HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #401  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2012, 7:15 PM
jcchii's Avatar
jcchii jcchii is offline
Content provider
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: city on the take
Posts: 2,927
it's a good test of the market, for sure
     
     
  #402  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 5:03 AM
Chicago_Forever's Avatar
Chicago_Forever Chicago_Forever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chi-River North
Posts: 334
Current design?

I'm usually just a lurker around here so I hope I'm doing this right. I went looking for updates on this project and found a very recent (4/18/12) and interesting video on Related Midwest's website. A new design is shown in the video and it looks like an SCB design but I like it although it's not as funky as the Destefano design.

Anyway here is the link to the video:http://www.bloomberg.com/video/90868145/
     
     
  #403  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 6:47 AM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
That design is very disappointing. Thanks for the update though.
     
     
  #404  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 6:57 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,687
Dayum, nice find. Great interview too - looks like Related has a great leader here.

I'm sure some of the graphics whizzes here can convert the panned video image (see 1:09; also repeated at 3:30) into a JPG to post here. In the interview he says it will be 57 stories tall.

But the design doesn't suggest SCB to me. Certainly could be a DeStefano (I could not find a website for whatever successor firm would be designing this) I would say. It's kinda unique, it's a bold presence on the river, but it's not earthshattering, and certainly isn't exciting without an evident cantilever. However, the video's 500 N LSD design is out-of-date, so maybe this is not a final design.

People complaining about the lack of unity between the original base and the resumed tower will be happy with the uniform style though.
     
     
  #405  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 8:08 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
and certainly isn't exciting without an evident cantilever. However, the video's 500 N LSD design is out-of-date, so maybe this is not a final design.
I thought that the building had to be cantilevered? For that reason alone, I doubt the validity of the design.
     
     
  #406  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 9:07 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,687
IIRC the original design had no floors above the SE corner of the podium, so for Related to build square floorplates in their tower, I think the cantilever would have to be on that corner. These renders suggest a massing similar to Waterview's original massing. But maybe there is cantilever happening that is not obvious from the angle visible in the video.

Last edited by denizen467; Apr 21, 2012 at 9:27 AM.
     
     
  #407  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 2:03 PM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,551
I really dislike the updated design. This is the best I could do to get the images from the video.





     
     
  #408  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 3:27 PM
ChiPhi's Avatar
ChiPhi ChiPhi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, Philadelphia
Posts: 500
I like the design, but it could have looked a lot cooler with the cantilever. We'll see how "final" this is or whether this is just a random graphic that they threw in...

Also, about the cantilever, it is possible to build the structural transfer floor essentially as close or far from the floor below with little additional cost. This seems like (if it is final design or is close to the final design) they decided to forgo the visual cantilever to "play it safe" as many midwesterners simply couldn't handle it. "It looks too unstable." The design also looks a little like it is the same shape (ie no transfer floor) but shorter. Who knows? We'll wait for more I guess...

That being said, the design, had it not been a letdown like this, is quite nice (if it is actually the final design). It does appear to be even shorter than the United Building next door. But on the bright side, this thing will actually get to be u/c again...
__________________
“The test of a great building is in the marketplace. The Marketplace recognizes the value of quality architecture and endorses it in the sales price it is able to achieve.” — Jon Pickard, Principal, Pickard Chilton
     
     
  #409  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 6:03 PM
jc5680's Avatar
jc5680 jc5680 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago—West Loop
Posts: 566
The design is certainly less bold, which is kind of a shame. It does look less like a franken-bulding which I like. Did it get shorter too?
     
     
  #410  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 6:47 PM
rgolch's Avatar
rgolch rgolch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 758
Not as good as the first two tries, but I like it.
     
     
  #411  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 9:01 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
vertical
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: unconventionally bicoastal
Posts: 10,354
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #412  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 9:11 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 376
Wow. I am crushed.
     
     
  #413  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 10:16 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
I thought that the building had to be cantilevered? For that reason alone, I doubt the validity of the design.
I don't... this new design makes much more sense considering the new signage up at the site: "111 W. Wacker is about to turn a corner"
     
     
  #414  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 10:21 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 376
I don't doubt the validity either. Also remember that the cantilever was apparently only a necessity if they wanted to go back to using the entire footprint of the building. It's tough to tell given the limited view, but it looks as though this design is following the shape of the former waterview much more closely, whereas the destefano design used the cantilever so that they could essentially undo the transfer floor and go back to full floor plates. At least that was my understanding, but I am no engineer. I believe this to be the design. I'm bummed but this design was probably far more economical.
     
     
  #415  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2012, 11:58 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
vertical
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: unconventionally bicoastal
Posts: 10,354
Well, we still have a rendering reveal for Wolf Point that should be coming up soon. Of course, I can't remember the last time Pelli did anything daring like a huge cantilever...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #416  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2012, 12:15 AM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Gayest of dragons
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I like it - it's simple, understated and very visible where located. Hopefully, the detailing on the curtain-wall will redeem the project in the eyes of naysayers.
__________________
Smitin' wizards.
     
     
  #417  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2012, 12:34 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 8,025
I can live with it I quess. Anything more than 20 stories on top of the non productive and not utilized parking podium is better than it being torn down and left as an empty plot for the next 20 years is better than the former.

I know us Chicagoans should have very high standards and all but ....


This will be viewed by millions over the many years on arch tours... so I hope for the best design but I would rather have it built out than torn down right now at this point... The foundation is substantial and should be used as much as possible, I would say the same thing for the Chicago Spire too at this point. Utilize what is built thus far and accept what is put in its place on present economics.
__________________
facebook
     
     
  #418  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2012, 12:36 AM
Chicagoguy Chicagoguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 572
You would think that if they were sticking more with the original shape of Waterview Tower that they would build a little taller given the smaller floor plates? This design, with 10 or 15 additional stories, would make a very dramatic impact!
     
     
  #419  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2012, 1:14 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoguy View Post
You would think that if they were sticking more with the original shape of Waterview Tower that they would build a little taller given the smaller floor plates? This design, with 10 or 15 additional stories, would make a very dramatic impact!
The current plan is cheaper. Maybe they can't afford to make the tower taller, or they sold some of the air rights.
     
     
  #420  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2012, 1:45 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
vertical
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: unconventionally bicoastal
Posts: 10,354
Air rights can't be transferred between parcels like that in Chicago. I believe there are only two reasons to buy air rights - to build a building or projecting feature over something else, like a railyard or roadway, or to prevent a neighboring property owner from doing so (such agreements are common in order to put windows on lot lines without violating fire code).

There are any number of reasons why the building massing is shifted, though - it's possible that it was cheaper to use the building in roughly its original configuration than to build a complex and costly transfer floor (with/without cantilever) to change the floorplate size. Neighboring property owners may have objected to a bulky square tower that filled the lot.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
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 5:28 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.