SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   CHICAGO | 435 N Park | 569 ft | 49 FLOORS | COM (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198244)

xXSkyscraperDudeXx Aug 4, 2012 3:48 AM

Now that I' am thinking of it a Supertall should go there after the lost of the Waldorf Astoria :(. I Like the design but i think they should relocate it.. I know this might sound a bit whiny but I really think it should be like that, The location is too Great to have a highrise there!

untitledreality Aug 4, 2012 4:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xXSkyscraperDudeXx (Post 5787897)
Now that I' am thinking of it a Supertall should go there after the lost of the Waldorf Astoria :(. I Like the design but i think they should relocate it.. I know this might sound a bit whiny but I really think it should be like that, The location is too Great to have a highrise there!

YES, they should definitely relocate that new supertall proposal "XXXXX" there because this single parcel tucked into Streeterville is the last of a dying breed of developable sites in the downtown core. Oh wait, supertall proposal "XXXXX" doesn't exist? Chicago has only had one supertall built in the last 39 years? ...shit, maybe we shouldn't hold our collective breaths.

Yeah, you're being a whiny fanboy.

Chicago_Forever Aug 4, 2012 4:16 AM

:previous: Since we can just "relocate" buildings to where we want, how about we relocate Amli, from river north, out of the city while we're at at? :haha:

ardecila Aug 4, 2012 4:45 AM

Well, for "skyline balance", a new supertall would be great between Lake and Ontario somewhere. An inland supertall would be cool... Too bad Wolf Point is not this bold.

But yea, I'm not seeing a supertall anytime soon. We don't have the economic justification of NY and Hong Kong, and we don't have the government subsidies or massive egos of Dubai and Shanghai.

Chicago_Forever Aug 6, 2012 6:41 PM

Just walked past this and there is a lot of digging going on at the site. I hope this gets going soon.

The North One Aug 9, 2012 7:10 PM

The base is a total mess, This is such a disappointment from the old design. Would rather see nothing get built than this to be honest.

the urban politician Aug 9, 2012 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 5793343)
Would rather see nothing get built than this to be honest.

:previous: :koko:

On a side note, I was walking through Streeterville the other day, and the foot traffic was impressive. This neighborhood is roaring to life pretty quickly.

The North One Aug 9, 2012 7:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 5793345)
:previous: :koko:

On a side note, I was walking through Streeterville the other day, and the foot traffic was impressive. This neighborhood is roaring to life pretty quickly.

Please elaborate, what is so out of line about that statement? I would rather wait for something better than be stuck with this.

the urban politician Aug 9, 2012 7:30 PM

You architecture nerds crack me up.

You'd rather this be a vacant lot for another 10 years than a productive, tax revenue generating, sidewalk-filling, neighborhood-safening economic boon for the district and city? Think how many hotel guests will be hailing cabs, walking the streets, patronizing local restaurants and shops, catering for conventions or weddings in the reception hall, etc? Think about how many jobs this one building will create.

I agree with you on the base, and could perhaps still understand your argument if this were a REALLY shitty design--like some of the early stuff by Loewenberg. But in this case, I think you are way the hell off the mark.

migueltorres Aug 9, 2012 7:41 PM

I'm glad to see the parking lot where all my immigration documents were stolen from my car a week before my greencard interview finally bite the dust. Good riddance!

Chicago_Forever Aug 9, 2012 8:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 5793375)
You architecture nerds crack me up.

You'd rather this be a vacant lot for another 10 years than a productive, tax revenue generating, sidewalk-filling, neighborhood-safening economic boon for the district and city? Think how many hotel guests will be hailing cabs, walking the streets, patronizing local restaurants and shops, catering for conventions or weddings in the reception hall, etc? Think about how many jobs this one building will create.

I agree with you on the base, and could perhaps still understand your argument if this were a REALLY shitty design--like some of the early stuff by Loewenberg. But in this case, I think you are way the hell off the mark.


I completely agree, TUP. It's not like there aren't any remaining parking lots in Streeterville. Hell there's one next door to this development and at least 5 others within a couple block radius. I mean c'mon...the base on this might not be great but the parking is undergroung, which is a rarity for this area, and the tower itself is pretty nice and has decent height. It's not like we're getting some complete piece of shit beige tower with a huge, ugly, windowless parking podium like the Amli that's going up in River North. Every building can't be a supertall or a masterpice!

Kippis Aug 10, 2012 3:23 AM

^ Still, it begs the question of why many architects/developers/designers etc. can't seem to get past these shitty podium designs. Honestly, it's pretty fucking annoying seeing these mistakes being made over and over again. They treat it like an afterthought, I swear. :rolleyes:

But overall it's a great-looking tower with a bleh base; the underground parking is also a real plus, especially for this neighborhood. At the end of the day, me likey another fugly surface lot biting the dust...

The North One Aug 10, 2012 3:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 5793375)
You architecture nerds crack me up.

You'd rather this be a vacant lot for another 10 years than a productive, tax revenue generating, sidewalk-filling, neighborhood-safening economic boon for the district and city? Think how many hotel guests will be hailing cabs, walking the streets, patronizing local restaurants and shops, catering for conventions or weddings in the reception hall, etc? Think about how many jobs this one building will create.

I agree with you on the base, and could perhaps still understand your argument if this were a REALLY shitty design--like some of the early stuff by Loewenberg. But in this case, I think you are way the hell off the mark.

Considering the last project proposed for this site was a little over 5 years ago and with things picking up again I doubt it would be another 10 years before we could see another building proposed. Although you do make a point, its not all about what is aesthetically pleasing. But its not like Chicago is in desperate need for development. Its just such a let down thinking what could have been.

The Pimp Aug 10, 2012 3:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 5793343)
The base is a total mess, This is such a disappointment from the old design. Would rather see nothing get built than this to be honest.

Really??? Quite the arrogant comment. :koko:

F1 Tommy Aug 10, 2012 3:40 PM

This looks like a very nice building that alot of cities would kill for, but not nearly as nice as what could have been.

The Chicago guys need to calm down when someone critiques a building and not start attacking them. It makes you seem like your not confident and that you can't take critisism.

kemachs Aug 10, 2012 4:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy (Post 5794342)
This looks like a very nice building that alot of cities would kill for, but not nearly as nice as what could have been.

The Chicago guys need to calm down when someone critiques a building and not start attacking them. It makes you seem like your not confident and that you can't take critisism.

Well a critique is one thing, all of the Chicago guys (has a nice ring to it) have been critiquing this building as well...especially the base. It's just that a lot of people would rather see density and street-life in Streeterville rather than shooting down the whole proposal, and saying that a parking lot should stay there for now..

IMHO, in response to this vs. the Waldorf, I think I'd rather see a supertall go up in the loop - it would give the skyline a really cool focal point in the center rather than drawing one's eye towards the edge. Thinking about that has helped to ease my disappointment re: the Spire :)

Can't they just resurrect this!?: http://smithgill.com/work/7_south_dearborn/

jcchii Aug 10, 2012 5:51 PM

it also saps up another lot, which over time could boost use pressure (height) on the remaining ones once the economy recovers

untitledreality Aug 10, 2012 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 5793936)
But its not like Chicago is in desperate need for development.

One third of the entire city would beg to differ.

chicagoisepic Aug 14, 2012 10:21 PM

why is this listed as being u/c in the database if the current status is only in site prep?

Steely Dan Aug 14, 2012 10:23 PM

^ the SSP database is wrong. this one is only in site prep. it's not under construction yet.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.