CHICAGO | BMO Tower | 727 FT | 50 FLOORS

[F1 Tommy]

What a joke....This is the best design they could come up with??? Taking value engineering to a whole new level. Compared to some of the other stuff going up in Chicago and especially in NYC this is about as aesthetically pleasing as a dog turd

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by spyguy

In its current state (which I'm sure could change drastically over time), I say this is junk. Not only are they throwing a suburban office tower-looking addition on top of Union Station, but the new towers also look pretty lacking.

What the fuck are these bastards trying to do to Union Station!?!?

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

What the fuck are these bastards trying to do to Union Station!?!?

Trying to Pan-Am it on a smaller scale.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B-fiHnubNG...0/pan+am+1.jpg

[LaSalle.St.Station]

If this site can't generate a max density supertall tower, then safe to say Chicago will never see another one built again. I hate to see these prime sites close to the west loop train stations be underdeveloped continuously.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

If this site can't generate a max density supertall tower, then safe to say Chicago will never see another one built again. I hate to see these prime sites close to the west loop train stations be underdeveloped continuously.

Other than the fact that this statement is moronic, since Chicago has supertalls getting built in every major cycle(including one with possible one or two more to come in this cycle), the proposal by SOM was not a supertall, as it was only 950 ft. Well short of the 984 cutoff.

[The Lurker]

I could care less if we get a supertall. Im sure many on this forum would agree that 5 shorter towers with good density are better than a supertall but this is just boring and underwhelming. And why the twins? Whats the purpose of copying a poor design? I'm hoping this is a really reallllly rough draft. Frankly I expect more from Goettsch.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Other than the fact that this statement is moronic, since Chicago has supertalls getting built in every major cycle(including one with possible one or two more to come in this cycle), the proposal by SOM was not a supertall, as it was only 950 ft. Well short of the 984 cutoff.

I said max density supertall. I know thin residential towers are fulfilling the super tall category, but beefy office based supertalls are prime for the railroad station district as far as market viability.

I'm looking for the newer taller larger massing of sears tower class office structure.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

I said max density supertall. I know thin residential towers are fulfilling the super tall category, but beefy office based supertalls are prime for the railroad station district as far as market viability.

Residential is much more viable than office for building tall in the overwhelming majority of markets nowadays.

[Domer2019]

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

I said max density supertall. I know thin residential towers are fulfilling the super tall category, but beefy office based supertalls are prime for the railroad station district as far as market viability.

I'm looking for the newer taller larger massing of sears tower class office structure.

Wolf Point South and 110 N Wacker are good consolation prizes. Not to mention River Point and 150 N Riverside just went up. The Sears Tower just outshines so many other buildings worldwide when it comes to square footage, that it's hard for me to be upset with the best projects of this boom.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Xxxcx

[emathias]

I don't know the best thread to post this to, but Amtrak has selected a developer for Chicago's Union Station.

No details but the illustration makes it look like they didn't account for the bus facilities South of Jackson. The city said they want it done in six years.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...gnews-20170524

[KWILLSKYLINE]

God damn tragedy we didnt get that massive SOM beauty. That one would have been a skyline changer.
I like all the green space but the the office building are so
..generic.

[Rizzo]

The complexity of this site provides an extraordinary opportunity for structural exploration and expression. It shouldn't be wasted like this.

With all the promising images we saw in the competition, how pedestrian.

[modkris]

This just ruined my day. I thought there was a design competition for this? How in the actual fuck do we end up with such an uninspired POS. The people in this city's architectural community have lost their will to take risks, to innovate and inspire. I hope that this is just a placeholder massing but I think not. So sick of being disappointed by all the banality. I thought we had learned from the mistake of all the shitty pomo we had gotten in the 90's to early 2000's but it's baaaaaack. Oh but wait, there are two squat blue glass towers on the lot next door, so it's modern too then.

[KWILLSKYLINE]

Not sure if there's a link, NBC 5 has a bunch more photos of the new proposal I saw on the news this morning. Still dissapointed.

[pilsenarch]

wow. after so many proposals over the years... we get this shit...

what a fucking disaster.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

wow. after so many proposals over the years... we get this shit...

what a fucking disaster.

Dare I ask if anyone has photos of the JLL/Studio Gang/Pelli Clarke Pelli proposal that also wasn't selected?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Dare I ask if anyone has photos of the JLL/Studio Gang/Pelli Clarke Pelli proposal that also wasn't selected?

ditto for the gensler scheme.

i want to see all of the other entrants so i can properly know how deep my disappointment should be.

[BVictor1]

BORING!!!

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017...opment#slide-6

[tjp]

so are they just tearing down the new transit center / bus terminal they built on Jackson across from Union Station?