HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:07 PM
SpireGuy's Avatar
SpireGuy SpireGuy is offline
Making Chicago Memorable.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 74
At the very least, I wish they would use gold or copper fins. Silver fins are everywhere and not warm or inviting. They could take a cue from SHoP Architects. Blue glass is just more blue glass.. all these towers are blending together when you look at them from the street level. The riverwalk portion is nice though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:21 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 964
Vooft. I didn't mean to personally attack anyone. I just think that for a city with such an incredible design heritage, Chicago can do better. I get sick of looking at boxes. And I know I'm not alone. 👊🏾 At some point, a dogmatic reverence for boxy efficiency is a cop out for a lack of inventiveness or willingness to make progress.

I don't think 150 or River Point are challenging buildings. I think they are fine buildings, but there's nothing we haven't seen before there.

To the point of novelty: Remember how proud we all were to have that giant "dildo" The Spire under construction? That cheap comparison by some couldn't undermine the unmistakeable ingenuity of it.

When I think about The Gherkin in London, Hearst Tower in NYC, Salesforce Tower in SF, and even The Mark in Seattle, I applaud their originality, I wonder, why can't Chicago build something that's not a box, because it's possible. It's happening in other, lesser, cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:24 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
Why? This looks like a fantastic plan for the site, and any future re-attempt by another developer could end up much more bland, whereas 130 N Franklin is reasonably good but would probably only improve if it gets pushed into the future.
As much as I like this design it will be like the 5th Goettsch designed office tower in the west part of the loop. I would much rather see the K+S designed 130 N Franklin built if only to add some diversity from another local architecture firm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:35 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 964
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. There's nothing wrong with wanting some diversity. We seem to be stuck in a design trap where a few firms, all very good, but all very, very traditional, design everything. And let's face it, that gets stale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:35 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
why can't Chicago build something that's not a box
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........................

150 N riverside: not a box

river point: not a box

110 N wacker: not a box



i honestly don't know what you're asking for.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:41 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,037
i think its just the overall design scheme. looks very much in spirit like the sorts of loop office buildings we've gotten the past 10 years or so. i dont know if theres necessary anything wrong with that, but at the end of the day it looks pretty generic and phoned in at this point in time. i guess corporate firms love boring and inoffensive.

even the lobby is like a mashup of 155 n wacker and a couple other newer buildings. the loop is kind of blending together into one indecipherable blue blob at this point for me.



i do like the new riverwalk treatment, but i will also miss General Growth which if nothing else at this point in time, actually manages to stand out in a sea of sameness
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:41 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 964
And yet... they still seem like boxes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:46 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........................

150 N riverside: not a box

river point: not a box

110 N wacker: not a box



i honestly don't know what you're asking for.
I'm asking for this: When I think about The Gherkin in London, Hearst Tower in NYC, Salesforce Tower in SF, and even The Mark in Seattle, I applaud their originality, I wonder, why can't Chicago build something that's not a box, because it's possible. It's happening in other, lesser, cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:46 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
And yet... they still seem like boxes
in that case, your eyes apparently work very differently from mine.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:49 PM
Clarkkent2420 Clarkkent2420 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
And yet... they still seem like boxes
The problem with your logic is that the cities you reference have land prices and rents that are 3-4x Chicago, but construction costs are only 2-3x. Meaning there is a lot more room to be playful and/or inefficient in those markets. Chicago is a move-up market with very slow land value and rent growth...design responds to context, not vice versa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:52 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
in that case, your eyes apparently work very differently from mine.
I think that we're just coming from two different angles. 150 and River Point are less boxy compared to other office towers in Chicago. But compared with office towers outsides of Chicago, they are still pretty boxy. I know we both care very much about the skyline of the City. I just would like one very original tower/dildo-would-be-fine. That's it. Just one. To establish a clear break from tradition in the skyline.

That said, I want it to be good design, and I think the towers I cited above very much meet that standard while also breaking the mold.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 3:58 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
I think that we're just coming from two different angles.
Let's just be real, all those designs can be built mostly placing together boxes of varying sizes, they're boxes. Are they pure boxes like most international style office buildings? No, but they are boxes. Just to be clear, I generally like the building and the other boxes we got this cycle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 4:02 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
I just would like one very original tower/dildo-would-be-fine. That's it. Just one. To establish a clear break from tradition in the skyline.
you can desire whatever you want to desire for chicago's skyline. that's not a concern of mine.

i was simply responding to your "why can't chicago build something other than boxes?" lament, when neither this project, nor the two other most recent major office towers, are actually boxes. that's all.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 4:09 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
I'm asking for this: When I think about The Gherkin in London, Hearst Tower in NYC, Salesforce Tower in SF, and even The Mark in Seattle, I applaud their originality, I wonder, why can't Chicago build something that's not a box, because it's possible. It's happening in other, lesser, cities.
I mean, first off, the parcel is incredibly tight, bounded by the River, Wacker, Randolph, and Washington. A rectangle is the most efficient use of space.

But let's not forget the context of this building and it's neighbors. You act as if the only thing Chicago has is tall boxes. That's just not true.

[IMAGES NOT PROPERLY SOURCED - PLEASE USE HYPERLINKS INSTEAD]

This will look very different from its immediate neighbors.

Last edited by Tom In Chicago; Jan 18, 2017 at 8:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 4:11 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,251
Another riverfront tower is always good. I like the tower portion just fine, and the trapezoidal relationship to the river. Something about the base feels clunky, unfinished. Maybe I'm just not a fan of the tower-on-stilts thing. But if the client wants a big tall open lobby space, what other option is there?
__________________
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 4:12 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
i think its just the overall design scheme. looks very much in spirit like the sorts of loop office buildings we've gotten the past 10 years or so. i dont know if theres necessary anything wrong with that, but at the end of the day it looks pretty generic and phoned in at this point in time. i guess corporate firms love boring and inoffensive.

even the lobby is like a mashup of 155 n wacker and a couple other newer buildings. the loop is kind of blending together into one indecipherable blue blob at this point for me.

i do like the new riverwalk treatment, but i will also miss General Growth which if nothing else at this point in time, actually manages to stand out in a sea of sameness
Well it's a similar design language to every other Goettsch designed office tower in the loop. 150 N Riverside, UBS tower, 155 N Wacker and 111 S Wacker. Everything from the lobby curtain wall to the way the elevator bays meet the curtain wall to the silver fins and blue glass I could have guessed before they ever released a rendering.
That's actually a good thing in one sense as they learn from each iteration but it's feeling ubiquitous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 4:14 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
I think that we're just coming from two different angles. 150 and River Point are less boxy compared to other office towers in Chicago. But compared with office towers outsides of Chicago, they are still pretty boxy. I know we both care very much about the skyline of the City. I just would like one very original tower/dildo-would-be-fine. That's it. Just one. To establish a clear break from tradition in the skyline.

That said, I want it to be good design, and I think the towers I cited above very much meet that standard while also breaking the mold.
Here we have a long, narrow, and rectilinear piece of property that has restrictions and demands.

This is about efficiency and profitability.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 4:19 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
That's actually a good thing in one sense as they learn from each iteration but it's feeling ubiquitous.
sure.

and i'm also sure that if the internet had existed in 1898, someone would have been on "ye olde skyscraperpage" bitching about all of the ubiquitous boxy sullivan buildings going up all over town.

the more things change.........
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 4:23 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. There's nothing wrong with wanting some diversity. We seem to be stuck in a design trap where a few firms, all very good, but all very, very traditional, design everything. And let's face it, that gets stale.
I agree, there's too much blue glass near the confluence now, and this design seems like a mashup of a few existing Goettsch buildings. A very high-quality one, but one that doesn't provide any diversity to the area.

Besides the cladding, I'm disappointed there's no mixed-use element to the project. Like BVic, I wish there were another setback with hotel or even condo. The riverfront seems especially suited to mixed-use in an era when we're making residential conversions on LaSalle Street of all places to the east, and the West Loop has become the most popular neighborhood in the city to the west.

I still like it in a vacuum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2017, 4:26 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
sure.

and i'm also sure that if the internet had existed in 1898, someone would have been on "ye olde skyscraperpage" bitching about all of the ubiquitous boxy sullivan buildings going up all over town.

the more things change.........
are we really comparing Sullivan designs to Goettsch cubicle farms?

i dont think the passage of time is always necessary to recognize greatness. when i watched Jordan play game 5 with the flu, i knew id probably never see another player like him in my lifetime. theres a reason Sullvian is recognized and most of the other half-assed attempts arent. theres a reason why Mies is recognized and the myriad of copy cats arent.

this building is just ticking boxes. it will give a few companies a home and improve the riverwalk. beyond that, any contribution to the language of the skyline is negligible at best. its very much "we dont want to rock the boat so here is what a nameless corporate building looks like in the 2010s"

Last edited by Via Chicago; Jan 18, 2017 at 4:38 PM.
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 > Highrise & Supertall Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.