HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:33 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned.B View Post
The two tier design has definitely been around a while (it was on display at Open House, and I believe there was even a PD amendment to include the revised design).

Don't know of any amendment. You wouldn't know where to find that would you?
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:38 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 J_M_Tungsten View Post
I don’t think the lost set back makes much of a difference.
Just takes it one iteration closer to looking like 150 N Riverside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:43 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,915
Page 21 of the PDF download has the roof at 762'2" and the top of the screen at 776'3".
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2017, 11:56 PM
Ned.B Ned.B is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Don't know of any amendment. You wouldn't know where to find that would you?
Off the top of my head, I do not; the city may also have not yet posted it publicly, but I will look. The revision to the package was made in late October.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 12:30 AM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Ugh, this city demolishes complete masterpieces without a second thought but now someone decided that the GGC building is worth consideration for protection? Where were these vocal idiots when the Chicago Stock Exchange got demo'd? Frustrating.

As for the new rendering, I agree with everyone that it looks worse than the previous version. Hopefully its design still a work in progress?
Agreed. There is 0 about that building worth preserving.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 12:45 AM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 95
It still looks great, It's like Chicago's version of 50 Hudson Yards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 2:27 AM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer2019 View Post
Just takes it one iteration closer to looking like 150 N Riverside.
I don’t know if you mean that as a bad thing or not 150 N is a great looking tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 2:49 AM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten View Post
I don’t know if you mean that as a bad thing or not 150 N is a great looking tower
They look great, but no tower exists in a vacuum. Just a general sentiment that designs that are subconsciously derivative (and face each other) probably aren't optimal. There are a heck of a lot of boxy glassy 500-800 footers around there, and while the bases of both are respective trademarks, it's not like further differentiation does harm.

Minor issue. Just like the old design 10% more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 3:40 AM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 95
I like it better with less setbacks. The articulated facade is stunning, and there's more focus on that element with fewer setbacks. I can't wait to see this rise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 3:41 AM
kolchak kolchak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 244
I actually prefer the two tiered design as well. The massing of the thing is less... 'gentle.' I really hope this gets built. It would create an incredible canyon on the river. The density placement is very high.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 4:12 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer2019 View Post
They look great, but no tower exists in a vacuum. Just a general sentiment that designs that are subconsciously derivative (and face each other) probably aren't optimal. There are a heck of a lot of boxy glassy 500-800 footers around there, and while the bases of both are respective trademarks, it's not like further differentiation does harm.

Minor issue. Just like the old design 10% more.
They aren't "subconsciously derivative", they are derivative and that's how architectural bodies of work are. You don't see anyone complaining that all the Frank Lloyd Wrights in Oak Park are "derivative" of each other do you? No one is complaining that all the old Chicago School skyscrapers downtown Chicago are derivative are they? Good design is good design even if it explores some of the same ideas as previous designs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 5:19 AM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
They aren't "subconsciously derivative", they are derivative and that's how architectural bodies of work are. You don't see anyone complaining that all the Frank Lloyd Wrights in Oak Park are "derivative" of each other do you? No one is complaining that all the old Chicago School skyscrapers downtown Chicago are derivative are they? Good design is good design even if it explores some of the same ideas as previous designs.
You're taking my point too seriously. Subconsciously derivative: "Hmmm, X reminds me of Y!" vs "X is X. Y is Y." Not a cardinal sin by any metric, it just tilts thoughts in the direction of the former now. In fact, I'm sure many people really like a cross-referential dynamic to their city's architecture (cough* Sears-Hancock). And there still is. I'd just rather have the two buildings have distinct identities. Not that they still don't.

Obviously all skyscrapers share similar characteristics, especially in a city where Mies van der Rohe left such a mark. To complain about 110 N Wacker when we could have literal boxes is silly, and I'm not trying to do that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 6:50 AM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is online now
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned.B View Post
I am not sure what exactly drove it (maybe the upper floor tenant -- BofA? -- needed larger floor plates or it was driven by a revision of the cores), but either way, my understanding is that the redesign is official and that the building's CDs are largely done.
BoA is taking the lower portion of the tower, IIRC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 3:45 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 973
Poo poo. Can't they at least break 800 ft. that whole area is becoming a giant soulless blue wall.
__________________
lipstick traces
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 4:36 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 614
except for that big green wall right next to it.......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 5:25 PM
donnie donnie is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 94
If size is so important then maybe you start at home!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 5:27 PM
donnie donnie is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
Poo poo. Can't they at least break 800 ft. that whole area is becoming a giant soulless blue wall.
If size is so important then maybe you should start at home!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 7:01 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 973
No no no you've got it all wrong. I'm a SIZE QUEEN.
__________________
lipstick traces
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 8:30 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Ugh, this city demolishes complete masterpieces without a second thought but now someone decided that the GGC building is worth consideration for protection? Where were these vocal idiots when the Chicago Stock Exchange got demo'd? Frustrating.

As for the new rendering, I agree with everyone that it looks worse than the previous version. Hopefully its design still a work in progress?
Howard Hughes needs a special Army Corps permit to discharge stormwater into the river. Ergo, they have to go through Section 106.

That's the way NHPA works, the Section 106 review is only triggered when a Federal agency gets involved. The other "demolished masterpieces" weren't waiting on a Federal action.

In theory, Hughes could demolish the building tomorrow if they didn't have a redevelopment plan in place. Then they wouldn't need a Federal permit, it would just be a routine demolition.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 3:13 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Where were these vocal idiots when the Chicago Stock Exchange got demo'd?
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.
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 7:14 PM.

     

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