CHICAGO | InterContinental North Tower | 850 FT / 259 M | 71 FLOORS

View Full Version : CHICAGO | InterContinental North Tower | 850 FT / 259 M | 71 FLOORS | PRO

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

HK Chicago

Nov 1, 2005, 1:51 PM

From chicagotribune.com:

InterContinental plans skyscraper
Hotel/condo tower would reshape part of Magnificent Mile

By Thomas A. Corfman
Tribune staff reporter
Published November 1, 2005

The nondescript north tower of the InterContinental Chicago hotel on Michigan Avenue would be replaced with a 71-story hotel/condominium skyscraper, under a dramatic proposal that would reshape the south end of the Magnificent Mile.

The ambitious plan would not affect the key architectural features of the 42-story Art Deco south tower, which is topped by a Moorish-styled dome, said Laurence Geller, chief executive of Strategic Hotel Capital Inc., which acquired the hotel about seven months ago. The 26-story north tower, notable for its blank concrete exterior along the avenue, was built as a separate hotel in 1961.

The proposal must receive city zoning approval. Construction, which would depend on sales of the high-priced condo units, is not expected to start until mid-2007 at the earliest.

The proposed skyscraper, to be designed by Chicago architect Lucien Lagrange, "adds an elegance" to the historic tower, without a "dwarfing factor," Geller said. "Truthfully, it would replace a building that is not particularly pleasing," he added.

Even so, the new tower is sure to prompt scrutiny by preservationists, concerned about the continued "canyonization" of North Michigan Avenue, and by some Streeterville neighbors, who already feel cramped from the building boom east of the hotel, including plans for two 2,000-foot skyscrapers in the last four months.

But the financial aspects of the plan also are expected to spark questions on Wall Street, even for a company known as an aggressive asset manager. While most hotel owners would only consider development plans for a poorly performing property, Chicago-based Strategic is proposing a redevelopment of a well-performing asset to make it better.

"Strategic is never shy about changing a property type to maximize value," said hotel analyst John Arabia with Newport Beach, Calif.-based Green Street Advisors Inc., who hadn't been briefed on the plan. "It would be a pretty big move."

Strategic paid about $170 million for an 85 percent interest in the 807-room property at 505 N. Michigan Ave. The hotel pulled in almost $6.4 million in the second quarter, accounting for nearly 17 percent of the real estate investment trust's earnings of $37.6 million before interest and other expenses, according to a financial statement. Room rates averaged about $193 a night during the quarter, and the hotel was more than 83 percent occupied.

The new tower would include 150 hotel suites, 310 condos, parking and 11,000 square feet of prime, first-floor retail space. It would replace a building with 477 rooms, reducing the overall number of rooms to 480.

The 330-room historic south tower would receive a $15 million renovation, a key part of a repositioning of the property.

"We're moving it from being a big, bulk group hotel, which is doing very well, into a luxury hotel that will compete against the top end of the market," Geller said.

Strategic, which is represented by prominent zoning attorney Jack Guthman of Shefsky & Froelich Ltd., is filing an application for a planned development Tuesday.

The plans also include construction of a landscaped plaza over a portion of Grand Avenue east of Michigan. And the hotel's entrance would be moved to Illinois Street to reduce congestion on Michigan, Geller said.

The proposed 850-foot tower would be almost twice the height of the historic south tower, which was built in 1929 as the Medinah Athletic Club and is known for its blend of design features inspired by sources that range from ancient Egypt to the Italian Renaissance.

Moreover, some of the city's best-known skyscrapers of that era, including the Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower and the McGraw-Hill Building, which was rebuilt in 2000, are within steps of the InterContinental, further highlighting the differences in height.

But key to the new development is the continued strength of the high-end condominium market, which is seemingly overcrowded with projects.

"I believe a building like this on Michigan Avenue is a unique opportunity that stands to segregate itself out from the bulk of the stuff that's being put out there," Geller said

Strategic, which is advised by Chicago-based U.S. Equities Realty Co., has already held talks with several local developers, including LR Development Co. and Magellan Development Group Ltd., he said.

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/432910.jpg

jcchii

Nov 1, 2005, 2:01 PM

looks too much like several other things, including mandarin oriental. But I'm not opposed, of course.

trvlr70

Nov 1, 2005, 2:08 PM

This is great news. Actually, I think I'd prefer an open space instead of the terrible building that is there now. I wonder how successful the condo sales will be. Do people still think Mich Ave. has a certain cache?

streeterville

Nov 1, 2005, 2:13 PM

There are 2 huge plazas and 2 smaller ones near this hotel. Michigan Avenue doesn't need another one.

Michigan Avenue will always have a cache, it is one of the most unique and popular streets of the world.

jcchii

Nov 1, 2005, 2:21 PM

condos could sell because of actual mich ave address

Steely Dan

Nov 1, 2005, 2:38 PM

i fixed the title ;)

rgolch

Nov 1, 2005, 2:43 PM

I love that building. As a non-architect, I love the more modern buildings. I know that's not the preferences of some of the other chicago forumers.

dvidler

Nov 1, 2005, 2:58 PM

It kind of reminds me of the building that was designed for the open lot in front of the NBC Tower along the river. If anyone has that I would love to see a comparison.

But I do like the building

chicubs111

Nov 1, 2005, 3:00 PM

I think the building is pretty damn nice....There is also a street side image of the building on the tribune website.

Steely Dan

Nov 1, 2005, 3:13 PM

It kind of reminds me of the building that was designed for the open lot in front of the NBC Tower along the river.

that was my very first impression as well.

either way, it looks pretty damn glassy........... which is nice.

and the current building on site is a real POS, so just about anything would be an improvement.

HowardL

Nov 1, 2005, 3:34 PM

A thumbnail from the Trib showing street level:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/blurb/2005-11/20263798.jpg

rgolch

Nov 1, 2005, 3:37 PM

Again, most of these projects have to get built to really realize just how incredible this period of time is in Chicago. But even if only half of what's proposed gets built, it will still be amazing.

FlyersFan118

Nov 1, 2005, 3:40 PM

YOU GUYS SUCK

:frog:

You're getting all these nice towers from 600-2000' tall. I'm so jealous of you.

I likey. It'll look nice.

Chi-town

Nov 1, 2005, 4:11 PM

Adam186

Nov 1, 2005, 4:34 PM

Wow, I wake up to this news! This just made me have a good day. Anyway, good idea Chi-town I'd like to see that. SSC has some future skylines in the Chicago forum but you probably already knew that. I would like to see those buildings that Chi-town mentioned too.

Jularc

Nov 1, 2005, 4:50 PM

Great news for Chicago! It looks really nice. :)

streeterville

Nov 1, 2005, 5:10 PM

Can we get a rendering of the city in like 2009 with:

Trump Tower
Waterview Tower
Fordham Spire
300 N. LaSalle
InterContinental North Tower
65 E. Huron
Legacy at Millenium Park
340 on the Park
Mandarin Oriental Tower
the Studio Gang tower
One Museum Park
The Elysian

... and what else am I missing? Those buildings alone would beat any North American skyline outside Chicago and New York...

The 60-80 story proposal near the NBC Tower.
800 Foot Mixed Use at 29-39 S. LaSalle
80 Story Condo at 830 S. Michigan
Another 60 story proposal near Roosevelt/Columbus

The ones over 60 stories I can think of.
Shit, I know I am leaving something out.

Steely Dan

Nov 1, 2005, 5:30 PM

^ blowing scale is what this town does best. remember JHC on north michigan back in the '70's, how it obliterated the palmolive. talk about an out of place scale buster, yet today it is the most beloved tower in the entire city.

i'm not saying that this tower neccessarily has the magic of the JHC, but people who concern themselves solely of maintaining some "proper" scale always forget the lessons of the past. big buildings and little buildings can work very well together, even when the big tower doesn't give any deference what-so-ever (JHC).

Chi-town

Nov 1, 2005, 6:23 PM

I think this thing looks sleek and glassy enough to not really overwhelm as badly as it could. It'll just be a backdrop to blend with blue sky when viewed from the river...

What would be really awful is the usual LaGrange Michigan Avenue Po-Mo Crapfest going up on the site. Art deco stone structures and modern glass can complement each other well. Art deco stone structures and painted concrete trying and failing miserably to look like art deco stone do not.

dvidler

Nov 1, 2005, 7:01 PM

Also you need to consider what possibly will be around this building. Trump Tower, Cityfront Plaza Development, and many other new Streeterville developments that are glassy. It will all fit in my opinion.

Norsider

Nov 1, 2005, 7:20 PM

Blowing scale is overrated. Who cares? I agree with Steely. This town invented scale blowing. If there's a scale, Chicago will blow it. And should. With vigor. Anti-Scale Blowers are worse than the NIMBYs in my book. Why? Because it's not even your backyard!!!

spyguy

Nov 1, 2005, 9:51 PM

It kind of reminds me of the building that was designed for the open lot in front of the NBC Tower along the river. If anyone has that I would love to see a comparison.

I felt the same way, because I saw the rendering without looking at the title first.

BVictor1

Nov 1, 2005, 9:51 PM

I'm suprised that this design came out of LaGrange's office. I know that the firm has designed several wonderful modern buildings, but I remember reading an article several years ago that he would never designa modern building for Michigan Avenue, and because of his stance I couldn't see him allowing any of the associates do that either.

I don't believe that this project will have a problem selling its high end units. I mean it's right on the Mag Mile in the thick of everything. The units will all have superior service. And seeing as it's mainly hotel they don't have to market all of the units, just a small portion.

dvidler, I believe that you are refering to the Cityfront Plaza project.
http://www.lohan.com/images/projects/ciplweb_1.jpg

Intercontinental Tower
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2005-11/20263883.jpg

Stephenapolis

Nov 1, 2005, 10:04 PM

I can't wait to see Chicagos skyline in another 5-10 years. All of these new projects are going to change it dramaticly.

spyguy

Nov 1, 2005, 10:33 PM

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/2005_Nov_01/p.665.1130867881.html

From Hotel Online
Here's an excerpt:

The new tower is being designed by the award-winning Lucien Lagrange Architects and will provide approximately 150 new luxury hotel suites and 310 luxury condominium units. Strategic intends to work with a leading residential developer to develop and market the condominiums. The redevelopment effort will include a unique pedestrian park connected to Michigan Avenue, which will extend over Grand Avenue.

As well as for the Fairmont:
The 692-room Fairmont Chicago was recently acquired by the company and has a premier location at the gateways to Millennium Park, recognized as one of the top urban parks in the country, and Lakeshore East, the city's most significant urban and upscale high-rise housing development. The Rockwell Group, an international award-winning design firm, is working with the company on the interior and exterior design, in addition to the development of high-end fractional ownership units and hotel condominium units.

oshkeoto

Nov 1, 2005, 11:29 PM

This is just fucking ridiculous.

Yeah, this is a pretty decent-looking building. I thought it was the other one at first too. My only reservation is that the "high-end condos" will be going on sale beginning in mid-2007, by which time I can't imagine it'll be very easy to find buyers...

spyguy

Nov 1, 2005, 11:32 PM

You are misreading it I believe:

The proposal must receive city zoning approval. Construction, which would depend on sales of the high-priced condo units, is not expected to start until mid-2007 at the earliest.

Steely Dan

Nov 1, 2005, 11:33 PM

EDIT:

^ yeah, what he said.

Chicago Shawn

Nov 2, 2005, 12:03 AM

Oh hell yes! Another 800+ footer, when is the madness going stop in this town? I hope the answer is never, because this is just too much fun. If this project happens we get to see demolition of a eyesore on our most elliete street, construction of a 850' tower that will soar above everything around it and a new pocket park above a drab streetscape along Grand Avenue. Check and mate, this project kicks ass and so does this city.

And additionally we have the 65 East Huron project back on (as I predicted with tall tower wiping out 500 LSD) with a height increase toboot. And top it all off, CLICK HERE (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?postid=1674130#post1674130)

I bet Pip will flip when he sees all this after work tonight.

oshkeoto

Nov 2, 2005, 12:35 AM

"You are misreading it I believe:"

Yep, I am. Sorry about that.

spyguy

Nov 2, 2005, 1:17 AM

No need to be sorry.

HK Chicago

Nov 2, 2005, 2:32 AM

i fixed the title
thanks... the irony is that I'm the 1st to point out someone else's non-compliant thread titles.

I saw so much of the Legacy at MP in this one I'm thinking SCB is gonna sue for intellectual property - the whole upper south wall is derived from LMP... nonetheless, it is a nice tower and is exactly what Michigan Ave needs at that spot. Slowly, Michigan north of the river is really becoming it's own city center.

I'd think this isn't likely to get done, but I'm starting to believe this city has hit some critical mass that's attracting buyers and wealth not heard from before - because the number of new, expensive units is staggering... especially considering it's been a long time since there's been a significant project that died due to sales.

Chase Unperson

Nov 2, 2005, 3:07 AM

YOU GUYS SUCK

:frog:

You're getting all these nice towers from 600-2000' tall. I'm so jealous of you.

I likey. It'll look nice.

No need to be jealous. Their your buidings also, as much as anybody else's.

That will be an amazing construction project, and an amazing dismantling at such a congested location.

pip

Nov 2, 2005, 4:43 AM

Marvel 33

Nov 2, 2005, 4:48 AM

A thumbnail from the Trib showing street level:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/blurb/2005-11/20263798.jpg

That's a nice view of the street level part of the building!

BVictor1

Nov 2, 2005, 11:24 PM

November 2, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

HOTEL HIGH-RISE: Although he previously downplayed the chance of massive new construction at the InterContinental Chicago hotel, 505 N. Michigan, that's exactly what Laurence Geller, chief executive of Strategic Hotel Capital Inc., has proposed. A submission to the City Council on Tuesday seeks zoning authority for a 71-story building that would replace the architecturally drab 26-story north tower of the hotel. The project promises a substantial upgrade in the hotel's image and new retail life for the Mag Mile's south end. But the scale is enormous.

Despite the addition's size, Geller's actually proposing a downsizing of the InterContinental, from 800 rooms to 480. The rest of the new space would be 310 condos for the rich.

Jaroslaw

Nov 3, 2005, 1:03 AM

I'm starting to believe this city has hit some critical mass that's attracting buyers and wealth not heard from before - because the number of new, expensive units is staggering... especially considering it's been a long time since there's been a significant project that died due to sales.

This is a big and interesting topic. :) And to think that not too recently The Economist dubbed Chicago, as I recall, "the capital of flyover country." Why does critical mass (with a nod to the bicyclists) seem so much more important now than 20 years ago? Back then, the average good kid graduating from the U of M would be happy with suburban Detroit. No longer... and thus Chicago gains. Miami, Chicago, NY, SF. How did this precipitate?

Grand Pier died for unclear reasons. Inland Steel did have issues with Chin, but I'm not sure if that was the whole story. Hudson Tower: Reszko. Otherwise, you advertise it, they'll buy it.

Lecom

Nov 3, 2005, 1:08 AM

Chicago is sure getting a lot of tall developments lately.

Zerton

Nov 3, 2005, 1:54 AM

really nice.

jcchii

Nov 3, 2005, 2:11 AM

Cityfront Plaza much better looking

buildup

Nov 3, 2005, 4:08 AM

Another nice tower! When all these tall towers are built I think you will have the best skyline in the U.S.

alex1

Nov 3, 2005, 4:15 AM

^we already do ;)

emoney

Nov 3, 2005, 4:25 AM

True, We do!, and I like this tower very much. BVic what was the picture of the building on columbus (was it just this tower put at that parking lot?) It will not ruin the scale if anything it is bridging between the loop and just north.

Marvel 33

Nov 3, 2005, 5:30 AM

^ I think you're referring to the City Front Plaza but that is a different project.

"Another nice tower! When all these tall towers are built I think you will have the best skyline in the U.S."

I just came back from New York and I lived there for a few years...No doubt NYC is a beautiful place and it has a beautiful skyline but I really think Chicago has the nicest skyline in the U.S. right now as it is.

trvlr70

Nov 3, 2005, 3:22 PM

If the city grants a zoning change and the project gets approval, then why are the developers waiting until mid-2007 at the earliest to begin construction? Is that the date the new tower will rise or when the deconstruction of the exiting POS will begin?

Tom In Chicago

Nov 3, 2005, 4:25 PM

The Economist dubbed Chicago, as I recall, "the capital of flyover country."

The Economist also referred to Chicago, as I recall, "probably the most well managed city in America."

the urban politician

Nov 3, 2005, 8:54 PM

I'm starting to believe this city has hit some critical mass that's attracting buyers and wealth not heard from before - because the number of new, expensive units is staggering... especially considering it's been a long time since there's been a significant project that died due to sales.

This is a big and interesting topic. :) And to think that not too recently The Economist dubbed Chicago, as I recall, "the capital of flyover country." Why does critical mass (with a nod to the bicyclists) seem so much more important now than 20 years ago? Back then, the average good kid graduating from the U of M would be happy with suburban Detroit. No longer... and thus Chicago gains. Miami, Chicago, NY, SF. How did this precipitate?

^ Gas prices, and people are realizing just how incredibly spirit-less suburbia is. In the 90's people didn't care because everybody was making tons of money and buying SUV's, but it is safe to say that America has undergone a complete 180

rds989

Nov 3, 2005, 10:20 PM

^Uh, no. It isn't because people hate suburbia or because suburbia is somehow spiritually lacking (gag).

It is because Chicago proper is becoming a dramatically more attractive place to be (as is Chicago suburbia).

This is largely thanks to Mayor Daley, who pays special attention to the aesthetics and amenities of the city, who doesn't engage in class and race-based antogonistic politics, who is pro-growth, pro-business, and pro capitalism in general, and who has made good faith efforts (with some success) to improve the city's schools.

Chicago politics has a bit of petty corruption, but is otherwise very healthy compared to other places, like Detroit (and even compared with its own past). That makes a huge difference, and is the key to why Chicago has been able to turn its natural advantages into such great success.

spyguy

Nov 4, 2005, 1:48 AM

Here's a better image of the base (would be larger but file size constraints):

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4971/intconbase27jr.png

rds989

Nov 4, 2005, 2:37 AM

Awesome. Nice that the building's design depends on the addition of that great little side park. So the park isn't an optional add on -- if the building happens, the park will definitely happen too. That stretch of Illinois St. is currently so dumpy -- this project will be an unbelievable improvement.

jcchii

Nov 4, 2005, 4:24 AM

that is nice

James Bond Agent 007

Nov 4, 2005, 5:06 AM

Wow, this one is nice.

You guys have got so many of these going up, it's practically getting boring! ;)

spyguy

Nov 4, 2005, 5:09 AM

Check out the Dubai threads...

Marvel 33

Nov 4, 2005, 5:12 AM

That's a great image. It will add more retail to that part of Michigan Ave.
The glass is also a nice contrast with the brownish tones of the Inter-Continental Hotel.

spyguy

Nov 4, 2005, 5:38 PM

Can we get a rendering of the city in like 2009 with:

Trump Tower
Waterview Tower
Fordham Spire
300 N. LaSalle
InterContinental North Tower
65 E. Huron
Legacy at Millenium Park
340 on the Park
Mandarin Oriental Tower
the Studio Gang tower
One Museum Park
The Elysian

... and what else am I missing? Those buildings alone would beat any North American skyline outside Chicago and New York...

Here's a cheap and hastily done version:

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/6172/fakeskyline23cr.png

Why yes, yes that is Robert E. Lee park. And yes that fog is rather weird. Unfortunately this city wasn't built on a grid. :D

BVictor1

Nov 4, 2005, 6:49 PM

Here are scans from the zoning application.

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/4613/10qi.jpg

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/4104/22pw.jpg

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/9254/35mu.jpg

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/5818/43ld.jpg

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/4782/57wd.jpg

rgolch

Nov 4, 2005, 8:10 PM

Can we get a rendering of the city in like 2009 with:

Trump Tower
Waterview Tower
Fordham Spire
300 N. LaSalle
InterContinental North Tower
65 E. Huron
Legacy at Millenium Park
340 on the Park
Mandarin Oriental Tower
the Studio Gang tower
One Museum Park
The Elysian

... and what else am I missing? Those buildings alone would beat any North American skyline outside Chicago and New York...

Here's a cheap and hastily done version:

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/6172/fakeskyline23cr.png

Why yes, yes that is Robert E. Lee park. And yes that fog is rather weird. Unfortunately this city wasn't built on a grid. :D

Almost looks like lower manhattan.

Adam186

Nov 4, 2005, 8:46 PM

^Haha, only newer!

chiphile

Nov 4, 2005, 9:25 PM

Can we get a rendering of the city in like 2009 with:

Trump Tower
Waterview Tower
Fordham Spire
300 N. LaSalle
InterContinental North Tower
65 E. Huron
Legacy at Millenium Park
340 on the Park
Mandarin Oriental Tower
the Studio Gang tower
One Museum Park
The Elysian

... and what else am I missing? Those buildings alone would beat any North American skyline outside Chicago and New York...

Here's a cheap and hastily done version:

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/6172/fakeskyline23cr.png

Why yes, yes that is Robert E. Lee park. And yes that fog is rather weird. Unfortunately this city wasn't built on a grid. :D

Spyguy, there is a request over at SSC for this pic, could you post it over there? thanks!

woodrow

Nov 4, 2005, 11:06 PM

hmmmm . . . I am not a fan of that building. Despite what the developer said, it certainly won't complement the older building, which, btw, was built as a men's club - The Medinah Club. It will totally overwhelm it, and the surrounding buildings. Don't get me wrong, I love tall buildings, and I am no fan of the current building (the northern portion), but the scale is wrong wrong wrong. NOW - BVictor gets the zoning application and WHAT is going to happen to entrance to the older building? There is a lovely split staircase with terrific stone and wood work. Looking at the floor plan, I see no staircase in that location. Are they planning to gut the first floor of the old Medinah building?

HK Chicago

Nov 5, 2005, 4:31 AM

Are they planning to gut the first floor of the old Medinah building?

I hope not and I doubt they'll replace it 100%.

Marvel 33

Nov 5, 2005, 4:35 PM

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/6172/fakeskyline23cr.png

That does look like Lower Manhattan. It would be cool to see a rendering like this one ^ but with the actual layout of the city, and all the new buildings in it.

Something like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/Marino33/Chicago/FordhamSpireBuilding.jpg

Fabb

Nov 5, 2005, 7:22 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2005-11/20263883.jpg

^It's unlike the works Lagrange has done before. Not his usual neo-art déco style.
I'm surprised - in a good way.

rds989

Nov 5, 2005, 8:38 PM

^I think Lagrange is really typically neo-beaux-arts, rather that art deco. Otherwise, agreed.

Fabb

Nov 7, 2005, 10:36 AM

The proposed 850-foot tower would be almost twice the height of the historic south tower, which was built in 1929 as the Medinah Athletic Club and is known for its blend of design features inspired by sources that range from ancient Egypt to the Italian Renaissance.

I'm glad that the addition won't mimic the south tower. I've never been fond of it.
Hopefully, the new tower will catch most of the attention.

randella

Nov 7, 2005, 8:34 PM

trvlr70

Nov 7, 2005, 9:16 PM

Marvel 33

Nov 7, 2005, 10:02 PM

trvlr70

Nov 7, 2005, 10:11 PM

looks like a nice tower. but i hate how that "park" will create even more of a covered lower level (no matter how small). wish they would just create a nice open staircase and stop creating even more of a basement effect. the nbc tower extended the basement all the way over to columbus. bleck. I agree. Chicago suffers from enough shadows and darkness. Let's not add anymore.

Oh, I recently read that Chicago is perhaps the darkest city in the nation. It geographical position relative to the time zones and the days of overcast gave it that dubious recognition.

Even darker than NY? I would find that hard to believe... Yeah. For one, the weather is worse. Second, the city of Chicago sits at the right-hand margin of the CST. That is why it can be nearly pitch dark at 4:30 pm in mid-December. Think about it, just across the border 100 miles south in IN, it is an hour later but has the same amount of sun. According to the article, you want to sit in the left-hand margin of a given time zone band.

Chi-town

Nov 8, 2005, 12:17 AM

^ I wish they'd just move Chicago to the Eastern Time Zone. There's nothing to the west of us except Northern Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska anyway. Then we could be in the same time zone as the East Coast for TV schedule and business travel purposes, and get an extra hour of daylight in the evenings...

spyguy

Nov 8, 2005, 12:36 AM

Don't want to be gobbled up by NYC again...

STR

Nov 8, 2005, 1:33 AM

Here's a better image of the base (would be larger but file size constraints):

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4971/intconbase27jr.png

Convert it to a jpeg. The png format isn't good for showing photos or renderings or anything with lots of different colors.

Wheelingman04

Nov 8, 2005, 4:18 AM

What a nice looking tower. Chicago is just friggin amazing.

Steely Dan

Jan 26, 2006, 9:28 PM

well, people seemed in a mood to bump all the chicago highrise threads to page 1 today, so i figured i'd grab the last one :D

Marvel 33

Jan 31, 2006, 5:24 AM

^ Totally agree Steely! I think we should all do it on regular basis so we keep all our Chicago threads alive. :tup:

JACKinBeantown

Jan 31, 2006, 12:38 PM

I'll also join in to bump this thread to the top for no particular reason and with no particular news. :)

trvlr70

Jan 31, 2006, 2:15 PM

A similar construction dilema is occuring in NYC right now with the Drake Swisshotel. Developers want to tear down an ugly 1960s addition and contruct a tower on that parcel of the property. The controversey in NYC is whether or not the developers will keep the 1920s Park Av. hotel or simply demo the whole lot. I hope they follow suit with the Chicago approach. The Drake in NYC is a terrific building, but definitely not at the same level as the original Intercontinental here.

BVictor1

Jan 31, 2006, 6:18 PM

I received this high resolution rendering yesterday.

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/432910.jpg

Steely Dan

Jan 31, 2006, 6:19 PM

^ oh hells yeah!

this project now officially rules.

rgolch

Jan 31, 2006, 6:50 PM

That is double-delicious! That project is so sweet. Its like the Legacy's thicker cousin (with less width).

trvlr70

Jan 31, 2006, 6:54 PM

I fucking love this project so much. I hate that demolition of the existing building will not occur at best until some time late next year. This project is a very long way off.

Gorgeous building, however.

the urban politician

Jan 31, 2006, 7:29 PM

Yeah, it definitely RULES!

But I can't get excited until I at least get some sort of idea what the timeline/financing issue with this project is

GuitarAce

Jan 31, 2006, 8:45 PM

Wow! :banana: Nice tower. Can they drill tomorrow? ;)

Fabb

Jan 31, 2006, 8:59 PM

That is double-delicious! That project is so sweet. Its like the Legacy's thicker cousin (with less width).

... and slightly taller, which is always appreciated.

jcchii

Feb 1, 2006, 4:57 AM

uh, yeah, by all means build it

Marvel 33

Feb 2, 2006, 4:22 AM

HS! That's nice!!!

Chicago2020

Feb 2, 2006, 4:56 AM

:leek: :apple: :pepper: :drummer: :dancing: :cucumber: :thrasher:

Chase Unperson

Feb 2, 2006, 12:43 PM

I'd live there.

Fabb

Feb 3, 2006, 11:05 AM

So would I.
The location is more desirable than that of the Fordham Spire.

Wild Onion Mike

Feb 7, 2006, 6:05 AM

Whoever's in charge of this project, let me say "Thank you," for using glass instead of exposed cast-in-place concrete.

I really hope we've turned the corner on painted concrete towers. And if we do get more of them, please make them more attractive. I know concrete is a valuable building material, but please combine practicality with aesthetics, and maybe a little bit of imagination. (see Bertram Goldberg - a genius!)

This building is beautiful. Commence construction! :tup:

Marvel 33

Feb 8, 2006, 12:23 AM

I was just driving northbound on Michigan Ave. today from the South Loop and I was trying to imagine this tower standing 850' on the horizon and as I was approaching the Chicago River, I just can't imagine the impact this tower will have in that area. It will stand majestically with the Hancock Building in the background.

Hoodrat

Feb 8, 2006, 4:05 AM

Love these tall skinny ones.

Go Chicago!

jcchii

Feb 8, 2006, 4:51 AM

this is starting to be unfair to most other cities

SouthPhilly

Feb 8, 2006, 4:53 AM

I received this high resolution rendering yesterday.

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/432910.jpg

now thats a cool biulding

Adam186

Feb 8, 2006, 5:00 AM

this is starting to be unfair to most other cities

Haha, tell me about. I wish Omaha could get even 2 of these projects. I mean we're happy w/ a new 32 story condo building and that's short in Chicago. Just take a floor off every new condo building going up in Chicago and ship it over here and we'll have a new tallest. You guys deserve it though and I'll be living over there soon enough:banana:

Oh, and Omaha rocks by the way. You should check it out sometime:tup:

jcchii

Feb 8, 2006, 5:09 AM

^lots of tech stuff there right?

spyguy

Feb 8, 2006, 5:13 AM

Ask that Warren Buffett guy to build something with his pocket change.

Adam186

Feb 8, 2006, 5:30 AM

^lots of tech stuff there right?

Yeah, it's up and coming in the tech industry which is pretty cool.

Spy, you'd be suprised how little he gives his own money away to Omaha. I wish he would build a new corporate headquaters in DT, but he only has between 100 and 200 employees. However, I'm working on my own little project for downtown and you guys will be hearing about it I'm sure. :tup:

Marvel 33

Feb 8, 2006, 6:14 PM

this is starting to be unfair to most other cities

At least we're still building tall skyscrapers in this country. Better here (Chicago) than in China, right? ;)

supastar

Feb 8, 2006, 7:09 PM

I think it's glorious.