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

[ardecila]

Really, the dealbreaker is that devilish swell in the floorplates. It totally ruins the rectilinear consistency of the design. Maybe they could fur out the curtain wall to give a flat appearance? Or cut back the floor slabs?

The cantilever is definitely possible, but they'd need to do a partial demo on the existing and repour it as the world's craziest transfer floor. The core would then be 3-4 times thicker going up into the residential structure, where it would fan out again into a conventional grid.

I like the idea, but the facade expression has so little to do with the structural acrobatics that it seems very unnecessary. If they could integrate the facade with the structure and then tweak the base, this would work much better.

[Dac150]

It wouldn't look so awkward if the cantilever wasn't so deep in . . there has to be a better way to transition the two sections where it's more visually pleasing.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Dac150

It wouldn't look so awkward if the cantilever wasn't so deep in . . there has to be a better way to transition the two sections where it's more visually pleasing.

Ya, i was looking at that too. It initially descends then stops and turns into a totally new structure with no compliance to the structure it sits on. Not even following its curved shape. On their own both builds would be nice additions to Chicago's skyline but right now it just looks strange to put that addition on top of the Waterview.

[harryc]

Ductwork - Oct 21


Steel - Oct 23


and whatever these are

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Those look like they are thread caps for conduit piping.

Originally Posted by spyguy

I'm not sure if this is the final design or not (by DeStefano and Partners).

So this is what I've been hearing about. I believe I mentioned a while back that I heard there would be some crazy structural acrobatics in order to revert the columns that were configured for a triangular tower back to a square floor plate. I heard the word "cantilevered" mentioned, but figured they were talking about just cantilevering the SE corner and building out the rest of those floors like normal, but wow is this a lot to take in.

In my opinion this is an absolutely awesome solution to the problem. They had to canatalever the floors over the SE corner because the columns there were not designed to bear any more weight than what they already do. I heard it was modern as well, but that top is just sick.

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I agree. It does look odd with the two combined like that, but the upper part is pretty damn cool looking IMO. I doubt this is a final design, and I doubt the ability of the core to support a 30+ story cantilevered building above it. The original wasn't designed to do anything remotely like that. Reminds me of jenga when you only have one piece near the bottom supporting the top.

This isn't just a response to you Tungsten, but to address all the comments on the cantilever:

The cantilever here is not a aesthetic decision, I've been hearing for months about this from someone I know who is involved in the project. They had two options here to maximize zoning: either build the tower as designed or find a way to cantilever out over the SE corner of the existing structure which was not designed to support additional floors. Apparently the costs of building it taller were greater than the costs of creating a funky cantilever and they are going with the cantilever.

From what I've heard they are going to be almost nothing in the way of "demolition" on the existing structure and will simply modify the current transfer floor to distribute the load from the core (which is certainly capable of holding the weight) to the large perimeter columns. Then they obviously will build a new transfer floor after the cantilever to rearrange the columns into a usable format. Again, I had assumed they would only cantilever the portion of the building over the SE corner, not the whole way around, but man is this an awesome solution to the problem. Perfect for Chicago, form follows function, we only get a huge cantilever when we need one to solve a problem!

[Steely Dan]

^ i'm with you that the cantilever is fantastic in concept, but i'm not entirely on board with the completely disjointed nature of the facades in the lower and upper portions. the facade treatment of the upper portion looks fantastic though. it'd be nice to see the two portions communicate a bit more with each other.

with that said (and with spyguy's caution that this may not be a final design), it does appear that we could be getting a far more architecturally interesting tower than the old waterview design at this site. waterview was cool because it was so tall and thin, but it was not avant-garde architecture.

[Zapatan]

It's not terrible per say... but considering what it's replacing, yea it's real depressing.

Hopefully Chi town gets some new Supertalls in the near future

[chicubs111]

so im wondering what the final height of this will be?...since thereis about a 5 to 10 story gap in between( its kinda hard to judge) then the addtional 30 floors it may be equilivant to say a 70 story building?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It's not terrible per say... but considering what it's replacing, yea it's real depressing.

meh, i'm not depressed. this could turn out to be a profoundly more interesting work of architecture. waterview was tall, but not terribly interesting.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Hopefully Chi town gets some new Supertalls in the near future

architecture trumps height.

Originally Posted by chicubs111

so im wondering what the final height of this will be?

my best guess from the rendering would place it in the 650'-700' range. RR donnelly just next door is 668'

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

architecture trumps height.

I agree, but can't we have both?


Plus I've always found Chicago's supertalls to be so impressive, the sheer amount of height in that skyline I mean.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I agree, but can't we have both?

ideally, yes, but i'm not going to get depressed about a (potentially) wickedly interesting 700' tall skyscraper design replacing a more staid and safe 1,000' tall one.

[rgolch]

First off, I agree with Steely and others that it is certainly more interesting that the original Waterview tower. I actually think this would be a great addition to the city, given how unique and different it is. Anyone know if there is another tower that's cantilevered like this in the US?

Second, I think what makes it seem so disjointed is that the top portion has differing depth (like assembled blocks), but the bottom portion is so smooth. So I was wondering; is there something they could do with the facade of the bottom to make it more harmonious with the top i.e. somehow give it more depth?

[SamInTheLoop]

This may not be the final design, as Spyguy pointed out (my instincts tell me it's very likely this won't be the final), but do we know if DeStefano is indeed the final architect? I've been wondering about that firm for a while, as we haven't seen much out of them - at least locally - in some time....

Would be great to see something that pushes the envelope here at least a little (as most people seem to be, I'm also a little concerned about the apparent lack of effort at any cohesion between the bottom 40% or so of the tower and the remainder in the design posted).........I'd gladly give up 200-300' from the old waterview tower's height for some architecture that shows a little more ambition than what we're accustomed to in modern day Chicago....

[chicubs111]

I agree that architecture trump height but lets be serious...waterview was a nice looking supertall ..its was by no means bland in my opinion and i still would rather have that building over this one...I will go as far as to say that waterview tower could of been Chicago best looking supertall. (not so much imposing like sears or jh but elegance wise)

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

so im wondering what the final height of this will be?...since thereis about a 5 to 10 story gap in between( its kinda hard to judge) then the addtional 30 floors it may be equilivant to say a 70 story building?

Well it looks to be about the same height as, if not a hair taller than, the RR Donnely Building. So I think 675-700 feet is a reasonable guess. This will further add to the 700' plateau that is forming in the loop. Well actually the loop has become walled in on all sides (except the south) by 700' buildings so you are now greeted with an astounding view when you go up in a lower building in the loop where you are surrounded by walls of glassy towers and just above a sea of masonry and brick shorter towers.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ i'm with you that the cantilever is fantastic in concept, but i'm not entirely on board with the completely disjointed nature of the facades in the lower and upper portions. the facade treatment of the upper portion looks fantastic though. it'd be nice to see the two portions communicate a bit more with each other.

with that said (and with spyguy's caution that this may not be a final design), it does appear that we could be getting a far more architecturally interesting tower than the old waterview design at this site. waterview was cool because it was so tall and thin, but it was not avant-garde architecture.

I dunno, I'm OK with that disjointedness. In fact, I would love for them to clad the bottom half just as it was originally to be clad and then just end it at the cantilever and change to the radically modern aesthetic this rendering contemplates. The contrast would be jarring, perhaps even upsetting to the eye, but would show exactly the history of the building. A skyscraper starts to grow, but dies and a radical new scraper rises out of its rotting husk much as a colorful mushroom rises out of a dead tree trunk.

In any case this building may turn out to be the ultimate tribute to the history of skyscrapers and Chicago by forever cementing a reminder of the boom-bust nature of real estate into our skyline.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

I agree that architecture trump height but lets be serious...waterview was a nice looking supertall ..

i was being serious. waterview was a nice looking supertall, but it was nothing spectacular design-wise. it was certainly not an offensive design, but it wasn't terribly special either.

Originally Posted by chicubs111

its was by no means bland in my opinion and i still would rather have that building over this one...

i mostly have the opposite opinion, my reservations about the mismatched upper and lower portions of the current design duly noted.

Originally Posted by chicubs111

I will go as far as to say that waterview tower could of been Chicago best looking supertall. (not so much imposing like sears or jh but elegance wise)

waterview tower wouldn't have come anywhere close to hancock or sears for me. had it been built as design, i would have placed it maybe on the level of the aon center.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by rgolch

So I was wondering; is there something they could do with the facade of the bottom to make it more harmonious with the top i.e. somehow give it more depth?

The problem with the lower section is the slight bow in the Wacker facade. That tiny little curve disrupts the exaggerated rectilinear nature of the newly designed upper half.

If they could fir out the lower half to be a perfectly rectilinear extrusion while giving it a full glass facade detailed in a similar manner to the upper half (without the jenga effect) I feel that the sense of disjointedness would be vastly diminished. Imagine the lower half looking similar to WTC 7.

WTC 7 by SOM:



images courtesy of archpaper.com

[denizen467]

I don't know that you need to go as far as nyc to give ideas of how to improve the facade, but what is involved in "firring out" (question for anyone here) ? Does concrete need to be poured to extend the slabs, or if it's only like say 12 inches at the corners, can steel extensions be bolted on, or something?

[bnk]

Originally Posted by rgolch

First off, I agree with Steely and others that it is certainly more interesting that the original Waterview tower. I actually think this would be a great addition to the city, given how unique and different it is. Anyone know if there is another tower that's cantilevered like this in the US?
Second, I think what makes it seem so disjointed is that the top portion has differing depth (like assembled blocks), but the bottom portion is so smooth. So I was wondering; is there something they could do with the facade of the bottom to make it more harmonious with the top i.e. somehow give it more depth?

Citigroup Center in Manhattan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center

http://www.rationalsys.com/autosocra...20090717a.html

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

And Rainier Tower in Seattle: