SkyscraperPage Forum - CHICAGO | Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) | 1,451 FT / 442 M | 108 FLOORS

Viewing Page 11 of 40

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Buildings & Architecture (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=397)

- - CHICAGO | Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) | 1,451 FT / 442 M | 108 FLOORS | 1974 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153704)

Pandemonious

Mar 3, 2009 5:08 PM

They are already CURRENTLY REPLACING all of the glass on the tower with near identical more energy efficient glazing and have been for a long time now.. They are doing it one by one with the window robot after business hours.

Sears will NOT become silver. These journalists are spouting baseless shit. Why would they go to all the work to reclad all the glass, to then just completely change the facade anyway?

Pandemonious

Mar 3, 2009 5:11 PM

I felt like I was having deja-vu here.. so I will just quote myself from way back in this thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandemonious (Post 3738034)

I don't care what he is investigating, it won't happen. The reason: they are ALREADY replacing the glass/gaskets, and have been for some time now. They have slowly pane by pane been using the window washing robot to cut out the worn out gaskets and replace the old glass panes with near identical more energy efficient ones. I think the whole thing takes them a few years, as they are trying to do it with minimal interruption of the building functionality.

Here is an article that talks about the new glass:
http://www.dupont.com/safetyglass/en...cite/1206.html

They wouldn't go to all that effort now, just to replace it again soon, would they?

It seems like the glass article isn't working anymore..

munda

Mar 3, 2009 6:03 PM

I say garden on balcony, solar panel, and wind turbines are fine.
painting it silver is a big no no

wonder how it would look with the skyline especially from Northerly Island

nomarandlee

Mar 4, 2009 1:00 PM

Quote:

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...eder04.article

A new brush with history
REAL ESTATE |
Talk of Sears Tower makeover creates big buzz
Recommend Comments

March 4, 2009

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

Last week, this column shot around the world and set the architectural blogs ablaze by reporting that the owners of Sears Tower are considering whether to turn it silver. They have hired architect Adrian Smith to devise a new look for the building, perhaps to improve its environmental efficiency and certainly to help it attract tenants.

Alas, pertinent and impertinent questions had to go unanswered. How would this be accomplished? How much would it cost? Who gets this contract? Is this some sort of Mayor Daley TIF boondoggle?

Good questions, all, but premature. The New York-based ownership for the nation's tallest building isn't talking, but experts in the shells of office towers said there are many choices, ranging from a coating job that would cost a few million dollars to a new skin for all 100 stories. The cost? It could approach the $150 million spent to erect the tower in the '70s.

On the low end, many companies sell coatings that would cling to the tower's exposed aluminum. But it's hard to see how that would substantially change the building's appearance. Most of its surface is darkly tinted glass. It may be impossible to change the appearance without at least coating the glass.

Jim Zorn, sales executive for glazing contractor Harmon Inc., said glass technology has made strides in energy efficiency, and the owners may find that window replacement makes sense. He estimated doing that for the Sears might cost $50 million.

The next step up in cost and potential energy payoff is a new shell, or curtain wall. Zorn said one way to do it is to construct it from within and gradually remove the old shell, like a snake sheds old skin. Zorn believes Sears Tower was designed to allow such renovations from inside.

Mic Patterson, director of strategic development for curtain wall experts Enclos Corp., said it's also possible to build a skin over the existing one. These options get you into the $100 million to $150 million range for difficult and dangerous work, experts said.

Another issue is whether a silver Sears Tower would blind half the city on a sunny day. Choices for color and building materials would have to take the shine factor into account, but that shouldn't be a problem. Just look at the city's new Trump International Hotel & Tower, with its silver to pale blue hues. It's also a Smith design.

As for whether tax increment financing, i.e. taxpayer cash, will be involved, keep watching the Sun-Times.

cbotnyse

Mar 4, 2009 1:11 PM

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33183

Trading firm expanding at Sears Tower
By: Todd J. Behme March 03, 2009

(Crain’s) — A trading firm has almost tripled its space at the Sears Tower, a much-needed boost for the landmark skyscraper, which recently lost its biggest tenant.

IMC Chicago is expanding by nearly 34,000 square feet, giving the firm the entire 43rd floor, or 52,286 square feet, according to U.S. Equities Asset Management, which leases and manages the building.

IMC extended its lease through March 2020 at the 110-story Sears Tower, 233 S. Wacker Drive, the release says. The firm, which currently has 18,390 square feet on the 46th floor, plans to move to the 43rd floor this spring.

“It was a competitive pricing structure,” Emir Al-Rawi, managing director of IMC Chicago, said of the decision to stay at Sears Tower.

The firm also wanted to be on one floor and likes the building’s infrastructure, Mr. Al-Rawi says.

He says the firm plans to build a better trading room in the new space that can accommodate more traders. He said the office has about 95 employees and that the he expects that to grow 30% to 35% this year.

IMC Chicago is owned by Amsterdam, Netherlands-based IMC Trading and is that company’s only U.S. office. IMC Chicago has increased its space several times in the Sears Tower after moving into the building in early January 2007 from its original office here at 440 S. LaSalle St.

Sears Tower’s biggest tenant, Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, has decided to move out of the building and into the new office building being developed by John Buck Co. at 155 N. Wacker Drive. Ernst & Young has a lease for 387,000 square feet that expires in 2012. The firm occupies about 237,000 square feet, subleasing the rest of the space to other tenants.

Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. represented IMC Chicago.

photoLith

Mar 6, 2009 1:57 AM

Some photos I took while in Chi town last August. I also have some photos from the skydeck from when I grew up there in the early 90s, Ill have to find them though.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/...89f4e14d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/...5c34677e_o.jpg
mmm, tasty

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3627/...c63b83d9_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/...2c33ef0b_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3626/...48cc1571_o.jpg

Dac150

Mar 6, 2009 4:48 PM

I couldn't imagine this building in any other cladding then what it presently has.

TallMark

Mar 7, 2009 1:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 4120150)

^^^ No, what it means is:

A. The media has no idea what they are talking about. They either don't understand how a modern building can "change colors" and think it akin to merely painting your ye olde wooden cottage, or they are purposely dumbing down what they are saying to "paint it" because they know the average person has no idea what a curtain wall is.

B. Since you can't just "paint it" the only way to change its color to silver would be to either rip off the entire facade and put a new one on or...

C. Perhaps reglaze the glass to a silver color. I don't know if that is possible or if it also requires ripping out the glass and replacing it.

It is unfortunate that the debate on improving the surface features of Sears has been now reduce to rant and rude speech thanks to people like "Nowhereman". And the webmaster seems not to mind this diversion either!

Ok, I should stop for a while until folks like him cool off and find the ability to be constructive in their debate by controling their outburst.

Dudes, it is resurfacing of a newish building of limited fame (largely just in Chicago) we are talking about, not painting the Parthenon or adding a new face to Mount Rushmore. Chill man.

Cheers.

TallMark

Mar 7, 2009 1:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 4119542)

You see the problem you reach is your complete lack of understanding of the facade of this tower. Its no less a work of art than the ESB. The ESB's facade is very plain and is not really notable in any way. The Sears facade is very detailed and has a lot of thought put into it. Just because you are incapable of seeing the art in a series of simple lines, doesn't mean we should desecrate this for future generations. In case of haven't noticed, the facade on ESB is just as much a series of lines as the facade of Sears.

Also, you are completely wrong when you call the facade of Sears cheap, its a very nice, high quality, well constructed facade. Again, you are simply ignorant of the facts, just because we can get aluminum for cheap right now, does not mean the facade is cheap. We could get limestone for cheap in the 50's and 60's and we destroyed 1000's of those facades because people had idiot ideas like the ones you have.

You brought up this topic? What "evidence" is surfacing? And no, its not just the structure in this building that makes the building, the color of it is essential. Black was purposely chosen to contrast the sky and reflect the moody climate and lighting of Chicago. Again. in the 1920's popular opinion thought that Louis Sullivan's ornate facades looked "dirty" and non-streamlined, so they covered a bunch up. We now are horrified by that stupidity. In the 60's we decided that the terracotta and limestone facades of the early 1900's were grimy and dirty and we covered up or ripped a bunch of them down. Again, we are now horrified by this loss. What makes you think that your beloved mutilation of a great work of the 70's is going to be looked upon any differently by future preservationists?

Nowhereman1280

Mar 7, 2009 5:35 AM

How was that in any way a "rant". Did I call you any names? Did I get upset? No and No. I simply pointed out how you are completely factually off-base when you say things like "Sears facade is cheap", which is just incorrect. How is saying the newspapers have no idea what they are talking about (when I know first hand from my previous work that the things they are suggesting aren't possible) or comparing destroying the Sears' facade to our past "urban renewal" attempts a rant. I guess making an argument and pointing out to someone where they are misrepresenting the facts counts as a "rant" now...

I guess if I tell a holocaust denier they are wrong, I am now ranting, despite the fact that they are completely misinformed. Man some people just can't handle debate (and in this case having their inaccuracies called out) without taking things personally.

spyguy

Mar 11, 2009 9:40 PM

Willis Tower?

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33287

Willis could get Sears Tower naming rights
By: Thomas A. Corfman March 11, 2009

Willis Group Holdings Ltd. has focused its search for a new local office on Sears Tower, which could be renamed after the London-based insurance broker if a deal is reached.

Steely Dan

Mar 11, 2009 9:46 PM

as long as the tower remains black, they can rename it whatever the hell they want.

intrepidDesign

Mar 11, 2009 10:24 PM

Just like Wrigley, even if they renamed the Sears Tower, to just about everyone, it would remain the Sears Tower. I still hear some people slip up and call Macy's, Marshall Fields. These uniquely Chicago buildings will retain (as they should) their names as long as people are alive to remember them that way, despite the attempts by the egomaniacal to trounce history.

cbotnyse

Mar 11, 2009 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign (Post 4134939)

true that. I still call US Cellular, Comiskey.

george

Mar 13, 2009 3:04 PM

Changing the name is a mistake. Sears has a brand & identity, which means something to Chicago. Maybe go with Sears/ Willis Tower. Willis alone means nothing & would take generations to sink in. By then a new shmuck would step up & put their name on it. Hell, Bruce Willis Tower would have more relevance.

harryc

Mar 17, 2009 1:53 AM

Chicago103

Mar 19, 2009 8:57 PM

2009 so far has seen a lot of news for the Sears Tower; the renovation of the Skydeck with a glass floor box on the west facade, the possible silver reclading, and the name change to Willis Tower.

jc5680

Mar 27, 2009 2:56 AM

3.26
http://www.j-carlson.com/ancilary/sears326.jpg

cityofblindinglights

Apr 6, 2009 3:33 PM

i am slightly disturbed by the gray i see at the top of the tower....i hope it is nothing.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/...52857850_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3313/...baf6a98e_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3648/...d47194ee_b.jpg

is it just ice?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/...11682881_b.jpg

Nowhereman1280

Apr 6, 2009 3:59 PM

^^^ Just ice and snow from yesterday's snowstorm. All of the trees and telephone poles and buildings have a coating of ice on their north and northeast sides from the high winds. That's the annoying shit that will be falling down on pedestrians like myself all day today. It wasn't even 5 minutes after I left my building before a big chunk of snow fell off a tree and hit me on the head this morning...

However, maybe one of you could use your telephoto and look for this, I have heard that the windows for the observation deck bubble thing have been taken out on the West face and that the steel support frame has been installed. I'm really curious to see a detailed zoom photo of the top of the west side.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM.

Prev 1 7 8 9 101112 13 14 15 21 40 Next

Viewing Page 11 of 40

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page