CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Alliance

First, that presumes this is a trend.

^ I'm not assuming it's a trend. I'm just saying it's a new idea. When did Chicago suddenly close the door on new ideas?

Secondly, I think post people have criticised the rotation of the skyscraper, whcih is undobtedly a stupid gimmick, a Dubaian "LOOK AT ME!!!!!" piece of bs that really has no place in any skyline.

^ Oh, and steel & glass modernism, when first introduced amongst drab masonry buildings in the 1950's, didn't scream "look at me!"? The Chicago Spire doesn't say "Look at me?" How about Aqua? How much does your issue with this have to do with the actual building instead of the fact that this idea comes not from Zurich, or Paris, or New York, but from some "schlocky" place like Dubai?

I don't recall anyone criticising the form. Chicago needs to be MUCH more aggressive in architecture. However, building gimmicks is not being progressive.

^ I just don't get your point in the least. Your 'gimmick' may be somebody else's novelty. A new way to look at highrise living. The only way to really tell is to build it.

I really hope Chicago doesn't close an ignorant door on this one. That would be a HUGE shame.

[oopy493]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

- and has work resumed at 235 W. Van Buren??...

Nothin at 235 W Van Buren, walk by every day on my way to work, and there's still a good bit of equipment there as well as the piles they drove (apparently for some sort of testing, someone here said). Been totally quiet for a few weeks now.

[BANKofMANHATTAN]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Oh, HOGWASH! This kind of mentality is exactly Chicago's greatest problem. The trendsetter 50 years ago, now it seems as if Chicago has to catch the tail of every new trend after it nearly passes us by.

So the hell what if an experimental building gets built? This kind of attitude only contributes to the Chicago's image as a conservative city. You all criticize PoMo highrises, yet it seems like some of you want your modernism on a platter--controlled, comprehensible, something you're familiar and comfortable with.

If Chicago's really gotten its "architectural nerve" back then perhaps you guys should open your minds up to this new idea and at least give it a chance instead of closing the door on it. A legacy in architecture is not all about having the best of the best (the best of Calatrava, the best of Gehry, etc) but also about having something that was just plain novel, if not necessarily a success. Even if it turns out ugly, at least Chicago can be a place where zany ideas such as this one still have a place.

All of you with your "Chicago's architectural environment is already matured and deserves better" really just make me sick to my stomach. You almost remind me of those Prarie District NIMBY's with their "modernism has no place here" garbage.

And Kamin needs to just stick his conceited head in a bucket of water for a change. Not everything has to be an established masterpiece--how about trying new ideas because, gee, you never know Blair, perhaps in your infinite wisdom you just judged this one wrong.

Half of those buildings look like a freaking joke to me. They may have their place, and that's fine. I respect that kind of architecture even though i may not care for it in some cases. It just seems they'll throw any old thing up that looks crazy up for the sake of height & eye candy. A lot of the time I like that style when it's applied to a low(er)-rise aesthetic - like for instance, museums, courthouses, campus architecture etc... While I agree, and don't think that people should look too far into the whole "this city deserves better" matter, I think they should at least put some thought into the designs. All the "older" architecture may look mundane to some, but there's soooo much new stuff, it all starts to look the same too. I don't necessarily want a whole city entirely dominated by twisty Jenga experiments, crumpled garbage on chopsticks, stacked blocks and phallic tubers w/ shit hanging of the top. Objectively, I think there are still too many flat angular boxes too. I'd really like some more tapered, setback/layered, crown/spire designs maybe thrown into the mix.

[alex1]

i don't think anyone is saying Chicago shouldn't push form TUP.

with that said, there's a pretty neat thing that happens when the floors rotate and the tower starts to "deconstruct". I'm not saying its the right solution to a problem but I'm open-minded about the idea with the right facade treatment and form. I wonder most about how the underside to each floor would be treated. Sounds impractical from a cost perspective.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago

i took a little bike ride through streeterville & south loop today. a few questions:

Did 600 north fairbanks catch on fire sometime? I was looking at the north side of that building and there is smoke stain on a few windows about half way up.

Taken yesterday

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

1. Agree with you on the building and on Kamin! Why all the negativity?

2. Speaking of snobbiness, I have to point out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question

Thanks, Viva

I actually don't mind Kamin that much, when he remains more objective (like in more of a reporting role). I suppose i have a real problem with people outside a profession acting as informed participants. I don't like when he critiques, his tone seems to place himself above the architect. I guess i was pretty negative, his article just struck me really badly.

As far as #2, that was an interesting wiki. I'll have to stop using that phrase, it does sound kind of snotty anyways!

[Latoso]

The ideas behind the turning tower are very interesting and quite valid. It would be nice to increase the value of all units if they all had lake or river views at least part time, but whether it's economically or technically (i.e. plumbing) feasable is another story. If it is feasable, there's no reason it would have to look ugly as in the Dubai example. I don't see why you couldn't build a rotating cylindrical tower. It wouldn't be too noticable that it was rotating unless you were staring at it for an extended period of time because it's basic shape would not change, yet it would still accomplish the same goals as stated previously of giving everyone the same views. And if you wanted to decrease technical logistics you could have all the floors rotating in unison and at the same speed so you only have to worry about one "plumbing transfer" floor.

[2PRUROCKS!]

I have to agree with TUP on this Fisher tower idea. I think the concept is cool and I would really like to see Chicago lead the way in cutting edge architecture. I think morphing towers may be a way to go in the future as a building can change shape to increase or alter views, reduce wind turbulence, provide shade from the sun, and allow more light. If the technical difficulties could be worked out the could allow for benefits in sustainability as well as other areas. Some questioned this idea for energy consumption (too much energy used to rotate floors) but, Fisher claims there would be wind turbines between each level that would provide enough energy for 5 of these buildings. No doubt the technical problems need to be overcome, but if they can be overcome reasonably Chicago should be at the forefront of this concept.

[Steely Dan]

^ absolutely. i think most of the knee-jerk resistance to this idea is because it's one that was first proposed for dubai, a town that a lot or people seem to hate for one reason or another. if this idea had come from norman foster and first proposed for chicago, there would be a puddle of drool the size of lake michigan oozing out of the forum's collective mouth.

i have SEVERE doubts about the practicality of buildings that move (particularly long-term building life maintenance issues), BUT i'm not going to deride an architectural idea as tacky or unbecoming of chicago simply because it's "extreme". that little editorial of kamin's yesterday was one of his poorest since the soldier field days. i think it's intellectually foolish to dismiss out of hand any idea just because it is radical and unfamiliar. i ultimately suspect that this building type will prove impractical, especially on the scale proposed, but i would never write-off pondering the idea of such a structure just because it is "extreme".

[spyguy]

I'm mostly concerned with the fact that this guy wants to building a 90 story building on prime sites but has very little experience in architecture. Sounds like a disaster to me.

But no need to worry - I have doubts that this will ever happen in Chicago once the developers look at costs.

[BorisMolotov]

You know, I read some of the posts at the spinning tower proposal in Dubai, there was some explanation of the technical stuff, how the electrical and plumbing worked. Its pretty old, I read it over a month ago...

[honte]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ absolutely. i think most of the knee-jerk resistance to this idea is because it's one that was first proposed for dubai, a town that a lot or people seem to hate for one reason or another. if this idea had come from norman foster and first proposed for chicago, there would be a puddle of drool the size of lake michigan oozing out of the forum's collective mouth.

I think you've hit it, although with your permission I'm going to realign what you said. If Foster had proposed this building, yes, I would be more excited. I trust him and his judgment (although some newer designs are falling flat). Second, this new guy's thing just sounds too suspiciously like a big marketing scheme. Too schlocky. It doesn't have the complex reasoning and conceptual development that produce great architecture - at least, not the way he's presenting it. It sounds much more like a "Beanie Baby" kind of routine.

Nearly every architecture student in America has probably done at least one sketch for a tower with rotating or moving floorplates. But most of these get dashed by the professors, for good reason, because they are making design moves for the sake of novelty. There needs to be more to it.

Kinetic architecture is a routine interest of architects. And the Day's Inn (W) is our local precedent... TUP, I understand your reaction to people's hesitance. I agree that we need to push the boundaries much more frequently. But 90 stories isn't going away any time soon, and I think "fishy-sounding" ideas need to be met with scrutiny when the stakes are that high. For instance, even the X/O building gives me pause, although I am generally in favor of it. Poor execution or conceptualization can have a colossal impact at this scale.

[brian_b]

I think monthly assessments in "normal" high rise condos are high. Add in the expense for maintenance and energy costs when each floor rotates independently and they have to be crazy. If that guy can find people wanting to pay for the tower, go right ahead!

[honte]

^ A much more interesting idea (IMO) would be to have giant fins all over each facade, causing the floors to rotate solely via wind action. This could turn the building into a giant turbine too when the wind blows.

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I have to say, this is one of the best executions of inset balconies I've ever seen. The way the "railing" glass is flush with the exterior glass, and offset vertically, it creates a complex but clean pattern. Just proves that the devil is in the details.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Yes, 600 N. Fairbanks is very remarkable in person, in a way that the initial renderings couldn't capture. Just about every aspect of the facade is gorgeous (and it will probably look just as great from the inside. Another home run for Jahn, it seems.

^ Fisher spinning tower,
Another possibility (though perhaps this is "too simple" would be to have the more complex stuff like gas, plumbing only in the core, i.e. the kitchen and bathroom will be in the core, while the outer, rotating ring has the living space. I think that was the basic concept in those spinning restaurants, so you need some ridiculously complicated plumbing contraption.

[aaron38]

Speaking of 600 N Fairbanks...
From the River:


I didn't know it had windows that could open.

[alex1]

Jahn has always been one of the best at using glass. Man, it should be no surprise but I'm still pretty wowed!

[aaron38]

I wasn't about to try to out "South Loop" MuseumParkTom, so this is just a collection of things that caught my eye.

Vetro and the Columbian peaking out from behind some buildings.



A concrete bucket had just landed at Vetro.



The bars on the parking garage windows really do make Vision on State look like a prison.




Steel your nerves for it. Ready? The horror of painted concrete, caught in the act!



Michigan Ave Tower II just had tower crane sections show up as I went by.





Burnham Point



235 W. Van Buren. No activity



1555 S Wabash, no activity either



Printer's Row





Roosevelt collection. The yellow crane was moving about



900 S Clark





340 OTP seen from S Clark



A couple more south loop pics

[aaron38]

Now for a collection of 353 N Clark pictures.
Caison rebar cages lined up.



These three cranes demonstrate the principle of orchestrated chaos.



Two caisons being drilled simultaneously



A caison drill bit


And a completed hole being poured