HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 1:56 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Uh oh!

More Goettsch blue glass boxes.

The natives will be restless.
Placeholder massing, but I too am disappointed in these seemingly 'small plans'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
If this site can't generate a max density supertall tower, then safe to say Chicago will never see another one built again. I hate to see these prime sites close to the west loop train stations be underdeveloped continuously.
It's not "safe to say" that, and in fact, it's kind of a dumb comment seeing as there's a supernal going up now.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:04 AM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Placeholder massing, but I too am disappointed in these seemingly 'small plans'.
Hopefully............. not sure on that though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:01 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
It would have been amazing if a plaza was proposed for the site, since Chicago doesn't really have a proper open plaza, but looks like we got another parking podium instead
We definitely have some proper plazas, unless you mean just an entire block of open space that isn't a park
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:03 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
If this site can't generate a max density supertall tower, then safe to say Chicago will never see another one built again. I hate to see these prime sites close to the west loop train stations be underdeveloped continuously.
Other than the fact that this statement is moronic, since Chicago has supertalls getting built in every major cycle(including one with possible one or two more to come in this cycle), the proposal by SOM was not a supertall, as it was only 950 ft. Well short of the 984 cutoff.
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:07 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,859


In its current state (which I'm sure could change drastically over time), I say this is junk. Not only are they throwing a suburban office tower-looking addition on top of Union Station, but the new towers also look pretty lacking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:19 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,902
The complexity of this site provides an extraordinary opportunity for structural exploration and expression. It shouldn't be wasted like this.

With all the promising images we saw in the competition, how pedestrian.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:28 AM
The Lurker The Lurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Lakes
Posts: 576
I could care less if we get a supertall. Im sure many on this forum would agree that 5 shorter towers with good density are better than a supertall but this is just boring and underwhelming. And why the twins? Whats the purpose of copying a poor design? I'm hoping this is a really reallllly rough draft. Frankly I expect more from Goettsch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 6:29 AM
modkris's Avatar
modkris modkris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 134
This just ruined my day. I thought there was a design competition for this? How in the actual fuck do we end up with such an uninspired POS. The people in this city's architectural community have lost their will to take risks, to innovate and inspire. I hope that this is just a placeholder massing but I think not. So sick of being disappointed by all the banality. I thought we had learned from the mistake of all the shitty pomo we had gotten in the 90's to early 2000's but it's baaaaaack. Oh but wait, there are two squat blue glass towers on the lot next door, so it's modern too then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 7:10 AM
LaSalle.St.Station's Avatar
LaSalle.St.Station LaSalle.St.Station is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire View Post
Other than the fact that this statement is moronic, since Chicago has supertalls getting built in every major cycle(including one with possible one or two more to come in this cycle), the proposal by SOM was not a supertall, as it was only 950 ft. Well short of the 984 cutoff.
I said max density supertall. I know thin residential towers are fulfilling the super tall category, but beefy office based supertalls are prime for the railroad station district as far as market viability.

I'm looking for the newer taller larger massing of sears tower class office structure.

Last edited by LaSalle.St.Station; May 25, 2017 at 7:16 AM. Reason: Me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 7:14 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
I said max density supertall. I know thin residential towers are fulfilling the super tall category, but beefy office based supertalls are prime for the railroad station district as far as market viability.
Residential is much more viable than office for building tall in the overwhelming majority of markets nowadays.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 7:21 AM
LaSalle.St.Station's Avatar
LaSalle.St.Station LaSalle.St.Station is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 334
Xxxcx

Last edited by LaSalle.St.Station; May 25, 2017 at 7:24 AM. Reason: Duplication
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 7:52 AM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
I said max density supertall. I know thin residential towers are fulfilling the super tall category, but beefy office based supertalls are prime for the railroad station district as far as market viability.

I'm looking for the newer taller larger massing of sears tower class office structure.
Wolf Point South and 110 N Wacker are good consolation prizes. Not to mention River Point and 150 N Riverside just went up. The Sears Tower just outshines so many other buildings worldwide when it comes to square footage, that it's hard for me to be upset with the best projects of this boom.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 9:14 AM
KWILLSKYLINE's Avatar
KWILLSKYLINE KWILLSKYLINE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
Not sure if there's a link, NBC 5 has a bunch more photos of the new proposal I saw on the news this morning. Still dissapointed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 1:08 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 779
wow. after so many proposals over the years... we get this shit...

what a fucking disaster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 1:24 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
wow. after so many proposals over the years... we get this shit...

what a fucking disaster.
Dare I ask if anyone has photos of the JLL/Studio Gang/Pelli Clarke Pelli proposal that also wasn't selected?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 1:46 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
Dare I ask if anyone has photos of the JLL/Studio Gang/Pelli Clarke Pelli proposal that also wasn't selected?
ditto for the gensler scheme.

i want to see all of the other entrants so i can properly know how deep my disappointment should be.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; May 25, 2017 at 2:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:00 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,488
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:14 PM
tjp tjp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 311
so are they just tearing down the new transit center / bus terminal they built on Jackson across from Union Station?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:15 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,769
I don't outright hate the towers/plaza on the parking structure parcel but jesus christ on the towers sprouting from the head house.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:20 PM
trvlr70 trvlr70 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 2,231
Wow! What a let down! Now I'm terrified to think what the City's plans are for the new terminals at ORD!
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 > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:07 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.