CHICAGO | OneEleven - 111 West Wacker | 630 FT | 59 FLOORS | COM - Page 28

BraveNewWorld · #**541** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 4:29 PM**

This is definitely a let down...

Although I do like these new renders on some level, it is still a huge disappointment.

The shorter height is extremely disappointing, but not as disappointing as us losing the amazing avant garde cantilever design. Is there any way we could do something to show related our disapproval ?

Also, isn't this the last site on this side of the river ?

takascar · #**542** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

This is definitely a let down...

Although I do like these new renders on some level, it is still a huge disappointment.

The shorter height is extremely disappointing, but not as disappointing as us losing the amazing avant garde cantilever design. Is there any way we could do something to show related our disapproval ?

Also, isn't this the last site on this side of the river ?

I think I'm going to send them an e-mail APPROVING of the design and
thanking them for bringing such a handsome building to our city.

Chicago_Forever · #**543** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 5:03 PM**

Sure, give them a call!

ChiPhi · #**544** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 5:20 PM**

I doubt they will do anything, especially since this building is a revival of a distressed property and as of right... but it'd be worth the few minutes if it makes you feel good about yourself...

Also, I quite like the lobby (at least in the renderings). It looks like a glassy art deco skyscraper entrance.

untitledreality · #**545** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Also, I didn't even notice the entrance until now... WTF is that supposed to be?

Yeah, no idea what they were thinking when they drew that up. Hopefully its more a result of bad photoshop rather than terrible design.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**546** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

The zigzag was actually copied from the Museum of Arts & Design after Handel modernized (destroyed, really) the old Lollipop building in New York.

What's going on with the entrance, though. Very random.

For those who don't know what you're referring to, here's a link and some photos:

I knew the design was similar, but I had no idea it was the same architect. I'm frankly just kinda happy to hear it's not SCB.

Chief Blackhawk · #**547** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 5:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by takascar

I think I'm going to send them an e-mail APPROVING of the design and
thanking them for bringing such a handsome building to our city.

I find the fact that you are even joking about that is is disgusting.

BraveNewWorld · #**548** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Blackhawk

I find the fact that you are even joking about that is is disgusting.

I know... I am a realistic person and realize the chances of changing this are about 0, but is there anything we could do ?

Zapatan · #**549** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 6:38 PM**

I kind of like it, it's not great but not terrible, a good filler building at most.

rgolch · #**550** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 6:50 PM**

Well, if there's a silver lining, I'd say it's that the new building more than doubles the number of units over the old Waterview tower. That should add decent density to the river canyon. Not to mention, it'll be a younger group of residents over the old proposal, so presumably are more active and interesting crowd.

Steely Dan · #**551** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgolch

Well, if there's a silver lining, I'd say it's that the new building more than doubles the number of units over the old Waterview tower. That should add decent density to the river canyon. Not to mention, it'll be a younger group of residents over the old proposal, so presumably are more active and interesting crowd.

i don't know about that. the waterview design would have had 223 hotel rooms in addition to the 243 condo units, and hotel guests (leisure tourists and expense account business travelers) tend to have more time and cash to spend than the average resident going about day to day life, and thus could potentially create more activity than a building full of residents.

rgolch · #**552** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't know about that. the waterview design would have had 223 hotel rooms in addition to the 243 condo units, and hotel guests (leisure tourists and expense account business travelers) tend to have more time and cash to spend than the average resident going about day to day life, and thus could potentially create more activity than a building full of residents.

Well, it might not generate more economic activity, but 20 and 30 somethings are better than empty nesters, at least on the residential portion. Not sure about the hotel. I remember it was supposed to be Shangra-La, which I think is a 5 star type hotel. If it would have ran low vacancies, it would have definitely brought some dollars to the area.

Standpoor · #**553** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i believe that the parking numbers are the same. related inherited the existing parking ramp from teng, and there's not a whole lot else you can do with sloped ramps, so.......

Which is the tragedy of this site. We have enough parking for a 92 story mixed use building in a 59 story apartment tower. This is the reason I held out hope for so long that the original tower design would come back, even though I knew we would eventually end up with a chopped down version. Its promise will be clad behind a hastily put up glass wall, that will try and hide the insane amount of parking behind it. I'll shed a tear when it tops out. It will be the same when what ever gets built on the foundation of the spire. Nothing that gets built there will ever need that much of a foundation, so all of the spire dreams and millions of dollars of work will be buried beneath a building that won't need such a giant hole in the ground. But what can I do.

Steely Dan · #**554** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standpoor

Which is the tragedy of this site. We have enough parking for a 92 story mixed use building in a 59 story apartment tower.

the number of floors is irrelevant, it's all about unit density.

waterview: 243 condo units + 223 hotel units

111 west wacker: 506 apartment units.

the unit density of 111 west wacker will be greater overall, despite it's lower floor count. 111 wacker will have a lower parking ratio than waterview would have had.

Standpoor · #**555** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the number of floors is irrelevant, it's all about unit density.

waterview: 243 condo units + 223 hotel units

111 west wacker: 506 apartment units.

the unit density of 111 west wacker will be greater overall, despite it's lower floor count. 111 wacker will have a lower parking ratio than waterview would have had.

Its about use as well. An apartment building downtown does not need 439 parking spaces. Even though parking was more per unit, it would have serviced a commercial building. I am much more willing to give a hotel more parking spots than an apartment building. And I would have been much happier if there were even more units added to the apartment building, increase the number of floors in this current proposal, lowering the parking ratio even more.

I am not saying that I loved the previous parking ratio, it was extremely high but the old design was a lofty thin tower reaching 92 stories above the river. Now it is just another 50 story apartment building with way too much parking.

Steely Dan · #**556** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standpoor

I am much more willing to give a hotel more parking spots than an apartment building.

why? a parking spot is a parking spot, regardless of who's parking there.

besides, with the number of people who would be taking a taxi to their hotel from o'hare, a downtown hotel should actually provide even less parking per unit than a residential building.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**557** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Standpoor

I am not saying that I loved the previous parking ratio, it was extremely high but the old design was a lofty thin tower reaching 92 stories above the river. Now it is just another 50 story apartment building with way too much parking.

So... the previous design gets a pass for an even worse parking ratio because it was taller?

Dan in Chicago · #**558** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 7:54 PM**

I never liked the original Waterview design, so this is a bit of a relief for me. But I know that many of you are disappointed not to get a supertall here... so in consolation let me point out one little-realized but very big disadvantage of a very tall building on this site:

111 West Wacker happens to be directly in line between the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Center. If it were over 1000 feet, it would largely obscure the view of each from the other, from the observation decks. Granted this only considers 2 viewpoints, but these are two of the most popular places to view the city. When I first went up the JHC it took my breath away to see the Sears Tower looking across downtown like that. Don't know if anybody else cares, but at least now we won't lose these sightlines.

Chief Blackhawk · #**559** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

I know... I am a realistic person and realize the chances of changing this are about 0, but is there anything we could do ?

A real man does not cry, but he may shed a tear; I continue to shed tears

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**560** Posted **Jun 4, 2012, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

I never liked the original Waterview design, so this is a bit of a relief for me.

I never liked the original design, either. IMO, Handel's design, despite its flaws (e.g., the unaddressed bulge, more reflective blue glass, etc.), is still superior to what Teng had come up with.