearance that is consistent with the other towers planned for the development. However, the tower’s width gradually expands as it gets taller, offering large floor plates and sweeping views of the city for upper floor residents.
Source: Curbed Chicago

Last edited by ithakas; Jul 11, 2017 at 11:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 11:06 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,406
That sure does look taller than 875 feet...
__________________
In America, today, it's not that truth has lost, it's that political bias has been accepted as a legitimate answer to every issue one struggles with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 12:58 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 29,072
Nice specs.

1) Site I : 875'
2) Site J: 550'
3) Site KL: 438'

Always good when a trio of towers is planned. The more, the merrier. Although 80 floors could be stretched. Surprised its not a super tall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 1:12 AM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
The tower looks good. Kind of like a tall Viceroy Hotel with balconies. In the high rise thread someone mentioned to punch holes in the Chandler to open up the new views, which is a good idea if they truly are not going to take advantage of that wall, but I'm sure that cost would not be covered by bKl or the developer of the new building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 1:19 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 29,072
Symmetrical too comparing the L & R side. Looks like it draws the eye from Vista in the middle rendering in the OP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 1:23 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 4,023
Neat, Chicago is about to be on fire
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 1:55 AM
spidey7312's Avatar
spidey7312 spidey7312 is offline
Pro Web Slinger
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 292
Let's throw 125 extra feet on there, make it another supertall for Chicago
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 2:04 AM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 385
I've looked at this again after taking a peak last night and again this morning. I really love the design. So many on this forum complain of a barrage of blue boxes being proposed. bKL has done a fair share of their boxes, although better than most. This is a slight departure from that and in a very high visibility area.

It'll be a great addition to the skyline, visible from nearly all directions. Between LSE-I and One Bennett Park, we're adding a significant amount of height to the lakefront. Now if 400 N LSD can peak out just over the tops of these two at 1,200-1,500 ft...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 2:09 AM
Rocket49 Rocket49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by spidey7312 View Post
Let's throw 125 extra feet on there, make it another supertall for Chicago
To make it a supertall we don't need 125 feet.

We only need 105 feet.

Maybe someone could make a decorative spire and donate it to the building 😊
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 2:30 AM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin | Panni, Italia
Posts: 1,629
oh lala
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 4:20 AM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Neat, Chicago is about to be on fire
Chicago has always been on fire. Ever since 1871
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 2:34 AM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 798
Is it out of the realm of possibility that they might be planning to squeeze a mid-rise building in between this and The Chandler's party wall someday down the line?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 4:38 PM
Zerton's Avatar
Zerton Zerton is offline
Ω
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
Is it out of the realm of possibility that they might be planning to squeeze a mid-rise building in between this and The Chandler's party wall someday down the line?
There's actually a tiny separate lot between these two buildings. I checked the zoning because I thought it was strange also. See below:



Source: https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/ZoningMapWeb
__________________
If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. -Orwell
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2017, 3:54 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerton View Post
There's actually a tiny separate lot between these two buildings. I checked the zoning because I thought it was strange also.
Nice – I'll gladly take another 5-10 years of seeing The Chandler's party wall if it means they slip a narrow mid-rise in there. It's exactly the kind of granular development lacking in an area like LSE.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 4:46 AM
TallBob TallBob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,027
^^lol!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 5:58 AM
RyanChi92 RyanChi92 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 26
Damn. This is nice, I love how the building looks to get wider as it travels in height. And whatever Tetris/Jenga situation is going on with the balconies is a positive eye-grabber for me.

P.S. it makes me so happy how Vista is included in renderings. Soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 6:18 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
Seriously WTF bkl?
Why on earth would an architect be making design changes to a condo tower next door built many years ago?

If anything, direct the question to Magellan as to why they're not building a bustle. Presumably they and the architect decided a slim unadorned tower was best here. Then the question really is whether the neighboring condo association could be convinced to spend money to beautify their ugly wall, for the benefit of the new tower, and the neighborhood, and themselves. In fact, this render can work to put a little bit of pressure on the Chandler; any miscellaneous opposition they have to the new project could be alleviated by Magellan offering to kick in some money for ivy (or a mural of a sailboat?) to de-uglify their building. (I'm assuming there's no existing obligation for Magellan to address the blank wall.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 2:17 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
Why on earth would an architect be making design changes to a condo tower next door built many years ago?

If anything, direct the question to Magellan as to why they're not building a bustle. Presumably they and the architect decided a slim unadorned tower was best here. Then the question really is whether the neighboring condo association could be convinced to spend money to beautify their ugly wall, for the benefit of the new tower, and the neighborhood, and themselves. In fact, this render can work to put a little bit of pressure on the Chandler; any miscellaneous opposition they have to the new project could be alleviated by Magellan offering to kick in some money for ivy (or a mural of a sailboat?) to de-uglify their building. (I'm assuming there's no existing obligation for Magellan to address the blank wall.)
Huh? Nobody was suggesting bkl should be making design changes to the chandler. My comment was about the design ignoring it's context and not utilizing the party wall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 11:06 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
Huh? Nobody was suggesting bkl should be making design changes to the chandler. My comment was about the design ignoring it's context and not utilizing the party wall.
That's even more unrealistic. It would be like telling Cesar Pelli's firm to make Wolf Point reflect the context of the Apparel Mart. (Coincidentally, it solved its blank wall problems by punching out hundreds of windows.) Here, the architect was tasked with designing a trophy tower at the mouth of the river, the final piece of LSE, likely destined for the marketing name of "300 North Lake Shore Drive", as the last skyscraper that will ever be built along the lake near downtown (other than NWU selling its land and a theoretical teardown of the W or 540), so the obligation to pay homage to a blank wall on a squat ten year old condo nearby that looks like it was designed in the front seat of an impala while waiting for cheesecake factory takeout in the woodfield mall parking lot is rather close to zero. Sure, there would be ways to include a decent bustle or base or podium in the design, but they decided the best impact would be a slender, unadorned design. Keep in mind that marketing brochures and other imagery of the building trying to sell 7 and 8 figure condo units can present it as a standalone jewel this way rather than as just another tower glued onto neighborhood buildings. The far easier solution is a mural or ivy or punching out windows in the old building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 2:20 AM
entreprelawyer's Avatar
entreprelawyer entreprelawyer is offline
General Counsel, CTBUH
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 10
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
That's even more unrealistic. It would be like telling Cesar Pelli's firm to make Wolf Point reflect the context of the Apparel Mart. (Coincidentally, it solved its blank wall problems by punching out hundreds of windows.) Here, the architect was tasked with designing a trophy tower at the mouth of the river, the final piece of LSE, likely destined for the marketing name of "300 North Lake Shore Drive", as the last skyscraper that will ever be built along the lake near downtown (other than NWU selling its land and a theoretical teardown of the W or 540), so the obligation to pay homage to a blank wall on a squat ten year old condo nearby that looks like it was designed in the front seat of an impala while waiting for cheesecake factory takeout in the woodfield mall parking lot is rather close to zero. Sure, there would be ways to include a decent bustle or base or podium in the design, but they decided the best impact would be a slender, unadorned design. Keep in mind that marketing brochures and other imagery of the building trying to sell 7 and 8 figure condo units can present it as a standalone jewel this way rather than as just another tower glued onto neighborhood buildings. The far easier solution is a mural or ivy or punching out windows in the old building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:40 AM.

     

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