CHICAGO | 375 East Wacker (Arquitectonica Tower) | 840 FT / 256 M | 76 FLOORS | PRO - Page 17

SevenSevenThree · #**321** Posted **Jun 3, 2007, 3:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Do you have a link?

Sorry. Here it is.

http://forum.newcityskyline.com/viewtopic.php?t=96

i_am_hydrogen · #**322** Posted **Jun 3, 2007, 3:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SevenSevenThree

Sorry. Here it is.

http://forum.newcityskyline.com/viewtopic.php?t=96

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that--at least "unofficially"--it will exceed 900 feet.

SevenSevenThree · #**323** Posted **Jun 3, 2007, 3:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that--at least "unofficially"--it will exceed 900 feet.

Sure. I dont know how I even came across it as I wasnt even looking for anything regarding the project. And yeah, Im glad we an idea of what the height could be although archtype said a few months ago that it would be in the 900' range when he believed it would be 90 floors.

aluminum · #**324** Posted **Jun 5, 2007, 3:25 AM**

does this thing seems to get anywhere ?

djvandrake · #**325** Posted **Jun 5, 2007, 4:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum

does this thing seems to get anywhere ?

Are you serious? The initial press release of the proposal was just eeked out less than a month ago. There is going to be a lot of work to get this project approved. Then comes the sales effort. Only after a certian percentage of units are sold (40-50% or more) will construction begin. We are easily 8 months to a year from the first caisson. and likely 4 or more years from completion. Patience will be required.

Alliance · #**326** Posted **Jun 5, 2007, 5:05 AM**

And didn't Magellen say that they wouldn't begin selling until Aqua had been sold?

That means a long wait for Aqua II...

X-fib · #**327** Posted **Jun 5, 2007, 12:01 PM**

Isn't Aqua II supposed to be directly south of Aqua, making Arquitectonica a completely unrelated proposal?

DePaul Bunyan · #**328** Posted **Jun 5, 2007, 1:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-fib

Isn't Aqua II supposed to be directly south of Aqua, making Arquitectonica a completely unrelated proposal?

Aqua II will be south of Aqua, but all of the projects in Lakeshore East are run by the same developer. They're not going to have competing buildings.

X-fib · #**329** Posted **Jun 5, 2007, 2:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

Aqua II will be south of Aqua, but all of the projects in Lakeshore East are run by the same developer. They're not going to have competing buildings.

Gotcha. Which makes sense that Aqua II will be a ways down the pipeline.

forumly_chgoman · #**330** Posted **Jun 5, 2007, 5:26 PM**

^^^^Ok I missed something or I forgot something.....what is this Aqua II being bandied about?

Is there any substance to this or is this primarily speculation and a moniker being used to name a possible proposal

I mean is it supposed to be like Marina 1 & 2 --> Aqua 1 & 2 ?

X-fib · #**331** Posted **Jun 5, 2007, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by forumly_chgoman

^^^^Ok I missed something or I forgot something.....what is this Aqua II being bandied about?

Is there any substance to this or is this primarily speculation and a moniker being used to name a possible proposal

I mean is it supposed to be like Marina 1 & 2 --> Aqua 1 & 2 ?

I believe it is one of the buildings pre-planned for LSE. Mind I am not in Chicago so this is entirely from what I have read here. Since LSE is being built up over a period of time it seems that any Aqua II, if it happens at all, could be a few years down the road.

aluminum · #**332** Posted **Jun 6, 2007, 1:08 AM**

By "thing'' I didn't mean the building, I meant the approval of project and all that kinda stuff...

DHamp · #**333** Posted **Jun 9, 2007, 1:30 AM**

Not a construction pic, of course. The site for this one is probably being used as a staging area for Aqua, The Tides, etc. But this pic gives an idea of how huge the site for this one is. It's HUGE! I knew it was big, but you just don't know until you walk over there and realize that this is all going to be the footprint of one building.

djvandrake · #**334** Posted **Jun 9, 2007, 2:41 AM**

Yeah, that does put some perspective on it. Thanks for that Dhamp.

James Bond Agent 007 · #**335** Posted **Jun 9, 2007, 3:51 AM**

Wow, how'd I miss this one? This is a pretty cool design! I like the "hole"

aluminum · #**336** Posted **Jun 9, 2007, 4:14 AM**

Yeah, but will this be the first tall American building to get a 'hole' in it ?

Dale · #**337** Posted **Jun 9, 2007, 4:28 AM**

I'm pleasantly surprised by 921'. Historically, Arquitectonica's projects don't average much more than 10' per floor.

alex1 · #**338** Posted **Jun 9, 2007, 10:12 AM**

i'm pleasantly neutral on this project at this moment. I suppose I'm not at all an Architonica fan but the color renderings did ease my fears of the facade treatment.

Looking forward to revisions and such.

Dan in Chicago · #**339** Posted **Jun 9, 2007, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum

Yeah, but will this be the first tall American building to get a 'hole' in it ?

The JPMorgan Chase Tower in Dallas (738') has a hole in the top. Centerpoint Energy Plaza in Houston (741') has an open structure at the top, but not quite a hole in the same sense.

Alliance · #**340** Posted **Jun 10, 2007, 3:41 AM**

Well, its the first boomer in the 900-1000 range.