From the above image, I like the step up pattern of four rectangles from south to north.

They're trying to remain contextual with the base and go sculptural with the tower.

I can't lie. That makes it look beautiful. Still wish it was the original proposal. I doubt this'll be built anytime soon, though.

Is there a German word for hodgepodge? I get an impression that the developer is stretching poor Jahn past his aesthetic sense's breaking point.

I'm not sure that I've seen any renderings of the view from the Wabash side. Does the podium go all othe way back to Wabash or will they keep an empty lot behind it?

The property on Wabash belongs to someone else.

More window wall. Cheap. :rolleyes:

I just checked on Google translate, and it's literally 'Mischmasch' LOL

^That rendering is a totally different design than the one shown on the previous page and than we have seen before. Note that the piers from the podium extend significantly higher into the tower, and the east facade of the tower has a fold in it similar to the south facade rather than a slight bow

Also there are some sloppy anomalies and geometric improbabilities going on with the upper east facade that suggests this was quickly thrown together.

That's an improvement

foreaaal.:cheers:

Yes, it's rather Escher-esque. Definitely not an ideal perspective of the upper part of the tower. Very interested to see how that subtle centerline ridge interfaces with whatever is going on 7-8 floors below the crown. If accurate, It almost looks like the Eastern side of the top 8-ish floors bow out a slightly more than the floors below creating a mini cantilever.

They need to stop finessing this iteration of the design and just go back to the drawing board. Every version I've seen has been so uncharacteristically inelegant for Jahn.

And I'm still failing to see the logic of the height cap figure chosen for the historic district. The difference between 800+ and 1000+ feet is completely nil from anywhere but a distance of probably a mile or more. If you are going to limit the height, you do so to cement the historical circumstances of the original stock. The ~800-foot limit is arbitrary enough to make me think it was a power play by the opposing neighbors to put a vindictive dent in the project.

yep.

i'm not getting it.

The design is looking more and more schizophrenic.The East face especially is really confusing in this latest rendering.

Nope. That negotiation occurred entirely within DPD before any neighbors were involved. We thought 425 feet would be the absolute limit for the historic district, so we were astonished when we accidentally got a copy of an email to aldermanic staff saying that Landmarks staff had said they would approve 832 feet. Who picked that number—and how—I don't know. My guess is that the developer ran some construction and elevatoring numbers on the 1000-foot scheme, and determined that 832 was actually more profitable.

The very last part of your statement is not a negative.

Two things:
1. The original design is substantially better, by far
2. Interestingly, the link says: "1000 South Michigan Avenue is a to-be-developed, approximately 73-story residential tower building containing approximately 347 condominiums, ground floor retail space and approximately 440 accessory parking spaces."

I believe that's a removal of ~145 apartments from the initial scope of the project.

I'm just really baffled beyond all reason as to why this podium is presenting such an insurmountable design challenge for the architects. Like, it's literally not even a complex solution, they could perhaps have the slanting portion instead be made up of gradually receding but also curved faces until it reaches the streetwall of other buildings and then flatten the facade...I'm by no means formally trained as an architect and am able to come up with another idea that's theoretically better, so what's the deal, guys.

That's really funny. And lucky I didn't start out by saying 'what's german for mishmash'...

I'm surprised by it too, and indeed, it's specific enough to seem to come from a particular case being assessed, which in this instance could only be the Jahn-designed proposal. As for 425, that would be just below the roof of the Metropolitan (nee Straus) Building?

Can anyone work their magic and put the new Essex in that photo above? I know its asking alot but hey, Christmas miracle wishing, right? haha.

A view of 1000 South Michigan from above. Nice to see the angles at play on the south facing wall from this vantage point.
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...gger/img_4714/

The base looks way better from the sky.

Good thing we have helicopter tours now so at least a few hundred people a year can see it from that angle...

I don't know why they insist on having such an awkward looking podium. Other than that the building looks alright.

Not as bold or cool as the initial design, but Ill take it anyway. You have to expect any decent proposal to get VE'd in this city in this day and age. Sorry.

Oh that's a good one

Yeah it hides the design.

Anyone want to hazard a guess on the odds of this getting started in 2017, less/more than 50%? I honestly have no idea how robust the condo market is and I'm not sure anyone does. The employment rate + stock market + fed rate increase suggests that the economy is stronger than in nearly a decade (at least for those at the top) but banks and buyers are still spooked to go near condos.

I'm definitely in for a 2017 start. While there are some other noteworthy condo projects coming on line (Vista), it's still nothing compared to the prior boom.

Plus, I think the market for luxury condos with good (and forever safe) views will be quite deep. Prices have been on the upswing.

I'm sure it's been said before but havn't been to this page in awhile. What's the condo to apartment ratio on this one?

I also think that once there is at least one new anchor building in this (relatively) sparse patch of Mich that buyers will find it more desirable. Like if Essex were up already 1000 would be a sexier sell.

1:1. 100 percent condos. 100 percent apartments.

See post #521

My bad, missed that one. Sorry for all the questions today, bored as hell at work.

The problem with it starting in 2017 is that they haven't even started marketing for condos and don't have a sales center. I'd say this is lucky to even start this cycle. I say this assuming it's condos

I would so love this to start in 2017, but it seems in flux. Hope I'm wrong, though.

Why wait until 2018? The market is strong right now but it might not last much longer than a year. Wouldn't it make sense to build Jahn's tower sometime this year?

Because it's my understanding that it'll be condo and with condo buildings developers normally need a number of pre-sales before landing financing.

Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification.

They should start soon, then. Has anyone heard anything about pre-sales? At this rate, I don't know if 2018 is realistic.

Relax. When stuff starts moving you know it'll get posted. They're not trying to put up a three-flat.

I don't understand how the same person designed this and the conceptual tower to save his Thompson Center. I don't hate it but it doesn't represent Jahn's abilities at all and I hope he's still working on it.

Can we make a seperate thread for the Thompson Center?

There's nothing to create. It's just empty speculation, and all the references to the Thompson Center in this thread are about this tower.

To be fair to Jahn (and I say this as someone who hates most of his work) his original design for the lot was amazing, but this design was the fallback after they couldn't get approval for the 1000 footer

"My awesome staggered 1000' design was rejected? Better just use that popsicle design I've been working on instead".

Haha, like I said, I'm no fan of Jahn. I'm still referring to this as 600 N Fairbanks 2.0 since the design(including the weak attempt at a cantilevered edge) is almost identical. Jahn went full lazy mode

Client hasn't paid Jahn so all design work has stopped.