Originally Posted by tommaso
It's a shame that this thing can get financing, but the Spire can't. It's easy to get upset when you look at the location of the Spire and its potential impact on the skyline and compare it to 345 E Wacker which is an elegant post-modern tower, but won't have nearly the same impact the Spire would. I hope that the Spire will eventually find financing and that 345 E Wacker will only become an addition to the skyline, but not a precursor to what we should expect from the Chicago skyline in terms of height or cutting edge design. 425 feet is nice, but in this location, it really should be rising 600+. Although we didn't rave about Trump's antenna, we can all agree that the height Trump added to the skyline was remarkable and had a profound impact on how we think about land use in DTChicago. It really brought us back to thinking that 1000+ footers should be more of a common sight in Chicago.
What type of absurd statements are these?
Might it be different, perhaps, to finance a 500 M dollar building vs a 2 B dollar building?
345 is not a post-modern tower, its distinctly (and pretty hardcore) modernist. And speaking of cutting edge design, its glass balconies, aluminum framing, and fritted glass actually potentially puts 345 in the top 5-10% of buildings built during the boom, with no banal precast accessories or strange grating to be seen. Between the cities I've lived in, I can only think of a few buildings with fritted glass, and I can only think of one in Chicago (BCBS).
And whats this bull about 600+ feet? There is a plan for this development, and not every tower built should be a monstrosity. Its also about the same height or taller than most other towers current U/C or proposed.
Trump has an (ugly) spire, not an antenna.
No one in Chicago ever forgot that supertalls existed or could be built. Especially since Chicago still has the only supertall built in the US in almost 40 years (see above). However supertalls can be giant albatrosses (look at Sears). I really feel the boom has poisoned peoples minds. Buildings don't grow on trees and they cant be willed to be taller. They're large, long term investments that involve multiple industries working together. "Booms" happen every 20-30 years, not everytime something is built. This is a different phase of development, about building out more than building up. I think we'll still see some over 500 ft buildings coming years, but they wont be a daily occurrence (and we can remember how really special they are. Frankly, considering this decade is already
more productive than the majority of the 90's in Chicago, I am relatively pleased that Chicago is where it is, especially with such a nice potential design in this building (among others). Almost everyone on this forum wants development to continue/increase, but building 5, 200 foot towers can be better for a city's fabric than a supertall, and a better investment as well.