CHICAGO | Beitler Telecom Tower | 2,000 FT / 610 M | NEVER BUILT - Page 18

Nowhereman1280 · #**341** Posted **Dec 1, 2006, 8:40 AM**

A few points on this one:

1. No matter how much you want it to be built in the South Loop, 3 miles out of downtown, or anywhere else thats more than a few blocks from Michigan Ave, Navy Pier, the Water Tower, or any other major tourist draw, it will not happen. Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that this is not just an antenna, its a tourist attraction that doubles as an antenna. No one wants to drive 3 miles out of downtown just to go to a slightly higher observatory when they can just go to the Hancock or the Sears and get roughly the same experience.

2. There is a reason he is not just building a building like Miglin-Beitler or 7SD. Its because he thinks (whether correctly or not) that there will not be enough demand to support another building of that size. However, he may be able to convince investors that they can make a lot of money on this thing if they are willing to keep their money locked up in in for a decade while the hundreds of thosands of $25 skydeck tickets pour in, the resturant sells food at tourist prices, and the TV stations have to renewn multi million dollar leases multiple times.

3. No, the skyneedle is not the best building ever, it is second best after the Illinois. I'm telling you, thats what Beitler should be proposing, he should by the rights to that sketch and four squre blocks in the west loop, you know where the NIMBYs run rampant and prevent anything over 10 stories from being built, and build the Illinois there, just to teach the NIMBYS a lesson. Think of how much TV companies would be willing to pay for space that broadcasts not only to Chicago, but Milwaukee, Madison, Gary, Peoria, and possibly even Indianapolis. Haha, that would be sooo sweet, it would be like 4 times the height of the Sears. Then we could tell Dubai (and everyone else) to suck it.

Alliance · #**342** Posted **Dec 1, 2006, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

1. No matter how much you want it to be built in the South Loop, 3 miles out of downtown, or anywhere else thats more than a few blocks from Michigan Ave, Navy Pier, the Water Tower, or any other major tourist draw, it will not happen. Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that this is not just an antenna, its a tourist attraction that doubles as an antenna. No one wants to drive 3 miles out of downtown just to go to a slightly higher observatory when they can just go to the Hancock or the Sears and get roughly the same experience.

Three miles outside of downtown is too far, that doesnt mean it has to go right in the front of the city. I'd much prefer it set back farther. Besides, you'll get better views of the city if its not smack dab in the center.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

2. There is a reason he is not just building a building like Miglin-Beitler or 7SD. Its because he thinks (whether correctly or not) that there will not be enough demand to support another building of that size. However, he may be able to convince investors that they can make a lot of money on this thing if they are willing to keep their money locked up in in for a decade while the hundreds of thosands of $25 skydeck tickets pour in, the resturant sells food at tourist prices, and the TV stations have to renewn multi million dollar leases multiple times.

Yeah, but 7SD is a better proposal. Not better economically? Sure. However, I really loathe broadcast towers. Its what makes tall buildings even more elegant. They're both economical and big.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

3. No, the skyneedle is not the best building ever, it is second best after the Illinois. I'm telling you, thats what Beitler should be proposing, he should by the rights to that sketch and four squre blocks in the west loop, you know where the NIMBYs run rampant and prevent anything over 10 stories from being built, and build the Illinois there, just to teach the NIMBYS a lesson. Think of how much TV companies would be willing to pay for space that broadcasts not only to Chicago, but Milwaukee, Madison, Gary, Peoria, and possibly even Indianapolis. Haha, that would be sooo sweet, it would be like 4 times the height of the Sears. Then we could tell Dubai (and everyone else) to suck it.

Cant even think about arguing. Nowhereman for mayor.

Via Chicago · #**343** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 1:33 AM**

ugh god, this thing makes me want to vomit. make it go away.

Mr Roboto · #**344** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 2:20 AM**

Yes, keep it dead please.

Out of curiosity, what if somehow he built this on top of a 12 story building. Then it would be like a spire right? Then it would be officially a 2000' building right?! What a cheap way to get the tallest building. Thats why these building height standards are dumb.

VivaLFuego · #**345** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 3:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

ugh god, this thing makes me want to vomit. make it go away.

I almost feel like something so controversial, i.e. people seem to form strong opinions about whether it should or should not be built based on aesthetics, should definitely be built, just because of the thought and discussion it provokes (like controversial art).

As opposed to something like the massacre about to be performed on Mid-America Plaza ("Park Monroe"), which is universally decried.

chi-townJay · #**346** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 6:36 AM**

this would simply DESTROY our skyline if built in the same location as CS.

Tom Servo · #**347** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 7:15 AM**

It might be safe to say that, because everyone seems to HATE this tower, it most likely will never get built. or at least not this design.

*bring back 7SD!!*

Nowhereman1280 · #**348** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 7:54 AM**

I don't hate it.

Or have I just given in to the fact that this tower is so evil that all attempts to stop it are futile?

Seriously though, I think, if built in the right place, this could be a serious addition to the skyline and add something new and dynamic which Chicago has never had in its skyline before. In the newer renders it doesn't have that cheesy cement pole quality to it anymore, which makes it look much better. It would look really sweet across from CS if they made CS black and made this tower black as well, besides it would fit in better with Sears and Hancock if they did that.

rbowk · #**349** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 8:13 AM**

i like the desighn but if it was on the oter side of the city were the jhon hankock center is it would be geat

Chicago Shawn · #**350** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 9:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Build it on some vacant land in the South Loop.

I agree. I think this would be a very nice center piece to Riverside Park. It would also have the spillover effect of infusing modern architecture into the site, and hopefully the other marketable buildings within the development would then follow suit. Perfect location to terminate the water taxi routes as well and draw more activity to this neglected part of the central area.

jcchii · #**351** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 4:41 PM**

he keeps putting it in streeterville because he wants to fill the restaurant and observation deck with tourists.
he needs the navy pier area foot traffic. he's not going to put it somewhere down in the south loop where the family of four from ohio is going to have to take a cab down to it from the sheraton.

the urban politician · #**352** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 4:54 PM**

They should tear down Dearborn Park and build 10 of these in its place

ZZ-II · #**353** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 6:24 PM**

10?? are you crazy?

Marcu · #**354** Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 11:48 PM**

Does anyone have an idea as to whether the tv equipment is actually needed? Because if so, it's just a matter of time before we get a tower/antenna add-on somewhere unless they can upgrade prud/hancock/sears.

denizen467 · #**355** Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 8:26 AM**

^ Hmm, are radio/tv broadcasts really being done from Pru?

My understanding is that it is needed. I think broadcasters are increasingly finding it a problem dealing with the restrictions of being an afterthought added on top of an office/residential building. It's not just the technology and capacity, but things like extent of access for maintenance and construction, adequate backup generators, etc. It makes sense that they would all want to join forces to finance a purpose-built tower where they could dictate the terms (including to some degree, rent).

the urban politician · #**356** Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 8:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZZ-II

10?? are you crazy?

^ Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking?

20.

jcchii · #**357** Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 5:49 PM**

I'm not sure which corner this would be

there is the one hotel surface lot roughly at the SE corner

Nowhereman1280 · #**358** Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yeah, you're right. What was I thinking?

20.

They should place them all over Grant Park just like those wierd Legs statues they just put in down by Rosevelt, it would be the ultimate expression of modern art, 10-20 gigantic evil broadcast tower randomly interspursed throughout the park.

Marcu · #**359** Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ Hmm, are radio/tv broadcasts really being done from Pru?

Maybe not. I guess I just sort of assumed that's what the antenna was for.

denizen467 · #**360** Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 8:40 PM**

I think it used to be, back in the day. But I seem to remember reading somewhere that a decision was made to leave it up there even though most broadcasting would be done from JHC/Sears. I can't remember whether the reason was cost, nostalgia, or some residual telecommunications usage.