CHICAGO | Mandarin Oriental | 845 FT / 256 M | 61 FLOORS | NEVER BUILT

[Jaroslaw]

Chicago is the only FACT that matters.

(Nobody makes it out alive today. )

[HK Chicago]

damn, I regret starting this one off, let's keep this up to our usual gold standard please...

Illinois Center is a very open area that services the current buildings (offices, hotels, apts, condos) extremely well, and it can handle this development. As for skyline effect... there's 2 good angles where TTC and Aon block eachother out but I've never heard anyone complain what's the point again?

[Chase Unperson]

Seriously. I doubt the devlopers give a flying fuck what the building looks like in the skyline. All they care about is the bottom line. ANd if the MO wants to open up a ultra classy hotel in a nontraditional area for aforementioned hotels, more power to them.

That area is great and the guests should have an impressive stay. The only question mark is any potential high end retail at the base of the hotel, but who knows, between LSE and Mil Park things could be bustling there by the time it is done.

[Jaroslaw]

Jeez, what's wrong with a little argument?

"What's the point again?" Aon and TTC are several blocks away.

I've been to this neighborhood several times, and it's a stretch to hope that "things could be bustling" there without some major reconfigurations...

Thanks to some hard hats around here, I've got a new acronym, the sheep's "BAAA." Build Absolutely Anything Anywhere! This goes together with the tendency to overlook the city's organic wholeness and shape, its dimension as a "Gesamtkunst."

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by Pandemonious

Hopefully it blows all the other ones away... since they are promising for it to be "a new city icon."

That will be tough at that site, visually speaking, since it will be so close to two towers which will be taller than it. This tower will be shrouded from view when coming up Michigan Ave, and even from most vistas in Millenium and Grant parks.


[edit] yeah, like others have already said


And I agree with Jaroslaw... Even with the other hotel right down the street (a Hyatt?), that particular area is quite devoid of foot traffic. Most buildings around there are newer, single use towers with no storefronts. And that one tunnel basically cuts this area off from the park.

[Chase Unperson]

No it will be shrouded if it forms a line with 2pru and aon and whever you are stading., otherwise it is fine.

CMON let's root for this building as well and the 90 floor waterview and this outta nowhere 80 floor LSE building

[Jasonhouse]

^Sorry, but I don't "root" for things, just for the hell of it. I'm realistic, not a booster.

And btw, I doubt this area will be totally dead for all that long... Isn't the LSE planned community going up just to the east of this area? I'm sure adding several thousand residents into the mix will change things a bit.

[HK Chicago]

"What's the point again?" Aon and TTC are several blocks away.

I was questioning what's the point of discussing skyline angles, and brought up the example where Aon/TTC and 2Pru/MO both share pedestrian sightlines where they block eachother out.

I guess you'd classify me as a BAAA and I'd fight 100% against that label. I stated when I started this talk with a question to you (also hinting to keep it intelligent, which I know at least we can do) about why you didn't like it's location... I don't know of many locations in the city that are primed, zoned, and ready for high density like this one... it's always been the plan for Illinois Center, keep the train going I say.

Of course this could all change when we see renderings, but SCB has been doing good B/B+ work lately so I'm not worried.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

^Sorry, but I don't "root" for things, just for the hell of it. I'm realistic, not a booster.

And btw, I doubt this area will be totally dead for all that long... Isn't the LSE planned community going up just to the east of this area? I'm sure adding several thousand residents into the mix will change things a bit.

Jeez so uptight.

Don't boost. Just wish it well and hope.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ as tom explained in the boom rundown thread, this plot of land is actually a hole in the 3 level street network of illinois center. the number of stories that are actually above the top most street level may only be 85 or so. the height of 887' is probably taken from the top street level, whereas the number of stories listed is probably taken from grade, which is 50' below "street level".

as for the location, i thinks it's fine. no it won't be terribly high-profile from grant park, but there are 3 other cardinal dirtections to consider.

Its about time they did something with that unsightly hole, I always wondered what could go there, but an eighty something story tower more than exceded my expectations. Chicago is one of the few places where reality can actually exceed your imagination . Its a long way from certain but we can only hope.

[Jaroslaw]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Its about time they did something with that unsightly hole, I always wondered what could go there...

Before the dotcom bust, this was scheduled for a "telecom hotel".

Originally Posted by HK Chicago

I was questioning what's the point of discussing skyline angles, and brought up the example where Aon/TTC and 2Pru/MO both share pedestrian sightlines where they block eachother out.

I guess you'd classify me as a BAAA and I'd fight 100% against that label. I stated when I started this talk with a question to you (also hinting to keep it intelligent, which I know at least we can do) about why you didn't like it's location... I don't know of many locations in the city that are primed, zoned, and ready for high density like this one...

1. 2PRU is direct across the street from this site. Aon and TTC are half a mile from each other. And the only way they line up is from the lake / Grant Park, or NW somewhere... This enables me to reiterate a point: significant towers front open space. Both Aon and TTC do this. The Sears does this by creating a big plaza on a double city block. The Hancock fronts Mich, etc. And this is a principle of urban design.

2. Basically, there is not an unlimited supply of 90-story towers, even in Chicago. So if we have one coming, let's put it in a place where it looks nice all around.

3. In no other American city could some blokes come 'round to Daley and the local alderman with a 90 story building proposal, tell them, "Hey, help us find a cool spot for this," and be obliged, not kicked down the stairs. So I have faith in Chicago.

As the initial article says, it will all depend on condo pre-sales. We'll see.

[HK Chicago]

Thanks for the numbering... all I need is NY Guy to come in and color/bold my own posts too

as a complete aside, The Sears does this by creating a big plaza on a double city block. is one of the worst tower frontages anywhere, it absolutely sucks all around, especially Franklin and Adams.

I'd love to have this thing spread out also (and hopefully the Gang tower is the king of the new bunch east of michigan), but the location has class infrastructure made for this sort of development... and it will make a significant skyline difference if built. 90 stories is a structure that can't be hidden, at worst it's like 311 (which I'd wouldn't mind if that one never got built except to break ST southern exposure up a little).

[Jaroslaw]

OK, I took out the numbers. Sorry to have invaded your personal space or whatever.

I agree that the Sears plaza sucks. Especially now. That's not the point, though. Let's keep it intelligent by staying on topic. (And 311 S Wacker also has open space on the N side.) Another example of a significant tower with frontage: Waterview...

[HK Chicago]

Sorry to have invaded your personal space or whatever. No invasion I'm happy to have no personal space over here, I was trying to be humorous hence the

Let's keep it intelligent by staying on topic... that's why I started with as a complete aside... I'm just pointing this out cause you're on my "total respect for a Chicago forumer" list and it's important (to me) that you know I'm keeping perspective.

Waterview has great frontage!

[sentinel]

don't worry Volguus, even though we have better, taller and many more skyscrapers than in Philly, your thread will always have more posts

[Jasonhouse]

^Only because CHI's development news is split up into multiple threads, because there is so much of it...

[Marvel 33]

Originally Posted by Jaroslaw

2. Basically, there is not an unlimited supply of 90-story towers, even in Chicago. So if we have one coming, let's put it in a place where it looks nice all around.

In a perfect world, that should really be the case...unfortunatelly that is not how it works and we'll just have to wait and see how the finished project turns out!

Believe me, I would love to see a 90 story tower in a more visible location...oh well!

[Jaroslaw]

Originally Posted by sentinel

don't worry Volguus, even though we have better, taller and many more skyscrapers than in Philly, your thread will always have more posts

I am sure some of those guys stay up late clicking and cranking up the counters.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by Jaroslaw

I am sure some of those guys stay up late clicking and cranking up the counters.

I don't know how they do it. Is there that much to talk about. They have a few interesting projects, but nothing like chicago. I guess we should not be arrogant, as we are very lucky at the moment, and this will likely not last forever. But for now, chicago rocks!

[Pandemonious]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

That will be tough at that site, visually speaking, since it will be so close to two towers which will be taller than it. This tower will be shrouded from view when coming up Michigan Ave, and even from most vistas in Millenium and Grant parks.


[edit] yeah, like others have already said


And I agree with Jaroslaw... Even with the other hotel right down the street (a Hyatt?), that particular area is quite devoid of foot traffic. Most buildings around there are newer, single use towers with no storefronts. And that one tunnel basically cuts this area off from the park.

You may be right Jasonhouse, about the icon part. I certainly don't see anything bad about hoping for a high quality design though... and the architectural quality of a particular design is irrelevant to the height of buildings next to it in my opinion, that is just the nature of a city. SCB has some solid work, and this will be by far the tallest building they have yet designed... so this could be their moment to shine even more.

I also agree that this area is fairly void of foot traffic, but that is partially what is exciting about this building... with this large mixed-use tower(as you point out is rare in this area) filled with hotel and condo units it will hopefully bring more people there. It also says in the article that this building will contain upscale retail.