HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #321  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 7:27 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Seriously? They were out in front.



Demo of the Stock Exchange, Garrick Theater (protest pictured above), and Penn Station in New York were what gave us the concept of historic preservation to begin with, and federal review for potentially historic resources.
Kudos for them being out there and fighting the fight. I just hope people can see the difference in quality and historical value between the old Stock Exchange building and this one.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #322  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 9:02 PM
Stained's Avatar
Stained Stained is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Loop
Posts: 63
I was one of the people who received a letter asking for comments on this project. I told them that the building is incredibly ugly, a waste of space and no more valuable than a random assortment of concrete and steel. I want to see this squat building gone!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #323  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 12:19 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,576
You realize that, at the time, most people would have said the same about the Stock Exchange? Old, soot-covered, obsolete as office space, covered with all that old-fashioned ornament, holding back progress. Tear it down already so they can build a shiny new highrise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #324  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 12:27 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is online now
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
You realize that, at the time, most people would have said the same about the Stock Exchange? Old, soot-covered, obsolete as office space, covered with all that old-fashioned ornament, holding back progress. Tear it down already so they can build a shiny new highrise.
Comparing those two buildings like this is a damn sin. Ignoring their obvious differences in historical significance there is some dishonesty in your comment. The Stock Exchange had great masonry, the GG building looks like something that should be in an Oakbrook industrial park
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #325  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 2:02 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,576
^That's what most people would have said about Prentice, or about a Paul Rudolph civic building, or about the Maywood Courthouse, or 55 West Wacker, or Inland Steel. In 1910, it's what they'd have said about Glessner House.

We don't assess historic importance based on popular vote. We establish criteria, and do our best to judge based on those. I have my doubts that Morton Salt will meet the criteria, but what's the harm in observing a process?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #326  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 3:48 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
^That's what most people would have said about Prentice, or about a Paul Rudolph civic building, or about the Maywood Courthouse, or 55 West Wacker, or Inland Steel. In 1910, it's what they'd have said about Glessner House.

We don't assess historic importance based on popular vote. We establish criteria, and do our best to judge based on those. I have my doubts that Morton Salt will meet the criteria, but what's the harm in observing a process?
I feel like we can still rebuild the GGP and other mid-century modernist buildings, though.

The craftsmanship and building techniques required to build things like the old Stock Exhange Building, however, are largely gone. I think that is one of the big differences.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #327  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 4:57 PM
Bonsai Tree Bonsai Tree is online now
Small but Mighty
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I feel like we can still rebuild the GGP and other mid-century modernist buildings, though.

The craftsmanship and building techniques required to build things like the old Stock Exhange Building, however, are largely gone. I think that is one of the big differences.
Honestly, we can always rebuild a building. You just need the money to do so. There will always be some people who are just as skilled as before. Just look at the rebuilding of the Berlin Palace (bombed out in WW2, and destroyed by the communists later)

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #328  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2017, 5:38 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 719
Heritage buildings can still be built of course, but the issue is that it is no longer economically feasible to do so. New construction will be concrete, steel and glass. Terra cotta and ornate stone work is simply too expensive to build on a wide scale, and lacks the massive supply chain of modern building materials.

How many firms still make terra cotta in the US? Or distribute it for that matter?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #329  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 6:09 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 30,660
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...98228&page=105

This kind of made me laugh, beause I remarked on this in this thread. While they cut the cost by doing it curtain wall instead of directly applying it, one of the tallest buildings in the country will, indeed, be faced with expensive terra cotta panels. They also get the price down by the building being so thing, but that's still a crap-load of terra cotta panels.

Of course it's on an luxury residential tower. But, yeah, it is still being done.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #330  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 10:54 AM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...98228&page=105

This kind of made me laugh, beause I remarked on this in this thread. While they cut the cost by doing it curtain wall instead of directly applying it, one of the tallest buildings in the country will, indeed, be faced with expensive terra cotta panels. They also get the price down by the building being so thing, but that's still a crap-load of terra cotta panels.

Of course it's on an luxury residential tower. But, yeah, it is still being done.
It's being done. On one building... I wonder if it can and will be done outside 57th Street where the cheapest units will start at $16 million. I hope so! Because it's a stunner!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #331  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 1:27 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...98228&page=105

This kind of made me laugh, beause I remarked on this in this thread. While they cut the cost by doing it curtain wall instead of directly applying it, one of the tallest buildings in the country will, indeed, be faced with expensive terra cotta panels. They also get the price down by the building being so thing, but that's still a crap-load of terra cotta panels.

Of course it's on an luxury residential tower. But, yeah, it is still being done.
It's also being used on One Vanderbilt Curbed had a picture of that facade a while back here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #332  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 6:16 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is online now
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 894
Huh.

So they're asking for more FAR?

https://ibb.co/gAzbvG
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #333  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 6:39 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,109
That is very curious. Would be almost 1M sq ft left after Bank of America's lease.

Let the mystery tenant derby commence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #334  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 6:43 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Huh.

So they're asking for more FAR?

https://ibb.co/gAzbvG
That's good. So they're looking to add 100k sf? That should make it taller.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #335  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 7:30 PM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post

-110 N. Wacker

-DX-16

-office tower

-800’

-PD filed tomorrow 01/18/16

-Current building is 220,000 sq ft

1,350,000 sq ft of rentable area

-40’ high lobby on Wacker Drive

-Roughly 44,000 sq ft site

-20,000 sq ft of riverwalk and landscape area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Low-rise portion will have about 30,000 sq ft per floor.
Mid-rise will have about 28,000 sq ft per floor.
High-rise will have about 26,000 sq ft per floor.

Given these front page numbers and the subsequent change in the design, I'm not sure if 100,000 sq ft means a guaranteed height increase. At least not a substantial one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #336  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2017, 8:09 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 973
c'mon 850'
__________________
lipstick traces
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #337  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 2:26 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,631
Guys, the 100k is probably where the third setback disappeared to. They likely fattened up some of the floors making it disappear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #338  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:25 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Haverford College
Posts: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Guys, the 100k is probably where the third setback disappeared to. They likely fattened up some of the floors making it disappear.
Bingo! The new PD they submitted says they're still at 800 ft: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 7:14 PM.

     

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