CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 851 FT & 765 FT | 73 & ? FLOORS

spyguy · #1 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 5:43 PM**

current design:

older schemes:

Steely Dan · #2 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 5:44 PM**

^ interesting.

i mean, BIG > Stern, am i right?

Related promised something "architecturally significant".

this sounds like a step in the right direction.

BVictor1 · #3 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 6:03 PM**

Is this worthy of starting a new thread for yet?

Steely Dan · #4 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Is this worthy of starting a new thread for yet?

Yes. Absolutely yes.

we have to discuss this juicy rumor, and we need a place to do it.

and something BIG (get it?) will eventually be built on this site, so let's discuss the possibilities.

ithakas · #5 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://blog.archpaper.com/2015/10/ea.../#.VikfsRCrSL8

Very interesting news. A few years ago I would have salivated at the prospect of Chicago getting a BIG building, but now I'm cautiously optimistic about him handling this site – his work seems to be best suited for mid-rise/institutional uses, at least after the disappointing WTC2 design.

intrepidDesign · #6 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

Very interesting news. A few years ago I would have salivated at the prospect of Chicago getting a BIG building, but now I'm cautiously optimistic about him handling this site – his work seems to be best suited for mid-rise/institutional uses, at least after the disappointing WTC2 design.

I dunno, i kinda like WTC2, I like all the WTC buildings, both built an proposed. Yeah some are more avant garde than others, but over all they are all very tasteful. The building I like least in the WTC complex, coincidentally enough, is the Calatrava train station, I'm over the bone fish aesthetic. I'm reasonably certain we'll get something nice.

SamInTheLoop · #7 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 6:42 PM**

Wooaaahhh. Hello. This is indeed BIG news.....

Exciting intel here......despite the fact that I, as many seem to, think their design is a downgrade from Foster's at 2 WTC, and disappointing in some ways in its own right, this is still exciting and I'm optimistic that they will come up with something compelling for the spire site if Related has in fact handed its design to them.....

ardecila · #8 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

Very interesting news. A few years ago I would have salivated at the prospect of Chicago getting a BIG building, but now I'm cautiously optimistic about him handling this site – his work seems to be best suited for mid-rise/institutional uses, at least after the disappointing WTC2 design.

Exactly. BIG evolved out of Rem Koolhaas/OMA - the really revolutionary aspect of their design practice is the way they add logical pieces to the program of the building so they become little microcosms of the city. This is a really great way to design civic and institutional projects - the buildings aren't intended to make money, and the fundraising often happens after the architect gets involved so there are opportunities to increase the budget accordingly. After the building opens, you wonder how your city functioned without it.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work so well for the private sector. Related no doubt has an exact dollar figure on this project, and they will push BIG so that they come in at that amount and not a cent higher. That reduces BIG to the role of "form-maker", which they're not so great at.

If I were King of Chicago, I would much rather have BIG design something for the Thompson Center site. They would knock it out of the park there.

VKChaz · #9 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

....This is a really great way to design civic and institutional projects - the buildings aren't intended to make money
....
Unfortunately, this doesn't work so well for the private sector. Related no doubt has an exact dollar figure on this project, and they will push BIG so that they come in at that amount and not a cent higher. ....

If I were King of Chicago, I would much rather have BIG design something for the Thompson Center site. They would knock it out of the park there.

Why would that or any other site be different from the Spire site? BIG would still be constrained by a budget.....

emathias · #10 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Why would that or any other site be different from the Spire site? BIG would still be constrained by a budget.....

He past talked about how BIG designs things to integrate community functions, so I think he assumes that they would do a better-than-average job enabling cross functions between the existing link to the pedway system, City Hall, the subway and the 'L'.

VKChaz · #11 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

He past talked about how BIG designs things to integrate community functions, so I think he assumes that they would do a better-than-average job enabling cross functions between the existing link to the pedway system, City Hall, the subway and the 'L'.

I see. Sounds like that might be BIG's forte. Though if that particular building is replaced, it won't be by a public building. For some developers, the functions mentioned may pose constraints they simply want no part of.

munchymunch · #12 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 6:20 PM**

BIG wow hopefully it won't be extremely tacky. Still good news best architect they've ever chosen.

Jibba · #13 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 6:40 PM**

Hmmm... would rather have Smith & Gil, Herzog, or Richard Rogers than the contrivance I'm afraid BIG will propose, but I'll wait and see, obviously.

I still haven't fully mourned the loss of the Spire. Sigh...

Ch.G, Ch.G · #14 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 8:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

Very interesting news. A few years ago I would have salivated at the prospect of Chicago getting a BIG building, but now I'm cautiously optimistic about him handling this site – his work seems to be best suited for mid-rise/institutional uses, at least after the disappointing WTC2 design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

Hmmm... would rather have Smith & Gil, Herzog, or Richard Rogers than the contrivance I'm afraid BIG will propose, but I'll wait and see, obviously.

I still haven't fully mourned the loss of the Spire. Sigh...

Yeah, I kinda agree with you guys. I think Richard Rogers would be well-suited for Chicago; there's a muscular expressiveness in his work. I like Renzo Piano's forays into skyscraper design, too. The NYT building is way underrated. I wouldn't trust Smith and Gill not to do something safe/staid, and color me unimpressed by the execution of HdeM's Jenga tower. BIG would have a few tall buildings under their belt by the time this thing'd break ground, so maybe that would help.

Also very much agreed about the loss of the Spire. It was perfect for this site.

wrab · #15 Posted **May 17, 2018, 1:05 AM**

(del)

Tom Servo · #16 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 11:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

Hmmm... would rather have Smith & Gil, Herzog, or Richard Rogers than the contrivance I'm afraid BIG will propose, but I'll wait and see, obviously.

Smith & Gill? Uh, no thanks. Adrian Smith was the head architect behind the tower of shit that is Trump Tower. Again, pass.

Herzog + De Meuron might be the greatest architecture firm in the world. One step at a time. But I like your thinking.

Agreed on Richard Rogers too. He kicks ass. Puts BIG and their silly digram-heavy design gimmicks to shame.

That being said, I still really like pretty much everything coming out of the BIG office. And anything BIG [potentially] dreams up for this site would likely be visually stunning as their work tends to be better than great. They're like the world-class version of Studio Gang.

newcondosinvancouver.com

designboom.com

dailymail.co.uk

dezeen.com

greendiary.com

...yeah, let's not forget how exceptionally good they are at designing tall buildings.

Quote:

I still haven't fully mourned the loss of the Spire. Sigh...

Meh, it was awkwardly tall anyway. Whatever. Would've been nice because Calatrava and all, but the thing looked like a giant unicorn horn. Was never 100% sold on it to be honest.

Jibba · #17 Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 2:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Smith & Gill? Uh, no thanks. Adrian Smith was the head architect behind the tower of shit that is Trump Tower. Again, pass.

Let's be fair, now. S&G is arguably a very talented firm that consistently delivers. Their buildings are high-quality and high-performance. And they know how to use materials beautifully.

Randomguy34 · #18 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 7:45 PM**

Looks like the "to" in "a possible Spire part to" is the Danish word for "two". Don't know why they chose to use the Danish word instead of the American one, other than to be punny, because it looks as though it were a typo and it gets confusing with the American word "to" (I think I'm confused after re-reading this sentence). Linguistics aside, the idea of a Chicago Spire 2.0 makes me wonder how similar it will be to the previous design.

BVictor1 · #19 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 7:52 PM**

I asked someone from Related about this and I was asked where I heard this info and I said I read a little blurb that had no verifying information.

When i delved deeper and asked if they could throw me a bone, I was shot down.

That act almost makes me believe that there's more truth to some of this than not...

Skyguy_7 · #20 Posted **Oct 22, 2015, 8:10 PM**

BIG; "Your Supertall Foundation-adaptation Specialists"