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

[TallBob]

I was hoping for something in the 750-850 foot range. And like so many have indicated, it's such an extremely visible location. Sounds like it's a done deal too! Wolf Point to the rescue!!

[SamInTheLoop]

I'm with those who like what we're actually going to be getting (fingers crossed that Europe doesn't spark another global financial crisis that drags the US back into recession....which I don't think is the most likely scenario but nevertheless is a potential outcome) more than the original Waterview design. That design always had an appearance to me as if it was designed by someone who really doesn't principally design high-rises for a living (and not in a fantastic Jeanne Gang sort of way, either!!)

[jarta]

Originally Posted by TallBob

I was hoping for something in the 750-850 foot range. And like so many have indicated, it's such an extremely visible location. Sounds like it's a done deal too! Wolf Point to the rescue!!

The renderings link which was posted here recently shows 111 W. Wacker at or maybe a little shorter than 77 W. Wacker. 77 W. Wacker is 668' (204 m) tall. 35 W. Wacker (Leo Burnett Building) is 635' (193 m) tall.

Shorter than the original plan but pretty consistent with the other "recent" towers constructed on the south side of the river.

[jcchii]

height always better, but Chicago still adding density, which is good. Not a terrible design.

agree Wolf Point should be getting the bulk of the demands for great architecture

[Tom In Chicago]

Large version of the front door. . .


(c) Chicago Architecture .info Blog

. . .

[GregBear24]

This looks like a cgi filler building in a bad futuristic science fiction movie. I cannot believe this is what they came up with. I'm all chicago through and through, but they crap out way better stuff in nyc, and at much less prominent locations. I'm very concerned about the direction of chicago architecture. If you don't agree with me, look at the forums for other world cities. Our architectural heritage is being destroyed to the point where the "big shoulders" and "make no small plans" quotes literally no longer have any meaning whatsoever to me. Where's the inspiration and innovation? Where's the chicago-style beauty and class? Where's the creativity? They would reject this pos in north korea. This isn't just disappointing, it literally makes me sad.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by GregBear24

they crap out way better stuff in nyc, and at much less prominent locations.

for whatever it's worth (probably not very much to the drama-inclined), Handel Architects is a NYC firm.

[Chief Blackhawk]

Originally Posted by GregBear24

This looks like a cgi filler building in a bad futuristic science fiction movie. I cannot believe this is what they came up with. I'm all chicago through and through, but they crap out way better stuff in nyc, and at much less prominent locations. I'm very concerned about the direction of chicago architecture. If you don't agree with me, look at the forums for other world cities. Our architectural heritage is being destroyed to the point where the "big shoulders" and "make no small plans" quotes literally no longer have any meaning whatsoever to me. Where's the inspiration and innovation? Where's the chicago-style beauty and class? Where's the creativity? They would reject this pos in north korea. This isn't just disappointing, it literally makes me sad.

Post-modernism is a good place to start your quest.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Large version of the front door. . .


(c) Chicago Architecture .info Blog

. . .

the hell...

[plinko]

It's not terrible as a filler building, but there isn't much to get super excited about.

I never really cared for the Teng supertall design either.

Taken for what it will be, if the glass is right, the facade could be very nice and interesting. The forms? :shrugs: I am really disappointed that neither of the two re-design schemes did anything interesting with the curve along Wacker. It's the one thing that really bothers(ed) me about this AND the cantilever design.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by GregBear24

This looks like a cgi filler building in a bad futuristic science fiction movie. I cannot believe this is what they came up with. I'm all chicago through and through, but they crap out way better stuff in nyc, and at much less prominent locations. I'm very concerned about the direction of chicago architecture. If you don't agree with me, look at the forums for other world cities. Our architectural heritage is being destroyed to the point where the "big shoulders" and "make no small plans" quotes literally no longer have any meaning whatsoever to me. Where's the inspiration and innovation? Where's the chicago-style beauty and class? Where's the creativity? They would reject this pos in north korea. This isn't just disappointing, it literally makes me sad.

I know quoting oneself is pretty tacky, but it would behoove you to pay attention:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

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.

[Tom Servo]

What the fuck are you guys crying about?! Sure, the last design was amazing. But it's gone, and this is a really decent glass box. The complaints don't make sense. It's a simple glass box. POS? How?!

Whatever... all this talk about world class architecture and what's being built in NYC is so tired and foolish. This city is broke! Did you all forget that? More to the point, this ISN'T NYC. Jesus. Just be happy that something [and not ugly. and not painted concrete. and not a PoMo disaster.] is being built.

Let's all focus our disdain on actually ugly and actually prominent buildings.

That said, I'm loving the base.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

But it's gone, and this is a really decent glass box. The complaints don't make sense. It's a simple glass box. POS? How?!

I dont know about anyone else, but my personal fear is that the glass used will be overly reflective, giving us a saran wrap tower on the river canyon. If however, we get a clear(er) glass [especially since the river side faces North] I think it could be a decent addition that could fade into its surroundings as a nice complimentary tower.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

What the fuck are you guys crying about?! Sure, the last design was amazing. But it's gone, and this is a really decent glass box. The complaints don't make sense. It's a simple glass box. POS? How?!

Whatever... all this talk about world class architecture and what's being built in NYC is so tired and foolish. This city is broke! Did you all forget that? More to the point, this ISN'T NYC. Jesus. Just be happy that something [and not ugly. and not painted concrete. and not a PoMo disaster.] is being built.

Let's all focus our disdain on actually ugly and actually prominent buildings.

That said, I'm loving the base.

I actually agree with you. Some people are saying this is leading Chicago in a bad direction architecturally, but i completely disagree. All this is, is a filler during the recession. Just years ago, when America was booming Chicago was getting incredible designs like the Waldorf Astoria, Chicago Spire, Waterview Tower. Chicago is a global alpha city, and one of the most important cities on earth, but NYC is the center of the universe. Chicago will continue to have great architecture, but it may be few and far between until the next boom

[J_M_Tungsten]

It's not bad, but I think my main complaint is that it is in such a prominent location. If it were on any less prominent site in the city, I'm sure there would be a lot less complaints from the forum.

[bnk]

I approve of this plan vs the rusting concrete hulk of a parking structure that is not going to be down sized period, that was doing nothing for years thus far. Yes we lost height but we have restarted a dead project in IMO is still in the economic downtrend. Our agast for lack of prefection should be focused on WP right now.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Large version of the front door. . .
. . .

Case and point why this building has no idea what its going to be. I think we can easily look at Related's past (disastrous) projects like MiMa to see what we should expect here.

[2PRUROCKS!]

This building is a disappointment compared to Waterview (slender elegance, and very good height) and the cantilever design (wow me architecture) but it is by no means a disaster. I kind of like (not love) the design but the height is a real problem for me. I was really hoping this would be at least 700 ft to help avoid a flattop plateau on Chicago's skyline (I hate when skylines develop this see Vancouver and one reason why I think Chicago's skyline currently is more visually pleasing than NY's). In the last 20 years almost every building built along Wacker has been in the 630-680ft range. I really wanted this building to break out of that. The design while ok is not enough to make up for the lack of Height. Of course the city is better off with this than the current hulk however.

[Andrew|W]

Originally Posted by plinko

Taken for what it will be, if the glass is right, the facade could be very nice and interesting. The forms? :shrugs: I am really disappointed that neither of the two re-design schemes did anything interesting with the curve along Wacker. It's the one thing that really bothers(ed) me about this AND the cantilever design.

I agree that this version seems to be trying to hide the curve. By not acknowledging it, I think it is going to look strangely out of place.

Frankly, the ground floor view is very poorly rendered. The actual sense of depth created by the glass and various overhangs is going to make all of the difference in how this facade reads. The panels flanking the entryway are sort of intriguing too, but I can't tell what they are. Done wrong, they will end up looking like they were snatched off the Ritz-Carlton residence's penthouse. Overall, for such an abstract, modern tower design, it has a strangely traditional lobby portal.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

the hell...

Including the entrance canopy, which looks like it's stolen from a 60s crapbox tower in Edgewater or somewhere. Does NYC only have tiny canopies because space is at such a premium? We have weather issues here, yknow.

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

It's not bad, but I think my main complaint is that it is in such a prominent location. If it were on any less prominent site in the city, I'm sure there would be a lot less complaints from the forum.

Yeah, my main concern is that it not do an oppressive-monolith thing to the river canyon. Teng's version was more textured and and blended well into the streetwall, even though its design was not commendable in other respects. So long as it doesn't mar the canyon (subjective, I know) then I can tolerate this.

As an academic matter, I do feel like Handel is just mailing it in with the random zigzags; in fact I think SCB would have come up with something preferable to this, bored as we are of them.