CHICAGO | InterContinental North Tower | 850 FT / 259 M | 71 FLOORS | PRO - Page 11

spyguy · #**201** Posted **Jan 10, 2007, 6:44 AM**

Good news, this project has a lot of positives, among them the demolition of the ugly addition.

I'm pretty sure it's still the design on front page, and not the other two versions.

honte · #**202** Posted **Jan 10, 2007, 7:41 AM**

^ Yes. This is the explanation from the engineering firm:

"The Intercontinental Hotel
Chicago, Illinois

This mixed use project combines hotel rooms and facilities in the lower portion of the tower, condominium residences in the upper portions and parking in a multi-level basement. Working with Lucien Lagrange Architects, HP developed three alternate structural concepts for the proposed 850 foot tall tower: a framed tube scheme, a core and outrigger scheme and a diagonalized concrete tube. The core and outrigger scheme was selected because it gave extraordinary openness around the perimeter of the building while being the least costly.”

Two notes about this: 1) Credit should be given, it appears, to Halvorson and Parntners, not Lucien Lagrange, for the super-cool diagrid scheme. This would make some sense (ahem). 2) The results of H-K working with Norman Foster in Chicago (failed) and Russia appear to be rubbing off a bit on Chicago design! I was wondering where on earth that Fosteresque version came from, but H-K's involvement is the missing link. I hope we do see a diagrid structural system here in the near future.

Great that this one is back on-track!! BVic, now don't drop any more bombs about it shrinking a la Mandarin.

Last, I have to argue that I don't think the existing building is ugly at all. I find it rather tasteful...

BVictor1 · #**203** Posted **Jan 10, 2007, 8:46 AM**

What I've heard is that the city wants to "LANDMARK" more of the south tower than the developer want

It's about time Chicago Landmarks Commission took a stand!!! This is encouraging news for many more of the citys gems. Although, I still must say that I do support projects like the Legacy. Restore the landmark facades and demo the uninspiring areas.

Chi_Coruscant · #**204** Posted **Jan 10, 2007, 11:58 AM**

Terrific! I recall there were two different design versions: (1) ordinary tall and glassy; (2) diagrid scheme. I am hoping I-C would go for diagrid. It has been a long while for Mag Mile to have a unique architecture since JHC and Crate & Barrel flagship store.

headcase · #**205** Posted **Jan 10, 2007, 12:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

What I've heard is that the city wants to "LANDMARK" more of the south tower than the developer want

It's about time Chicago Landmarks Commission took a stand!!! This is encouraging news for many more of the citys gems. Although, I still must say that I do support projects like the Legacy. Restore the landmark facades and demo the uninspiring areas.

That's great, I don't know exactly what it means as far as getting the north tower built, but the south tower is great, some excellent detail work on it.

SSDD

honte · #**206** Posted **Jan 10, 2007, 3:55 PM**

^ Wow, great news! This is one that many people, myself included at times, start to think is actually landmarked due to the high degree of preservation and the prominence.

I was just through the entire hotel over Christmas. Man, I had no idea how incredible that place is inside, or the vastness of it. There are at least 7 floors of historic spaces above the lobby, with roaring '20s deco designs throughout. Ballroom after ballroom. It's really incredible.

They'll work something out with the city and we'll hopefully have the best of both worlds - a future landmark and a preserved old one.

Chi_Coruscant, read my post above - the diagrid was just a concept. It's not in the running.

Chicago Shawn · #**207** Posted **Jan 10, 2007, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

^ Wow, great news! This is one that many people, myself included at times, start to think is actually landmarked due to the high degree of preservation and the prominence.

I was just through the entire hotel over Christmas. Man, I had no idea how incredible that place is inside, or the vastness of it. There are at least 7 floors of historic spaces above the lobby, with roaring '20s deco designs throughout. Ballroom after ballroom. It's really incredible.

They'll work something out with the city and we'll hopefully have the best of both worlds - a future landmark and a preserved old one.

Chi_Coruscant, read my post above - the diagrid was just a concept. It's not in the running.

I concour with that, I was in there for the first time in December, and was blown away. All those levels of preserved spaces above the lobby is like accending a stairway to heaven.

Chi_Coruscant · #**208** Posted **Jan 11, 2007, 1:34 AM**

Thanks for correction, honte. I really like diagrid scheme which will make Mag Mile more interesting. Too bad it's only a concept.

pip · #**209** Posted **Jan 11, 2007, 4:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Heard something about the Intercontinental Hotel redevelopment...

Lets just say, that it doesn't appear to be as far back on the burner as we all might think.

How did I miss this. Excellent news. More importantly it seems as if the Chicago Landmarks Commission has actually gotten some backbone. Twice in a week, first the Ritz and now this.

honte · #**210** Posted **Jan 11, 2007, 8:21 AM**

^ Not meaning to nit-pick, but just a point to help explain the strange landmarking process in Chicago.

The Farwell thing was an example of the physical Board members of the Commission getting some cahones. These are the appointed members who sit on the Board and are not city staffers. And while we'd all like the Commission to really behave like a true democratic device, the Farwell victory was sadly partly due to the fact that there was one abstention and one absence.

Now, as far as any possible discussion of landmarking the existing hotel Intercontinental, this would be action taken on behalf of the Landmarks division of the Department of Planning and Development. These are the city guys who make the recommendations to the board, which then are usually rubber-stamped as you suggest.

This process of landmarking a building when the developer needs city favors is actually becoming quite common in Chicago. The City likes to do this because they have a hand in negotiations, and the developer is ready to "play." Chicago does have the right to landmark any building on the spot (with a considerable amount of due process, of course), but they would rather not do this with large downtown buildings because the owners have deep pockets and this results in big-time lawsuits some of the time. Just another example of how the Big Boys get off more easily, I suppose.

The landmarking of the Pittsfield, Mather Tower, Randolph Tower, Medical Arts, NW Powerhouse, and several others happened as part of a redevelopment credit or other favor from the City. Other critical buildings, such as Wrigley, remain mysteriously unprotected but they've been going about their business without any requests for help (watch Wrigley, by the way, for a major renovation of its inner "mall" once Trump is done - this would be unacceptable probably if it were landmarked). Chicago is still the Land of the Deal.

BVictor1 · #**211** Posted **Jan 13, 2007, 6:21 AM**

I've heard from a second source that the plans for the north tower redevelopment are "still in progress". It was mentioned that they posibally might start releasing more information sometime this fall.

But our assumption that things slowed down because of the lower hotel vacancy rates were on the mark.

chicubs111 · #**212** Posted **Jan 13, 2007, 1:35 PM**

Damn...so we have to wait till fall for any new information to come out on this tower?..that sucks

jcchii · #**213** Posted **Jan 13, 2007, 3:41 PM**

I have to believe something will happen for this in the next few years. It makes too much sense.

Diagrid version arguably the best proposed building in town

Alliance · #**214** Posted **Jan 13, 2007, 8:47 PM**

Its good to hear discussion on this building again.

Steely Dan · #**215** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 1:48 AM**

sorry folks, no news, just purge protection for the thread.

honte · #**216** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 2:43 AM**

^ Well, the good news was Strategic's excellent performance this quarter. I think they will be in a favorable position with lenders when it comes time to do this deal.

SamInTheLoop · #**217** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 4:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

^ Well, the good news was Strategic's excellent performance this quarter. I think they will be in a favorable position with lenders when it comes time to do this deal.

Absolutely. You know, that gets me thinking - I wonder if they would even consider a re-programming of the project - to maybe make a good portion of the new tower regular hotel rooms or suites...perhaps keep 20%-30% at the top condos, if at all. In related Strategic news, they do seem to respond reasonably well to changing market conditions, as they recently officially shelved plans to sell some of the rooms at the Fairmont...

Tom In Chicago · #**218** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 5:58 PM**

I think that if there's no news for a month or so we should let these threads die. . . if need be we can start them anew, but why we are bumping them just for convenience sake is slightly irritating given the lack of news. . .

Steely Dan · #**219** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

I think that if there's no news for a month or so we should let these threads die. . . if need be we can start them anew, but why we are bumping them just for convenience sake is slightly irritating given the lack of news. . .

becuase once a thread is purged, it's gone for good. if this project does end up becoming a reality, it'll be nice to have a continuum of dialogue and news from the very beginning.

spyguy · #**220** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 10:43 PM**

Yeah, it would be a shame to lose all the info.