CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS - Page 85

Darude_Sandstorm · #**1681** Posted **Mar 11, 2020, 8:52 PM**

I would cut off my pinky toe if it meant that Related would fail to build the south tower after completing north tower.

HomrQT · #**1682** Posted **Mar 11, 2020, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

If they are using waterfall as inspiration for the architecture, they should just call it the Waterfall Towers instead of 400 N. LSD

The Falls

F1 Tommy · #**1683** Posted **Mar 11, 2020, 10:21 PM**

SOM did a great job. The details look elegant.

rgarri4 · #**1684** Posted **Mar 11, 2020, 10:29 PM**

Has presentation been posted yet? I don't even know where to look on the Alderman's website? He said it would be posted this morning.

KWillChicago · #**1685** Posted **Mar 11, 2020, 10:35 PM**

Two water ways and a busy LSD on three sides? This is going to be amazing watch rise with the complication the small work area provided. Big Red has it's hands full.

bnk · #**1686** Posted **Mar 11, 2020, 11:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

I would cut off my pinky toe if it meant that Related would fail to build the south tower after completing north tower.

What do you mean?

What are your plans for the south tower than if it would not be built as is?

10023 · #**1687** Posted **Mar 11, 2020, 11:46 PM**

How do we get this one?

Northwest · #**1688** Posted **Mar 12, 2020, 12:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

What do you mean?

What are your plans for the south tower than if it would not be built as is?

My biggest fear now as well. This would look pretty unbalanced as a single tower, the design really hinges on them being a matched pair. With only one planning construction, and economic uncertainty ahead... well you know.
Haven't there been many instances of planned twins only to have the second one abandoned, or redesigned? I would like to see this built, provided we are indeed getting both. If things change, and a decade passes, are they really going to stick with the original plan, and source the exact same glass and terra cotta?

Steely Dan · #**1689** Posted **Mar 12, 2020, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

How do we get this one?

We don't.

jc5680 · #**1690** Posted **Mar 13, 2020, 11:54 PM**

Reilly shared the presentation with lots of rendering and diagrams in his weekly email

r18tdi · #**1691** Posted **Mar 14, 2020, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

Care to bet if we'll see fugly louvers on those grey shaded mechanical floors?

Steely Dan · #**1692** Posted **Mar 14, 2020, 12:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

]

Interesting, those height tags don't actually point to the tops of the towers on the revised diagram. A mistake? or could the actual structural heights be more like 900' & 790'?

Every little bit of extra height they can squeeze out of them will help from a skyline perspective.

I'm still totally in love with the design. These will be excellent additions if they're built as shown.

jc5680 · #**1693** Posted **Mar 14, 2020, 12:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Interesting, those height tags don't actually point to the tops of the towers on the revised diagram. A mistake? or could the actual structural heights be more like 900' & 790'?

If I had to guess, it looks like whoever put the presentation design together probably had the models scaled 1:1 but then was asked to or someone else made the new model taller to match the height of the previous version without moving the labels. The 875 label is more or less 875 on the left hand model

moorhosj1 · #**1694** Posted **Mar 14, 2020, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Interesting, those height tags don't actually point to the tops of the towers on the revised diagram. A mistake? or could the actual structural heights be more like 900' & 790'?

Every little bit of extra height they can squeeze out of them will help from a skyline perspective.

I'm still totally in love with the design. These will be excellent additions if they're built as shown.

I think the new buildings are "inside" the original diagram in the Revised Design. The gold-ish color represents the new building footprint within the original design.

HomrQT · #**1695** Posted **Mar 14, 2020, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

If I had to guess, it looks like whoever put the presentation design together probably had the models scaled 1:1 but then was asked to or someone else made the new model taller to match the height of the previous version without moving the labels. The 875 label is more or less 875 on the left hand model

My first thoughts as well. Perhaps they thought the new design looked inferior being represented as smaller so they just scaled it up larger to match the old one.

pip · #**1696** Posted **Mar 14, 2020, 2:28 AM**

I gotta even though I am disappointed with the height reduction they still look great and will be a good addition to the skyline

skysoar · #**1697** Posted **Mar 14, 2020, 3:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Interesting, those height tags don't actually point to the tops of the towers on the revised diagram. A mistake? or could the actual structural heights be more like 900' & 790'?

Every little bit of extra height they can squeeze out of them will help from a skyline perspective.

I'm still totally in love with the design. These will be excellent additions if they're built as shown.

I thought the original heights were 1100ft for the South tower and 850 ft for the North tower. Neither of those previous heights are indicated on this diagram. I agree with Steely ,there may be no definitive height established on these two. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my behalf.?

ChiTownWonder · #**1698** Posted **Mar 14, 2020, 9:39 PM**

Yeah agree with most on here. The design is unique and beautiful (like a man made waterfall) and the terracotta elements would be stunning up close and passing by on LSD. These with the finishing of DuSable park and the Flyover will make this stretch of lakefront feel complete.

Also just an interesting fact the north tower will be the tallest building directly facing the lake. So while the impact on the skyline from other angles will be barely impacted, this thing will pop from the mouth of the river, the lake and Navy Pier. If parcel I is built as proposed that area of the city will certainly be the climax of the skyline when viewing from the lake especially when considering Vista and Trump straight down the river.

Zapatan · #**1699** Posted **Apr 20, 2020, 10:39 PM**

I wonder if they still plan to get started in May (which was originally when they'd break ground if I'm not mistaken?)

Nice to see other Chicago construction powering through Covid in any case (whether unwise or not)

CrazyCres · #**1700** Posted **Apr 20, 2020, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I wonder if they still plan to get started in May (which was originally when they'd break ground if I'm not mistaken?)

Nice to see other Chicago construction powering through Covid in any case (whether unwise or not)

It's confusing, the developers said Early 2021, but they need to start construction in May or lose zoning.

Unless the project gets approved next month and breaks ground a week or two later they'll have to work through a longer approval process, which could be what they want, to wait out the virus until early next year.