CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 87

ardecila · #**1721** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 7:41 PM**

Okay - point taken, honte. Also, I didn't mean formal in the conventional sense - I was instead referring to a sort of "artificial" sense that you don't get on, say, Lake Street, where many different firms and styles come into play.

However, I've never seen an example of Smith doing a large site like this. To date, his successes (the ones I'm familiar with) have mostly been single projects. Trump has a great site plan, but it doesn't include any buildings besides Trump. NBC has a nice, albeit deserted plaza on Upper St. Clair, but again the plan did not include additional buildings.

Does Smith have the skills necessary to create a properly symphonic plan at Franklin Point? I don't know, but I plan to take a long look at Rowes Wharf in Boston in a few weeks, which is a somewhat similar concept integrating a waterfront promenade, marinas, and mid-rise residential into a CBD area. Judging by the pictures, if we get anything on par with Rowes Wharf out of Smith, I'd say we've got a rousing success on our hands.

Unfortunately, any major project here will be the final nail in the coffin for Wacker Drive extension. I'd love to see Wacker run all the way to Cermak. This would provide an ideal backdrop for LaSalle + Riverside Park neighborhoods, and it would allow large volumes of traffic to access those areas (including bus routes), promoting dense development all along the riverfront.

BVictor1 · #**1722** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

You're not following my logic. I realize that Magellan has developed all of those buildings, but they have not followed the vision of having something coherent. They have butchered the master plan and introduced a bunch of uninspired buildings, with some exceptions and hopefully more to come.

I understand your logic. They haven't really butchered the masterplan at all, because nothing was ever set in stone. It was just a massing plan and building layout, and they've pretty much followed that course. It was never said in the beginning that SOM would design all the building in LSE, they just layed out where the towers would be located. You saw concepts and ideas with the LSE masterplan and nothing else.

Just loke the South Loop plan, it was a suggestion.

honte · #**1723** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 8:06 PM**

^ Well, here comes our endless circular arguments again, and I won't continue it beyond this. But SOM did not win an AIA award, and convince city planners and community groups only purely on building placement. That obviously was Magellan's desire with the master plan, but not the impression they gave to the public, from my perspective. Remember all of the renders showing fountains, improvements to Wacker Drive, etc? The gateway looking out into the park, the symmetry and elegance of the whole place? That never materialized, but it was a major part of the appeal of the proposal. That's my point.

Perhaps they didn't butcher it from a legal point of view, but artistically, it's in the trash. I'm going to bet that Adrian isn't too happy with the outcome so far.

_______________

I agree that a Wacker extension would be incredible. But what to do about River City? For inspiration on this project, it might also be worth digging into the Goldberg plan for the full build-out of River City, which had some incredible urban ideas built into it.

I believe that the entire Cityfront Plaza planning, including the plaza, river walk, and connection to Pioneer Court was an SOM / Smith project. I know Lohan also had some involvement, but I think that was for planning and plazas east of Columbus (and the U of C building of course). So there may be more worth looking at over there.

I thought the original Lakeshore East plan had some very sensitive and interesting aspects to it too, despite being annoyingly PoMo.

Dan in Chicago · #**1724** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 9:38 PM**

I spoke with a worker on the One Museum Park West site today, and he told me what they've been putting in are "secam piles" which are similar to auger-bored piles. I asked him if they were load-bearing, and he absolutely confirmed this. These interlocked secam piles will support the perimeter columns, and regular caissons will support the interior columns. So anyway, my point is... OMPW is under construction.

The tower crane is going up today for 1600 Museum Park.

Eventually...Chicago · #**1725** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 11:16 PM**

I thought we all came to the conclusion that OMPW is under construction a few weeks ago. If not it really should be, if what is going on on that site is site prep then this must be one heck of a site.

Dan in Chicago · #**1726** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 5:27 AM**

I suppose so, but this foundation system is a first for this boom, and no one was around to tell us that it was genuine construction (as opposed to preparatory site retention). I mentioned the news so that the status could be changed on page 1 without any reservations.

Also I forgot to mention, 900 South Clark has been named AMLI 900. Its website is http://www.amli900.com.

pip · #**1727** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 5:46 AM**

^Oh wow, cool looking building.

ardecila · #**1728** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 6:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

I agree that a Wacker extension would be incredible. But what to do about River City? For inspiration on this project, it might also be worth digging into the Goldberg plan for the full build-out of River City, which had some incredible urban ideas built into it.

Either a tunnel underneath the building (unlikely and expensive) or run Wacker over Wells' right-of-way and go behind River City. It would be set back 1 block from the river like it is in the Loop, but it would be a 6-lane urban boulevard (2 traffic lanes each direction, one lane each direction for parallel parking/buses/bikes/loading) By the time it gets to Roosevelt, Wells is pretty close to the river anyway. The point where Wells merges with the new Wacker would require careful design. Also, the Wells Street facade of River City might require some reductions so that the road could be widened. I hate that faux-stone base anyway.

honte · #**1729** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 3:49 PM**

Ardecila, I like your plan. I hadn't considered the idea of allowing Wacker behind River City, but this would make the drive very interesting because there would be points where Wacker runs right up to the river (near Roosevelt, near Harrison) and other places where it can weave between buildings.

By the way, that "faux stone base" on River City isn't faux at all. It's an old stone wall that once was a part of the Grand Central Station terminal.

Norsider · #**1730** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Either a tunnel underneath the building (unlikely and expensive) or run Wacker over Wells' right-of-way and go behind River City. It would be set back 1 block from the river like it is in the Loop, but it would be a 6-lane urban boulevard (2 traffic lanes each direction, one lane each direction for parallel parking/buses/bikes/loading) By the time it gets to Roosevelt, Wells is pretty close to the river anyway. The point where Wells merges with the new Wacker would require careful design. Also, the Wells Street facade of River City might require some reductions so that the road could be widened. I hate that faux-stone base anyway.

Plus tear up those on-ramps at Congress and the river.

Norsider · #**1731** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 4:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

rather than the spontaneous urban symphony created by time and seperate ownership.

Music to my ears. City should lay down about $100 mil in infrastructure and facilitate CSX selling off the lots. We'll just get those $100 mil from our TIF pot...

wait...

Oh yeah, we already gave it all away to developers working on dead-end projects.

Sir Isaac Newton · #**1732** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

I think Pandemonious was the one who mentioned a 1,000-footer in an unexpected location. This seems like an awfully small site for 8 skyscrapers to be built on, and it would be nice if they could keep as many of the trees that line the river from the woodchipper as they can. This would be a pretty good spot for the downtown casino that the state and city government are pushing for. It could be on a boat or they could make a hotel-casino.

On the other side of Wells, from Harrison to Polk there are 6 buildings, and the Franklin Point site is just as long and roughly twice as large. But I agree that they should keep at least some of the trees that line the river.

BorisMolotov · #**1733** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 5:31 PM**

Well if you figure that at least half of them are mid-rises, or low highrises (maybe 20-25 stories) those would maybe line that street that goes right past it and give a nice canyon effect. THen the three or four highrises including the 80 story one would be set back, closer to the river.

Or it could be switched to give everyone views.

Mr Downtown · #**1734** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

that "faux stone base" on River City . . . once was a part of the Grand Central Station terminal.

Actually, the story is a little more complicated. In the mid-80s, the rusticated arches that once supported the viaduct approach to the old Polk Street Bridge were still in place beside the 700 block of Wells Street. So Goldberg designed the base of River City to mimic those walls. Of course, the actual relic walls were then removed a few years afterward.

Almost as good as Tigerman designing the Hard Rock Cafe to match the ComEd substation next door, then being asked by ComEd to design a new substation that would match the Hard Rock Cafe.

As to Wells-Wentworth-Wacker, the bottom two floors of River City are pretty standard pier-and-cap concrete construction. It would be fairly trivial to shave 20 or 30 feet off the east face, as was done in the 20s to many hundreds of Chicago buildings.

honte · #**1735** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 7:56 PM**

^ Hmmm... I'd heard otherwise from various sources, but I will trust your history on that one. Thanks for the correction.

Tom Servo · #**1736** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 10:20 PM**

i don't know if all you guys read SSC, and i don't know if this picture has alread been posted. but this Spyguy dude posted this rendering of 505 n. state that i'd never seen:

Steely Dan · #**1737** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 10:43 PM**

^ this is the rendering we have for the project on page 1.

do you (or anyone else) know if the rendering you posted is more up to date?

Tom Servo · #**1738** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 10:51 PM**

i have no idea. i hope it's the taller blue glass one though. i like that rendering a lot.

Tom Servo · #**1739** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 10:58 PM**

actually, there are a LOT of projects on the SSC forums that arn't on this forum... for whatever that's worth...

Steely Dan · #**1740** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

actually, there are a LOT of projects on the SSC forums that arn't on this forum... for whatever that's worth...

such as?

if you know of anything missing from the page 1 list, please don't hestitate to post about it here. i find it too tedious to sift through every individual project thread over on SSC. the development forums over there have a terrible layout in my opinion.