HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    OneEleven in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #381  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 1:19 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Yeah I hate it too.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
     
     
  #382  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 2:56 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Yea but with all the residential development in the city, you think they could at least wait for a strong enough market to just build the original tower, considering the foundation is already laid.



Would be far better than this monstrosity
This design is FAR more interesting than the original design. Also you had best get over the original design because it is never going to happen regardless of the fact that the foundations are "in place". That design was economically infeasible plain and simple which is why it didnt get built despite the fact that it was more than 70% sold when the economy tanked. No lender wanted to touch it because it wouldnt have been profitable until it was nearly 100% sold.
     
     
  #383  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 3:23 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is online now
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
This design is FAR more interesting than the original design. Also you had best get over the original design because it is never going to happen regardless of the fact that the foundations are "in place". That design was economically infeasible plain and simple which is why it didnt get built despite the fact that it was more than 70% sold when the economy tanked. No lender wanted to touch it because it wouldnt have been profitable until it was nearly 100% sold.
But if it was so economically unfeasable, why did they start building it in the first place?

Regardless, I just hope the current design is changed before any construction goes underway, I have to disagree and say the old design was not only taller, but much more attractive, but different strokes for different folks.
     
     
  #384  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 3:32 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
I guess I've decided I don't care how the base looks. For as long as this building is standing, it will bear an super-conspicuous record of its fits-and-starts construction. The cantilever area is pretty well-designed and pretty much severs all visual connection between the base and top.

The best thing to come out of the avant-garde movements in architecture is the (growing) understanding that a building doesn't have to be beautiful to enrich the city, and make no mistake, this thing is not beautiful. But it is super ballsy and exciting, and that alone can be enough. We all have this mental picture of what the Main Branch should look like, but Mies came along and shattered the Hugh Ferriss/1920s vision with IBM, and Goldberg came along and shattered the Miesian vision with Marina Tower. This, if built, will be just one more step in the evolution of the city's grandest public space.

I love that shiny, white pixelated surface at the cantilever, too. I say bring it on!
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #385  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 3:58 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
From that angle (which I had not seen before) I'm not sure I care for it much now. I really love the top, and I like the open space in between, but I dislike the base.
     
     
  #386  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 4:09 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
I would just j**z if they decided they would build this ... but I fear it might be kind of a conceptual working drawing where further adjustments, mainly just regarding appearance, might ultimately be made to reduce the seeming precariousness (in the public's eye) of the cantilever. In other words, enough renters might be spooked by the "tipsy" look that they might decide to widen the "neck" portion - kind of how one of the other 111 Wackers (i.e. 111 South Wacker) had the same thing dumbed down during the design process (admittedly that was due to terror fears in 2001, but at 111 West it will be harder to convince individual renters of safeness than it was to convince a small number of office-tenant representatives at 111 South).

Fortunately 111 East Wacker isn't involved here, avoiding further confusion, lol.
     
     
  #387  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 4:57 PM
jcchii's Avatar
jcchii jcchii is offline
Content provider
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: city on the take
Posts: 3,119
It's dramatic enough for that spot, for sure
     
     
  #388  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 10:40 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
But if it was so economically unfeasable, why did they start building it in the first place?
Through the miracle of equity and a high interest mezzanine loan. From what i hear the lender recouped most of that loan because Tengs equity was wiped out.
     
     
  #389  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2012, 4:14 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
But if it was so economically unfeasable, why did they start building it in the first place?

Regardless, I just hope the current design is changed before any construction goes underway, I have to disagree and say the old design was not only taller, but much more attractive, but different strokes for different folks.

It was a huge gamble by a company (firm was, or is, really an engineering/architecture/and perhaps construction firm really - not even principally a developer/real estate investor/owner, as they just into development seemingly on the side) that was demonstrably inexperienced in such a large project (again, as a developer), and they lost big time. I believe this is probably the primary reason they couldn't land a full package of construction loans (despite anything else that was represented as the case at the time or in retrospect). This is a common theme as you're in market cycle peaks - and particularly market bubble peaks - as we were in the downtown condo market, in which not only to the development proposals get increasingly ambitious, but you get increasingly involvement from development players that are very much out of their element and of course project failure rates surge.

Very unusual for a high-rise in Chicago to begin true construction (even during the boom) without full financing secured. I'm sure there are probably a couple others in the last 8-10 years, but the only two that immediately jump to mind are, surprise, surprise - Waterview and the Spire. Very ambitious bubble-peak projects (granted one more so than the other) by development firms wildly out of their element in multiple, and different ways....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Mar 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM.
     
     
  #390  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2012, 4:17 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
I would just j**z if they decided they would build this ... but I fear it might be kind of a conceptual working drawing where further adjustments, mainly just regarding appearance, might ultimately be made to reduce the seeming precariousness (in the public's eye) of the cantilever. In other words, enough renters might be spooked by the "tipsy" look that they might decide to widen the "neck" portion - kind of how one of the other 111 Wackers (i.e. 111 South Wacker) had the same thing dumbed down during the design process (admittedly that was due to terror fears in 2001, but at 111 West it will be harder to convince individual renters of safeness than it was to convince a small number of office-tenant representatives at 111 South).

Fortunately 111 East Wacker isn't involved here, avoiding further confusion, lol.

Very much share you're concerns here......since these renderings we're released, this has been on my mind, and why I'm expecting substantial changes in the final design (which we'll hopefully see very soon).....I've also been thinking of the example of 111 S. Wacker's development evolution. We'll see......but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if a massive transfer floor is the way they go (I'm not rooting for this, just that it would surprise me - pleasantly, mind you - if the design version we've seen actually turns out to be the final)...
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #391  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 1:56 PM
lemodulorman lemodulorman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
3/22

There are people up on the top floor today walking around taking photographs of existing conditions (they seem really focused on the core) and taking notes.

Maybe further sign of movement?
     
     
  #392  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 2:47 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Very much share you're concerns here......since these renderings we're released, this has been on my mind, and why I'm expecting substantial changes in the final design (which we'll hopefully see very soon).....I've also been thinking of the example of 111 S. Wacker's development evolution. We'll see......but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if a massive transfer floor is the way they go (I'm not rooting for this, just that it would surprise me - pleasantly, mind you - if the design version we've seen actually turns out to be the final)...
I'm not making any promises, but as I've said several times, I have a good source who has been suggesting the cantilever MUST be a part of the design since before the renderings were released. The design could still change and they could probably just mush the cantilever down into a transfer floor if they really wanted (but it wouldn't be any cheaper), but I have a feeling the most striking feature, the cantilever, is going to be a part of the final design regardless of what happens.
     
     
  #393  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 2:59 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
^ even if the cantilever were an ABSOLUTE engineering necessity, i think sam's concern is that the developers might still drive a design that masks the cantilever with architectural falsework to allay potential tenants' fears that the building will snap in half because it looks intrinsically unstable to the untrained eye as it is currently designed.

sam's concern is not without precedent, as we all saw what happened to the stunning and daring original design for 111 south wacker prior to 9/11. the original design wopuld have been just as structurally sound as any other tower downtown, but because it LOOKED unstable, the developers thought it was wiser to go in a more traditional design direction amid the terrorism paranoia of the WTC disaster.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
     
     
  #394  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 4:25 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
epic.
     
     
  #395  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 8:03 PM
GregBear24 GregBear24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 191
This design would only look good if it were a good 15-20 stories taller. The contrast of the base's massing versus the portion above the cantilever looks very strange. I know it's eye-catching and daring, but why does that make this a good design? It's not strange in a good way, it's far too incohesive to come off as daring in the practical sense of marrying function with innovative design. Just my opinion, but I also understand why some people like it.
     
     
  #396  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 8:10 PM
sbarn sbarn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,071
Sorry if I missed this discussion, but why wouldn't they stick with the original design, even if it is shortened?
     
     
  #397  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 8:14 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Sorry if I missed this discussion, but why wouldn't they stick with the original design, even if it is shortened?
Read the previous page please. I just went over this.
     
     
  #398  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 8:16 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
^ This ain't your grampa's Chicago any more.

That's the kind of message this city needs to be sending to the world.

I realize that one building alone is not enough to send that message, but it's at a very prominent site and it sure is a great start!
     
     
  #399  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2012, 1:16 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ even if the cantilever were an ABSOLUTE engineering necessity, i think sam's concern is that the developers might still drive a design that masks the cantilever with architectural falsework to allay potential tenants' fears that the building will snap in half because it looks intrinsically unstable to the untrained eye as it is currently designed.

sam's concern is not without precedent, as we all saw what happened to the stunning and daring original design for 111 south wacker prior to 9/11. the original design wopuld have been just as structurally sound as any other tower downtown, but because it LOOKED unstable, the developers thought it was wiser to go in a more traditional design direction amid the terrorism paranoia of the WTC disaster.

Actually, I was thinking mainly that such a cantilever likely isn't the lone solution to the problem (I'm certainly not an engineer, but they're generally pretty clever folks and very often devise multiple workable solutions to a problem...........or, I could be completely wrong of course). However, you bring up a really good point - another possibility is that the cantilever is the structural solution by choice and/or necessity, but it gets a 'cover-up' treatment for reasons of perceived human psychology and related marketing concerns..........in the end, I'm just really eager to see the final design here!
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #400  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2012, 4:49 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ My only comment is I've heard multiple times that they NEED to shift the layout of the supports and two massive transfer floors (one tying the existing columns together, the other setting up the new columns) are necessary. This amounts to a cantilever whether the choose to express it or not. Sure they could try to sandwich it all together, but they may as well express it since (from what I've heard) it's barely any more expensive just to express it and add to the marketing value of the property (and perhaps higher rents).
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:44 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.