CHICAGO | 680 North Rush | 752 FT / 229 M | 64 FLOORS | NEVER BUILT - Page 7

the urban politician · #**121** Posted **Jun 25, 2006, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classi...realestate-hed

THE MIDWEST
Canyon Ranch plans area condos

By Levi J. Long
Knight Ridder/Tribune: The Arizona Daily Star
Published May 28, 2006

Touted as Canyon Ranch's first "urban lifestyle community," the high-rise will house a 65,000-square-foot health and wellness center, 256 luxury condos, 128 hotel-condominium rooms and more than 48,000 square feet of office space.

^ It's going to have office space? I wasn't aware of that

Quote:

Behind New York City and Washington, D.C., Chicago ranks as Canyon Ranch's third-largest market for guests, Kelly said.[/

^ Huh? Chicago's market smaller than DC? Get off the cannabis, dude.

Anyway, it looks like this project has a good chance of getting built, an in an area that is collecting its fair share of boring beige boxes, it's nice to see something round and glassy. Thumbs up

Adam186 · #**122** Posted **Jun 25, 2006, 5:46 AM**

^The offices will probably used for their own purposes. I too really want this to be built. I have a feeling it won't be too long until they start prep.

rds989 · #**123** Posted **Jun 25, 2006, 6:07 AM**

". . . third-largest market for guests" means more people from Washington happen to patronize Canyon Ranch's existing properties than do people from Chicago. Not a comment on the objective size of the Chicago market.

spyguy · #**124** Posted **Jun 25, 2006, 6:29 AM**

I think the offices are for the church.

denizen467 · #**125** Posted **Jun 25, 2006, 6:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It's going to have office space? I wasn't aware of that

Remember, the whole point of this building is for the Episcopal Diocese to use its land more efficiently. The "office" space will just be a replacement for the church's current building there, which is a small structure probably in the vicinity of 48000 SF.

denizen467 · #**126** Posted **Jun 25, 2006, 6:39 AM**

D'oh, another night owl was writing the same thing.

Steely Dan · #**127** Posted **Jun 27, 2006, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

bottom of page two... way too far for my liking...bump bump bumpity bump

found this over at SSC posted by richardsonhomebuyers:

"Not sure if anyone knows this yet but this building is now being called 680 N Rush. Also the height from the street is showing as 752'. Don't know if that is how it will be measured but that is what it is showing from street level."

i've now changed the title of this thread to reflect the new addres.

as for the new height, i'm gonna leave well enough alone for now until we now more.

spyguy · #**128** Posted **Jul 21, 2006, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

They have really small renderings. The "hole" looks a little different too:

the urban politician · #**129** Posted **Jul 21, 2006, 5:16 PM**

^ I can tell by the timing of your posts that you read the Yo, don't you?

It's actually a decent website, except that a certain person turned me sour over it.

spyguy · #**130** Posted **Jul 21, 2006, 5:28 PM**

Heh, yeah, I forgot about this one until I saw that image and it was the 3rd time I've seen it with the square in the hole so I felt pretty confident that it was legit and the latest design.

hi123 · #**131** Posted **Jul 21, 2006, 6:06 PM**

will this be starting construction any time soon? it feels like this will never happen.

Steely Dan · #**132** Posted **Jul 27, 2006, 11:50 PM**

^ i'm pretty sure when we first heard about this project way back when, they were talking about a spring 2007 construction start, so they're not even off their own schedule. putting the finacials together for big projects like this can take a lot of time. this is chicago, we don't have arab prince oil barons who strut around town throwing billions of dollars at what ever wild scheme strikes their fancy.

Busy Bee · #**133** Posted **Jul 28, 2006, 12:57 AM**

^I kind of wish we did. Not a Arab oil baron though. Another Vanderbilt, Armour or Rockefeller would be okay though.

honte · #**134** Posted **Jul 28, 2006, 1:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hi123

will this be starting construction any time soon? it feels like this will never happen.

This is one of those that I feel lukewarm about. I don't really mind if it doesn't happen, because I love the building that's there now. I think, architecturally, the existing building is far superior.

ComandanteCero · #**135** Posted **Jul 28, 2006, 5:53 AM**

do you have a picture of the existing building?

oshkeoto · #**136** Posted **Jul 28, 2006, 5:53 AM**

^ What's there now? I can't picture it.

Also, does anyone else feel like at this point, they might as well just remove the little indentation? I'm not sure it's adding much to the building.

honte · #**137** Posted **Jul 28, 2006, 5:03 PM**

This is a photo I took of the existing building in 2003. (You can see 55 E. Erie in the background under construction. There was another beautiful building there, by SOM, that was similar in scale to this one. It's a shame to lose them both.)

The existing building is the church offices, which are going to remain in the new building. The photograph doesn't really do it justice. It's just beautifully planned and beautifully executed - the architectural detail is quite stunning. And the elevated plaza is wonderful - there are no rails, as you can see, and the feeling is very nice. There is also a beautiful reflecting pool tucked in the back.

The architect (I'm going to spell it wrong) was Jim Roesch. Someone should look in the AIA guide to verify this.

You can see this is a classic Chicago-school Miesian structure, but very individual at the same time. Not all of his protégées got that part right.

Busy Bee · #**138** Posted **Jul 28, 2006, 6:10 PM**

We have plenty of Miesian boxes left so no one will forget about that period in architecture. I'll take the tower thank you.

nomarandlee · #**139** Posted **Jul 28, 2006, 6:21 PM**

I agree. It looks very solid and obviosly I would prefer to keep it and build Canyon ranch on a lot somewhere but its not to be. .

Some things scream out preservation to me and I am not sure if this one does (and I definatley consider myself bent more towards the preservationest tilt). If you are not wanting something like Canyon Ranch built on it then you are basically asking for it to be land marked because nothing else down the pike is likely going to give something as nice looking as Canyon Ranch on that lot.

I just reay like the looks of this building from the ground and the air. I definatley prefer to have it built over the MO or Cityfront for instance. I hope it gets built.

kevininlb · #**140** Posted **Jul 28, 2006, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

This is a photo I took of the existing building in 2003. (You can see 55 E. Erie in the background under construction. There was another beautiful building there, by SOM, that was similar in scale to this one. It's a shame to lose them both.)

The existing building is the church offices, which are going to remain in the new building. The photograph doesn't really do it justice. It's just beautifully planned and beautifully executed - the architectural detail is quite stunning. And the elevated plaza is wonderful - there are no rails, as you can see, and the feeling is very nice. There is also a beautiful reflecting pool tucked in the back.

The architect (I'm going to spell it wrong) was Jim Roesch. Someone should look in the AIA guide to verify this.

You can see this is a classic Chicago-school Miesian structure, but very individual at the same time. Not all of his protégées got that part right.

I love this building and the neighborhood. I hate to see this go. It provides such a quiet, nice little respite from the rest of downtown. I love towers, but this makes me downright unhappy.