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

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

55 Wacker provides great contrast. It's The Renaissance Hotel at 1 W Wacker Dr. which I think looks far more out of place and is ripe for replacement given its recessed footprint due to its circular driveway right off Wacker. Not to mention a very uninspired design. Too bad that the building isn't that old and it will probably be a while until someone does put it out of its misery.

Oh good lord you're right! The Renaissance Hotel is awful... I forgot it existed for a second

[LouisVanDerWright]

One of my favorite aspects of 55 W Wacker is how Daley Center looms behind it as if it were 55's protective, beefy, older brother.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by rlw777

It's not the style that makes 55 Wacker feel out of place it's the height. It looks even more squished in there with the addition of 111 it makes the height of that canyon wall more defined and the lack of height at 55 more obvious.

It is small on this streetwall. But what's the chances they'd even raze this building if it's currently profitable?

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

It is small on this streetwall. But what's the chances they'd even raise this building if it's currently profitable?

I'm not sure if you meant raise or raze? Either way my guess is nothing will happen to 55 W Wacker for a very long time. Nor should something happen to it... it just looks like a bit of a chipped tooth among it's neighbors.

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

It is small on this streetwall. But what's the chances they'd even raise this building if it's currently profitable?

55 west wacker is office condo's. This will make it even harder to redevelop, even once there are significant redevelopment pressures. I don't really think we're even close to that type of development pressure right now anyway, let alone this hurdle.

[left of center]

It would be awesome if they could add something around the order of 20 to 30 floors to 55 W Wacker, and continue its design up to the 650-700 ft height of the Wacker street wall. I'm sure the frame and foundation weren't designed for such an expansion though, but damn if it wouldn't be cool as hell.

Originally Posted by Buckman821

55 west wacker is office condo's. This will make it even harder to redevelop, even once there are significant redevelopment pressures. I don't really think we're even close to that type of development pressure right now anyway, let alone this hurdle.

Hopefully you are right. I fear the building's small size (~16 floors IIRC), and given the office market is moving west to the train stations, might make the owners decide to sell to a developer as a tear down candidate, possibly for a hotel or residential purposes.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by harryc

Diversity - it works

Feb 3 2014

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

55 Wacker provides great contrast. It's The Renaissance Hotel at 1 W Wacker Dr. which I think looks far more out of place and is ripe for replacement given its recessed footprint due to its circular driveway right off Wacker. Not to mention a very uninspired design. Too bad that the building isn't that old and it will probably be a while until someone does put it out of its misery.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

+ 800 million billion trillion

55 West wacker is awesome! chicago only has one brutalist castle keep. hell, it might be the only one in the world. may it stand in all its glory forever.

but that shameful Renaissance Hotel should have been demo'd moments after it was built. truly the ugly, misplaced duckling in that dignified stretch of the wacker streetwall

I'd like to add my voice to the chorus off 55 W Wacker supporters. I dig the diversity of styles along the river: You've got elegant revivalist architecture, Art Deco, classic Mid-Century Modern, Modernist off-shoots (like Marina City), Postmodern, "contemporary," and Brutalist, of which 55 W Wacker is the most prominent example.

I also dig the diversity in height. And if that's the sole criteria for judging the worth of buildings along the river, what would people target next for redevelopment? The Reid Murdoch Building? The Merchandise Mart?

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I'm not sure if you meant raise or raze? Either way my guess is nothing will happen to 55 W Wacker for a very long time. Nor should something happen to it... it just looks like a bit of a chipped tooth among it's neighbors.

Yes raze.

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I'd like to add my voice to the chorus off 55 W Wacker supporters. I dig the diversity of styles along the river: You've got elegant revivalist architecture, Art Deco, classic Mid-Century Modern, Modernist off-shoots (like Marina City), Postmodern, "contemporary," and Brutalist, of which 55 W Wacker is the most prominent example.

I also dig the diversity in height. And if that's the sole criteria for judging the worth of buildings along the river, what would people target next for redevelopment? The Reid Murdoch Building? The Merchandise Mart?

This. All of this. Contrast is good.

[DrNest]

I'm seeing this building for the first time looking out my hotel window, I've got to say I really like it. It works perfectly with the United building next door.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by DrNest

I'm seeing this building for the first time looking out my hotel window, I've got to say I really like it. It works perfectly with the United building next door.

Haha, I had to pause for a second and think, United Building??? I completely forgot United took over the Donnelley Building a couple years ago! Wow.

Anyway, yes. I agree it fits perfectly well with the United Building... but mostly in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way.

[BVictor1]

^Except that United has now vacated that space and moved into Sears Tower.

[DrNest]

My apologies. You'll have to forgive my ignorance. This is only my third time to Chicago in 20 years. I like both buildings whatever they're called!

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by DrNest

My apologies. You'll have to forgive my ignorance. This is only my third time to Chicago in 20 years. I like both buildings whatever they're called!

No no. You're fine. It is called The United Building. I just don't pay attention.

[denizen467]

To all 55 W Wacker supporters:

Would you keep or drastically change the "55" signage's typeface at the top of the building? IMHO, art deco is kind of a dopey mate for brutalism. Like Mike Singletary or The Fridge in ballet shoes or something. Somebody obviously thought the building could be marketed better with some cutesy levity. That might be more appealing to the public at large, and you could do a whole lot worse, but as an academic exercise if Busy Bee or anyone has ideas for an ideal typeface for this building's signage it would be interesting to see.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by denizen467

To all 55 W Wacker supporters:

Would you keep or drastically change the "55" signage's typeface at the top of the building? IMHO, art deco is kind of a dopey mate for brutalism. Like Mike Singletary or The Fridge in ballet shoes or something. Somebody obviously thought the building could be marketed better with some cutesy levity. That might be more appealing to the public at large, and you could do a whole lot worse, but as an academic exercise if Busy Bee or anyone has ideas for an ideal typeface for this building's signage it would be interesting to see.

I'm personally not a fan of brutalism, but I like this building and it's current signage. I do agree with the others that say it's out of place because of its size though.

[Chicago_Forever]

I don't get all the hate for 111 West Wacker. I think it's a fine addition to the south wall. Is it perfect? No, but together with the other buildings, it works very well. Now, I wonder if there's going to be any lighting scheme involved.

Also, I like 55 Wacker. It's a nice little building and adds to the variation of height on the south wall. However, my biggest gripe about the river corridor is on the north side. I really hate that Westin and would love to see something much bigger and better replace it. Also, that small parking lot behind the Britannica Building. Something tall with a cantilever should be developed there. Anyone know the parking lot I'm talking about and are able to upload a pic of it? it would me much appreciated.

[harryc]

Jan 14


Feb 3

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Chicago_Forever

I don't get all the hate for 111 West Wacker. I think it's a fine addition to the south wall. Is it perfect? No, but together with the other buildings, it works very well. Now, I wonder if there's going to be any lighting scheme involved.

Also, I like 55 Wacker. It's a nice little building and adds to the variation of height on the south wall. However, my biggest gripe about the river corridor is on the north side. I really hate that Westin and would love to see something much bigger and better replace it. Also, that small parking lot behind the Britannica Building. Something tall with a cantilever should be developed there. Anyone know the parking lot I'm talking about and are able to upload a pic of it? it would me much appreciated.

Fingers crossed that the river walk development is enough of a draw to see some changes to the Westin and The Renaissance Hotel

[Koodoo25]