SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | Salesforce Tower | 835 FT | 60 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217949)

the urban politician Jan 9, 2019 5:39 PM

^ The nice think about building on "the best parcel in the city" is that you always create a new "best parcel in the city".

maru2501 Jan 9, 2019 5:46 PM

access was always going to hamper it a little but yeah. and the places where you can make a strong argument for even a 1500-foot mixed-use building are dwindling

trib site is one of those, but who knows if that goes this cycle or ever

intrepidDesign Jan 9, 2019 5:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8430842)
^ The nice think about building on "the best parcel in the city" is that you always create a new "best parcel in the city".

Yeah but point to another parcel that is at the confluence of 3 rivers and on a slight peninsula. There are none. IMHO this is THE best parcel in the city, if it's built on, will here be other land that's desirable, of course, but it will be the next best thing to this land.

BVictor1 Jan 9, 2019 6:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8430842)
^ The nice think about building on "the best parcel in the city" is that you always create a new "best parcel in the city".

You're not going to create another 'best parcel' on the main branch.

nomarandlee Jan 9, 2019 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 8430728)
Meh... mediocrity reigns supreme. If Salesforce pulled out tomorrow and this tower died I'd be happy.

Have to say I agree. There a few critical points in Chicago's geography where the location calls for an iconic tower, either by design or height or both. While solid it doesn't stand out in either case, as of yet.

We got sold short on the conspicuous River Point location, I'd rather not see the same happen here.

Donnie77 Jan 9, 2019 11:05 PM

As much as we all would like to see a 900+ it's still going to complete a trio of near 800 footers that balance that area beautifully!

SamInTheLoop Jan 10, 2019 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 8430728)
Meh... mediocrity reigns supreme. If Salesforce pulled out tomorrow and this tower died I'd be happy.


Really disagree. The architecture at Wolf Point is turning out to be top-notch all-around.

Height figures: Much less important.

Steely Dan Jan 10, 2019 3:35 PM

* MODERATOR NOTE *


i move the off-topic discussion to the general discussion thread: https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/sho...d.php?t=208431

Zapatan Jan 10, 2019 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 8431939)
Really disagree. The architecture at Wolf Point is turning out to be top-notch all-around.

Height figures: Much less important.

I disagree (about the height that is), especially in that location.

But yea they look nice

SpireGuy Jan 10, 2019 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 8430959)
Have to say I agree. There a few critical points in Chicago's geography where the location calls for an iconic tower, either by design or height or both. While solid it doesn't stand out in either case, as of yet.

We got sold short on the conspicuous River Point location, I'd rather not see the same happen here.

Agreed 100% Wolf Point South, West, and East are all such missed opportunities. I'd rather wait for a new proposal. They are inoffensive, but kind of blahh. :(

BonoboZill4 Jan 11, 2019 1:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpireGuy (Post 8432273)
Agreed 100% Wolf Point South, West, and East are all such missed opportunities. I'd rather wait for a new proposal. They are inoffensive, but kind of blahh. :(

I disagree 100%. WPW and WPE have been amazing. Design is not and issue here, and while we can complain that each tower didn't squeeze out another 100 feet, we can't act like the site could realistically hold a 1200 foot tower, and an office tower that big would have been impossible because any core for a tower that tall would leave minimal square footage, especially if the tower were made mixed-use.

I'll never have any issues with real towers being built over "potential" that never materializes.

Fvn Jan 11, 2019 2:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8432729)
we can't act like the site could realistically hold a 1200 foot tower, and an office tower that big would have been impossible because any core for a tower that tall would leave minimal square footage, especially if the tower were made mixed-use.

This IIRC is the reason Hines didn't go taller for WPS.

Pretty sure a hypothetical 1000+ foot office/mixed-use tower would minimally need the entire space left on the site. The footprint for Salesforce tower San Francisco is like 200x200 (feet)

BonoboZill4 Jan 11, 2019 2:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fvn (Post 8432782)
This IIRC is the reason Hines didn't go taller for WPS.

Pretty sure a hypothetical 1000+ foot office/mixed-use tower would minimally need the entire space left on the site. The footprint for Salesforce tower San Francisco is like 200x200 (feet)

Yeah, with how much green space they wanted from the start, plus the fact the parking garage takes up about half the lot as is, it just wasn't feasible without an oddly shaped tower, or something far too expensive for Chicago real estate.

That lot in NYC? Yeah, we could be talking about 1200+, but this isn't Billionaire's Row.

Edit: Adding to this and all the height obsessed people here(and don't get me wrong, I love supertalls), but just take a stroll to the base of Chase tower during the week on a lunch break. Stand underneath it in its plaza. This tower will be roughly the same height as that beast. Chase tower is imposing, and this tower will be as imposing when viewed from riverboat tours or the river walk. 850 feet is big, and as far as my eyes can tell, the visual difference between 850 and 1450 of the Sears tower is pretty minimal at street level. There's a certain point where verticality stops matter in some weird optical illusion at street level. I don't know what the physics of it are, but I walk by the Sears tower basically every day and it really doesn't look like it's twice or three times as tall as the buildings around it.

From a skyline perspective, I get it, we aren't getting something that will add another spike to the skyline, but at the same time, the Western, Southern, and Northern views of the skyline wouldn't really have allowed this tower to show off much even if we go with a pipe-dream height of 1200 feet to the parapet. A 950 foot WPS compared to 850 would do almost nothing visually speaking, at least in my opinion and based off my experience of staring at towers every day of my life in real life and online.

Zapatan Jan 11, 2019 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8432798)

Edit: Adding to this and all the height obsessed people here(and don't get me wrong, I love supertalls), but just take a stroll to the base of Chase tower during the week on a lunch break. Stand underneath it in its plaza. This tower will be roughly the same height as that beast. Chase tower is imposing, and this tower will be as imposing when viewed from riverboat tours or the river walk. 850 feet is big, and as far as my eyes can tell, the visual difference between 850 and 1450 of the Sears tower is pretty minimal at street level. There's a certain point where verticality stops matter in some weird optical illusion at street level. I don't know what the physics of it are, but I walk by the Sears tower basically every day and it really doesn't look like it's twice or three times as tall as the buildings around it.


Right, obviously angles distort size, and it's hard to tell how high a building is from the base sometimes. Walk a few blocks away, however, and the difference is quickly noticeable. Especially when the Sears Tower is structurally double that of an 850 foot building. It'll still have an awesome effect in that area of the river though.

In California I see the tallest buildings in LA and SF frequently, at just over 1000' they certainly are very tall but not quite overwhelming. I remember seeing Sears and the WTC and just being like holy sh*t.

The Lurker Jan 11, 2019 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8432798)
Yeah, with how much green space they wanted from the start, plus the fact the parking garage takes up about half the lot as is, it just wasn't feasible without an oddly shaped tower, or something far too expensive for Chicago real estate.

That lot in NYC? Yeah, we could be talking about 1200+, but this isn't Billionaire's Row.

Edit: Adding to this and all the height obsessed people here(and don't get me wrong, I love supertalls), but just take a stroll to the base of Chase tower during the week on a lunch break. Stand underneath it in its plaza. This tower will be roughly the same height as that beast. Chase tower is imposing, and this tower will be as imposing when viewed from riverboat tours or the river walk. 850 feet is big, and as far as my eyes can tell, the visual difference between 850 and 1450 of the Sears tower is pretty minimal at street level. There's a certain point where verticality stops matter in some weird optical illusion at street level. I don't know what the physics of it are, but I walk by the Sears tower basically every day and it really doesn't look like it's twice or three times as tall as the buildings around it.

From a skyline perspective, I get it, we aren't getting something that will add another spike to the skyline, but at the same time, the Western, Southern, and Northern views of the skyline wouldn't really have allowed this tower to show off much even if we go with a pipe-dream height of 1200 feet to the parapet. A 950 foot WPS compared to 850 would do almost nothing visually speaking, at least in my opinion and based off my experience of staring at towers every day of my life in real life and online.

I would argue that Chase looks taller than Sears from ground level. But i think a lot of that verticality comes from the tapering columns and sunken plaza. I agree with what you're saying though. Perception changes with perspective.

However I do think you are underestimating the impact this will have from the North and West in particular. Make no mistake, even at 800-850 feet this thing is going to be huge and there's nothing to the north or west if it that even approaches that height that could block it.

BonoboZill4 Jan 12, 2019 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurker (Post 8433570)
I would argue that Chase looks taller than Sears from ground level. But i think a lot of that verticality comes from the tapering columns and sunken plaza. I agree with what you're saying though. Perception changes with perspective.

However I do think you are underestimating the impact this will have from the North and West in particular. Make no mistake, even at 800-850 feet this thing is going to be huge and there's nothing to the north or west if it that even approaches that height that could block it.

I can definitely see how it'll impact the North the more I think about it, but from the West, won't its bulk be absorb in peaks that are already in place? (Aon, Pru2, Trump, Vista, Aqua, River Point depending on where it's seen on the west)

k1052 Jan 12, 2019 1:59 PM

Got my letter in the mail yesterday from the lawyers officially noticing the plan commission meeting on the 24th for this. Expected but shows everything is on track.

The Lurker Jan 12, 2019 2:15 PM

I can see what you're saying Bonobo but it all depends on perspective again. You gotta be pretty far west to see the Aon Center peaking over River Point/150. Like way out past Ashland, and Salesforce will be ~100' taller.
This shot from Green Line/Ashland is a couple years old now but this building will be every bit as tall as Trump from that distance and Aon isn't visible at all. Even Vista will be entirely blocked by River Point.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8705/...75fd47c2_c.jpg

BonoboZill4 Jan 12, 2019 8:33 PM

Okay, that angle changes my mind... and hot damn, that's gonna be a giant blue shiny curtain wall from Wolf Point to the Bank of America Tower in 2022!

Whenever I think of the West I think of I-290, but that Green Line view is great

r18tdi Jan 13, 2019 1:00 AM

Since the crown is going to be dominated by blue cartoon-looking cloud I don't think we really need this thing to be another 100 feet.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.