that's good enough for me.

* off topic posts deleted *

guys, please stop with the off topic posts about other cities.

I don't think this would suffer from a height reduction, should the whole thing be scaled down proportionally (I could like it better, as it could border on oppressive at 1000+ feet, given the form). Unfortunately, I don't see the developers sacrificing floor space for the sake of the proportions.

Ughhh.

Given Chicago's track record I often just assume 1000+ buildings will never happen or be scaled down so the fact that it's been knocked down to 832 (hopefully the top floor height) means it actually has a good chance of getting built, and in that area it should stick out well. :cheers:

Its in a great location too where a super tall would add a lot to the park.
A bummer, but... still a solid height.

That puts it behind Chase Tower and Park Tower. That makes it "one of the taller skyscrapers" in Chicago.

I suppose height really doesn't matter, but man would it have been impressive.

* off topic posts deleted *

guys, please stop with the off topic posts about other cities.

832' is still great.

It's laughable to call it a plateau, but it'd be an interesting look to have three ~800ish foot towers in succession in a sparse area there

The downgrade in height is unfortunate, but I'll just say that I wasn't a big fan of the design right off the bat. I wasn't sure the design warranted it being a supertall. I'm just not a fan of these supertall and super skinny boxes. I did get a kick out of the nickname, though. That area of the skyline deserves something a little more interesting so it'll stand out and anchor that new frontier of skyscrapers on Chicago's skyline. I actually wish I could switch the original supertall height with the Grant Park Tower's height. That building really should be a supertall.

NIMBYs? There hasn't even been a public meeting about it yet. The new height was what the mayors office bullied Landmarks staff into accepting.

^ Indeed.....that was just looney.....

^^ There was a large public meeting 2-3 months ago (Can't remember if it was Columbia or East-West).....several of us were in attendance.....standing room only......the room had no shortage of rabid NIMBYs....

[MODERATOR NOTE]This is a second notice regarding off topic discussion. . . we said "please". . . any further disruption will result in disciplinary action. . . [/rhetorical]

. . .

fyi:
Crains article.
Nothing much additional information - this site is even referenced related to height - but article does mention an updated rendering is forthcoming.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-loops-tallest

Ald Burns resigning
 

to join airbnb.

Uh, first of all: wtf.

Second: wtf.

Third: wtf!

Implications for this project? Discuss.

I imagine its a lobbyist job?

They need to redraw the ward anyway.

It's Chicago. Positions change hands, politics don't. I doubt it means much for this project, if anything it's bad

It could go either way. Uncontrolled development is bound to be a campaign issue among the folks who'll run to replace Burns as alderman. On the other hand, the mayor's office could take advantage of a council vacancy to ram the PD through before a new alderman is seated.