CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 146

bnk · #**2901** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 4:06 AM**

Well at least the location is much better than the other proposal.

Imagine what a mess this would have been.

old pic

honte · #**2902** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 4:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wild Onion Mike

Just two words: weak....uninspiring

My thoughts exactly. Goettsch and company do great background buildings, amazingly detailed and crafted. But their buildings do not produce much visual impact from, say, less than 150 feet.

Come on. You've got a 1600' structure with essentially no design restrictions and complete flexibility. Most of it doesn't even have to do anything. I think you should be able to do something a bit more exciting than a glorified suburban water tower.

But I do like it much better than the Pelli. At least it's handsome and doesn't look like Mattel designed it.

Thanks to Loopy et al for gathering the images and data.

Oh, and by the way, McCormick Place Lakeside Center is safe for at least the near future (thank goodness), so you have to imagine these together as proposed.

CenIL_LA · #**2903** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 4:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Oh, and by the way, McCormick Place Lakeside Center is safe for at least the near future (thank goodness), so you have to imagine these together as proposed.

So that was decided to be a staple fixture? I remember when the mayor had a bug up his butt about it a ways back. I didnt think such a bold statement showing the practicality of Chicago architecture should be destroyed. They definately wont build in that style again very likely anywhere in the world. We need to save that history. Thanks for the information. That being said it would require a lot more work on thier part to make the two structures blend more seemlessly through site or ground level design. It feels a bit awkward to me there.

SolarWind · #**2904** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 4:55 AM**

August 17, 2007

honte · #**2905** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 5:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CenIL_LA

So that was decided to be a staple fixture?

No, not at all. It's just out of hot water for the time-being due to possibilities to use it for the Olympics. The mayor's office continues to mention getting rid of it from time to time. Also, since it's a perfectly wonderful hall and was built exceptionally well, McPier continues to put money into it and it still books quite profitably.

We can discuss further if you like in the General Developments arena. I brought it up here just to support your point that this structure should ultimately work with the whole McCormick complex - and in that regard, I think it does, considering its overall structural expression and purity. The integration at the base could be better, as you say. I would personally like to see the base of this building become more of an integral and convertible exhibition area, attached to McCormick.

Sir Isaac Newton · #**2906** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 5:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan

I don't get it. 500,000sf sounds like a lot. That seems to imply there's usable floor space rathert than a solid structure. But the uses listed didn't include residential or office. Am I missing something?

500,000 sf does sound like a lot, but it looks like there are 10 obervation floors at the top, and I guess 11 if you count the the outdoor deck at the very top. I guess if you add 11 floors of space (if it is a good-sized floor plan, which I'm guessing it would be) and then all of the retail space of the podium, and you might be able to get 500,000 sf.

Marcu · #**2907** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 5:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CenIL_LA

So that was decided to be a staple fixture? I remember when the mayor had a bug up his butt about it a ways back. I didnt think such a bold statement showing the practicality of Chicago architecture should be destroyed. They definately wont build in that style again very likely anywhere in the world.

There's a reason they won't build in that style anywhere in the world again...

If the Lakeside Center was proposed today, we'd collectively tear it apart. Some of the worst use of waterfront space in Chicago, if not the US.

modkris · #**2908** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 6:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Considering its neither on the lakefront or even close to X/O there's no reason to assume anyhting.

The Beitler Tower is dead. Its NOT by McCormick and that would be a horrible place for an observation deck if you actually want people to go there.

Depends. If its just a tower and not an actual building (as I imagine it would be), its relatively cheap, considering its over 1450' and could easily be the tallest structure in Chicago.

I know the tweezer is dead and was proposed for Streeterville. I just think this one looks very similar and although in a better location in my opinion, is not that much of an improvement.

Crazy Ivan · #**2909** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 10:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton

500,000 sf does sound like a lot, but it looks like there are 10 obervation floors at the top, and I guess 11 if you count the the outdoor deck at the very top. I guess if you add 11 floors of space (if it is a good-sized floor plan, which I'm guessing it would be) and then all of the retail space of the podium, and you might be able to get 500,000 sf.

Thats what it looks like now. I couldn't tell from the first rendering.

I wonder how its classified - as a 2000' 10-story building? Or is it even a building?

brett7three · #**2910** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 10:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Thats what all these pointless towers are. Pelli's design for beitler was remarkably original and possibly even acceptable.

I hate towers.

The Tower in Guangzhou China looks like it might turn out well if the exterior is elegantly done. Nothing wrong with building a tower to broadcast given that HD and digital signals require a signal origination at a higher altitude than analog signals to be effective. If you want High quality, digital media for the future of Chicago, it has to be higher than the Sears Tower allows (at least, to my understanding).

Think this one through (some very specific reasons) and you'll start seeing WHY it helps Chi.. <<Lips suddenly sealing>>

Anyway, here's a link to the World's Tallest Thread: (BTW: The Spire Render in there looks really bad... hope they fix it before ya'll read this).

You'll find the Guangzhou tower I was referring to in the diagram.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=127016

Alliance · #**2911** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 12:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Come on. You've got a 1600' structure with essentially no design restrictions and complete flexibility. Most of it doesn't even have to do anything. I think you should be able to do something a bit more exciting than a glorified suburban water tower.

Was 1600' a guess?

100% with you. Especially if the skyline is going to stomach one of these towers...please give us something classy.

Then again...every tower I can think of...Eiffel, Tokyo, Space Needle, CN, the big haystack in China...they're all hideous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

But I do like it much better than the Pelli. At least it's handsome and doesn't look like Mattel designed it.

Pelli's is still cool with me in a funny retro kind of way....and its got 3 sides, witch means one less antenna and a little more visual appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu

There's a reason they won't build in that style anywhere in the world again...

If the Lakeside Center was proposed today, we'd collectively tear it apart. Some of the worst use of waterfront space in Chicago, if not the US.

I like the building, but its effing RIGHT on the lake...and it does destroy to coastline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan

Or is it even a building?

Its NOT considered a building.

SamInTheLoop · #**2912** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 1:12 PM**

This is almost assuredly not a serious proposal in the sense that its main motivations are probably for the TV stations to get favorable terms from the owners of Sears and Hancock. Look at the "developer" of the project - a Staubach consortium. Staubach is no developer - they're principally a tenant representative.....

Loopy · #**2913** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 1:26 PM**

No, Staubach is not a developer. But the other Principal, "Creative Real Estate Services", they're a powerhouse!

You've heard of them, right?

2PRUROCKS! · #**2914** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 2:26 PM**

I am not very impressed by the design of this tower it looks like Pelli's design for Beitler but dumbed down and not as good. The glass floor is pretty cool and the location is better than Streeterville. If someting like this gets built in Chicago I would prefer the Pelli design with some refinments (add the glass floor, a better base, and clad it in someting better than concrete, perhaps fiberglass). I think a better location would be on that land on 22nd just north of McCormick Place West, where they were recently talking about aquaring and building a hotel. Combine the hotels with this tower, more convention space, a possible cassino, and Olympic's media center and you may be able to get an actuall building. At this location it would be a fixture of McCormik Place and kept away from the free and clear Lakefront. As far as broadcast towers go I like the on going up in Guangzhou and would like to see something more cutting edge and gracefull like that.

aaron38 · #**2915** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 2:27 PM**

Damn, you spend one day pumping out the lake in your backyard, and all hell breaks loose on this thread.

If the broadcast companies need a new antena tower, the McCormick area is probably the best spot for an industrial type broadcast tower.

I think it would be interesting looking, in the way you go into a modern art gallery, put your hand on your chin, tilt your head and go "Hmmm, interesting".

Steely Dan · #**2916** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 4:52 PM**

i can't say i'm a big fan of this purported Goettsch partners obs/comm tower. hopefully it's nothing serious.

Tom In Chicago · #**2917** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 5:20 PM**

Meh. . . towers are boring. . .

brian_b · #**2918** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untitled

So the old Beitler thread quotes a Trib story that has the Sears Tower making $10 million a year from its antennas.

I imagine high-def antennas would draw more than that ...

Sears Tower already has half the HD broadcast antennas in the city.

There's no need for a broadcast tower of this height when you combine digital broadcasting with frequency re-use at a regional level. All this tower would do is cause more interference with the TV markets in Madison, Milwaukee, South Bend, etc...

honte · #**2919** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Was 1600' a guess?

Kind of. The description Loopy posted includes a mention of an outdoor terrace at the highest level, at 1600'. I suppose the structural height goes about 50' higher than that, looking at the render.

Alliance · #**2920** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

perhaps fiberglass

Oh! Thats a great idea.

Silver or black fiberglass!

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Kind of. The description Loopy posted includes a mention of an outdoor terrace at the highest level, at 1600'. I suppose the structural height goes about 50' higher than that, looking at the render.