CHICAGO | 375 East Wacker (Arquitectonica Tower) | 840 FT / 256 M | 76 FLOORS | PRO - Page 23

wrab · #**441** Posted **Aug 19, 2007, 5:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

Today the Tides was officially deemed to be topped out, which means that soon a construction crew will be freed up and looking for a new project.

I wonder how that factors into the planning of this one? Especially given BVic's report of the waiting list...

Yeah, but The Tides is strictly rental.

Pru · #**442** Posted **Aug 19, 2007, 6:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^ I vote for X/O and Park Michigan, not at all based on design (both nice of course) but rather because of precedent, if both of these can get approved and built it would be a nail in the coffin of the surging NIMBYism in the south loop and it would be fantastic to have these towers shoved up their a$$es. Conversely, if they manage to shoot down both projects, it would likely spell the beginning of the end of the South Loop boom.

Ditto...

Though I must admit I'm in love with Park Michigan just on design and placement alone. But yes, getting it built in that area would be a huge step in the right direction.

Arquitectonica -- I'd put this high on the list, especially if the modern elements in the design work. Otherwise it's a really really tall apartment building from the early sixties. ...oh, yeah -- with a hole in it.

Ryan81 · #**443** Posted **Aug 20, 2007, 6:08 PM**

....It's got a long ways to go, but my model is taking shape. Soon we will be able to see this proposal from various vantage points in the city. It's been sort of difficult to figure out just exactly what happens to the facade as it transitions from top to bottom. Once I get all the details modeled though, I think it will be close enough for me.

Dr. Taco · #**444** Posted **Aug 20, 2007, 6:49 PM**

wow, ryan, you make me excited about life. thanks!

seriously, I wish I had skills, and I really applaud yours

I'm sure the tower will have design modifications when the next renders come out, but I wonder how extensive those modifications will be. but for now, I don't really have that much of a beef with this tower

i_am_hydrogen · #**445** Posted **Aug 20, 2007, 7:12 PM**

Nice perspective, Ryan. Thanks for sharing.

Alliance · #**446** Posted **Aug 20, 2007, 10:05 PM**

Good looking model. I would like to see it in the skyline though.

Untitled · #**447** Posted **Aug 20, 2007, 11:26 PM**

Impressive work there, Ryan.

djvandrake · #**448** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 12:09 AM**

Nice model! I'd say you're off to an awesome start with it. Thanks for sharing it with us.

EarlyBuyer · #**449** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 2:55 AM**

Nice work Ryan81.

SolarWind · #**450** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 5:33 AM**

I agree, great job Ryan81.

X-fib · #**451** Posted **Aug 21, 2007, 4:45 PM**

Yes Ryan81, great job! This building will be noteworthy, if only for the hole, its size, and impact on the lakefront/LSE skyline. I am still not sold on the design but will reserve judgment until I see more detailed renderings.

Ryan81 · #**452** Posted **Aug 22, 2007, 4:04 AM**

Progress Update.......

Dr. Taco · #**453** Posted **Aug 22, 2007, 1:45 PM**

^very nice progress. itd be pretty cool to own the balcony immediately over the hole

bnk · #**454** Posted **Aug 23, 2007, 5:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan81

Progress Update.......

I know the renders do not show windows looking into the hole, but will there be any window utilizing this empty space and if not than why the void?

To get taller and save dollars by avoiding filling up units in the middle? Or do the developers think that a hole will sell the building as a hole[sp]?

Any other benefits other than the hole itself?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Knightwing · #**455** Posted **Aug 23, 2007, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

Any other benefits other than the hole itself?

Aesthetics and wind effect reduction. (Boundary layer separation)

honte · #**456** Posted **Aug 23, 2007, 7:05 PM**

Has anyone noticed how the base massing is very similar to the first Prudential building? I am especially thinking of the asymmetrical "bustle" that protrudes near the end of Wacker Drive.

ardecila · #**457** Posted **Aug 23, 2007, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Has anyone noticed how the base massing is very similar to the first Prudential building? I am especially thinking of the asymmetrical "bustle" that protrudes near the end of Wacker Drive.

Possibly. Several modernist buildings went for such a massing at the base. The first that comes to mind is One Penn Plaza.

a chicago bearcat · #**458** Posted **Aug 24, 2007, 4:28 PM**

I'm guessing that the elevator bays for the floors below take up the area where the hole is above, and they drop away as in any tall residential tower. Only instead of having an atrium, or setbacks, they've hollowed out this area allowing for greater efficiency of the floorplates on the higher floors because the units are more crowded around the elevator bays, meaning less hallway, and less "unsellable" Floor area eating into the overall FAR

that would be my guess, and I'd guess that the reason there aren't too many windows is because they are using that inner part of the hole as some sort of shear wall to make the hole possible.

that's what I'd deduce from experience

BVictor1 · #**459** Posted **Sep 3, 2007, 6:15 AM**

From the "blueprints" that i saw the other day, I must announce that this tower more than likely will not even break the 900' mark. While the skematics that I saw might be preliminary, this is the current status.

Why I didn't write down the exact height while I was there, I really can't think of an answer for other than that I was in a rush.

Hopefully this status will change when more "hard information" on this tower is released.

Dr. Taco · #**460** Posted **Sep 3, 2007, 2:03 PM**

^ thats pretty dissapointing, but i can cope

anyone know when more information on this could possibly come out?