CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I love purple light blocks! What was the point of those things anyhow? They are so cool that they must have an awesome purpose!

[Vince]

600 N Fairbanks seems like it will be completed pretty soon.

They are putting all the windows in where the elevators were, and a few of them on the lower floors already have wooden floors installed.

[Dan in Chicago]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Not sure why the JDL project was never added to the front page or Emporis

Thanks for the reminder, spyguy. It's on Emporis now with ID 310303.

[Chi_Coruscant]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/599995,CST-FIN-sears12.article

"The owners of Sears Tower are preparing a plan for City Hall's review that calls for giving the building an environmentally oriented renovation and a new high-rise neighbor in hopes of boosting their returns on the property."

It is interesting to note that Adrian Smith has been tapped as an architect for that project.

[honte]

^ "A likely site is the north side of Jackson between Wacker and Franklin, which now contains a plaza and the entrance to the tower's observation deck. Beneath them is the tower's parking garage.

A building there would fulfill original ideas for the property as developed by the architectural firm Skidmore Owings & Merrill in the 1960s. Lead architect Bruce Graham allowed for another building on the block, although current zoning doesn't permit it."


Is this really true? I don't remember ever seeing a master plan for the Sears Tower that included a second building. Does anyone have any old model shots or plans showing this?

I have a hard time seeing how the site could fit another building without looking too crowded. And I do think the DeStefano pavilion is a very nice piece of design. However, I suppose an addition could be welcome if the annoyingly blank SE corner gets corrected. (SE and NE corners are the biggest problem with the tower, IMO).

Smith seems pretty respectful of the SOM style, since he was there for so long, so I guess we're probably in good hands.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Chi_Coruscant

http://www.suntimes.com/business/599995,CST-FIN-sears12.article

"The owners of Sears Tower are preparing a plan for City Hall's review that calls for giving the building an environmentally oriented renovation and a new high-rise neighbor in hopes of boosting their returns on the property."

It is interesting to note that Adrian Smith has been tapped as an architect for that project.

umm...3.8 MILLION sqft of office hotel? With my quick survey of the site if they built over all of it...thats about 102 stories of OFFICE/Hotel. Easily a 1100er (since we've already proved we can have the two shortest 100 story buildings in the world).

My question is...how will you make it work with Sears? This is not the site I would have chosen for Chicago's next supertall.

...and Smith wouldn't be my architect either.

[DHamp]

NOTHING else should be squeezed onto the block containing Sears Tower. With ample surface parking, parking garages, unintentional plazas (around 311 S Wacker), dilapidated buildings, and plain vacant lots in the area, it would be a slap in the face to squeeze a second tower on ST's block.

[honte]

^ What "dilapidated buildings"?

However, the more I think about it, the more I agree with you - nothing more should be built here. If any building needs a little breathing room, it would be Sears Tower.

And Alliance, the 3.8 million was referring to the Sears Tower itself.

[spyguy]

H3177 is now The Winchester

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Could this be the 70 story eco-friendly Adrian Smith building for "Chicago" that was reported in that architecture magazine a day or two ago?

I actually disagree with you guys, I would completely support a building on this site if its tall and skinny and respectful to not just completely blocking the whole side of Sears. If this is the 70 story building of Adrian Smith's it could be 800-1000' depending on use. If there is the demand for this kind of density, and someone is willing to build it, why not take it?

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by honte

^ What "dilapidated buildings"?

However, the more I think about it, the more I agree with you - nothing more should be built here. If any building needs a little breathing room, it would be Sears Tower.

And Alliance, the 3.8 million was referring to the Sears Tower itself.

Agreed with all three statements.

I think the grass area south of the tower is perfect. The 311 S Wacker can build their next tower on that horrible parking lot south of the building.

[pilsenarch]

I would think that the proposal would most likely be a mid-rise at best, particularly considering that Roeder mentioned a landscaped roof as a possible amenity...

A hotel at that site IMO would actually help spur further development on the empty lots to the south....

I think, ideally, it would be best to have both the lots to the south developed and a hotel replacing the somewhat awkward plaza...

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

I would think that the proposal would most likely be a mid-rise at best, particularly considering that Roeder mentioned a landscaped roof as a possible amenity...

A hotel at that site IMO would actually help spur further development on the empty lots to the south....

I think, ideally, it would be best to have both the lots to the south developed and a hotel replacing the somewhat awkward plaza...

Not only is it akward, but it's pretty barren.

I'd love to see what Smith can do outside the confines of SOM

[Alliance]

This site isn't included in the SOM plan. However, there is a site at Adams and S. Franklin that IS included @ about 230m. I honestly would want the building to be either 230m or 310m so it falls nicely between Sears' setbacks.

Maybe this is the 70story 0-energy tower...but Sears would have been very noticable in the rendering...does anyone have "Blueprint" or can get it from their library?

Originally Posted by honte

And Alliance, the 3.8 million was referring to the Sears Tower itself.

Maybe I shouldn't post before I've had coffee.

Originally Posted by DHamp

NOTHING else should be squeezed onto the block containing Sears Tower. With ample surface parking, parking garages, unintentional plazas (around 311 S Wacker), dilapidated buildings, and plain vacant lots in the area, it would be a slap in the face to squeeze a second tower on ST's block.

I partially agree. Sears does need breathing room, and no matter what gets built, Sears is immediately going to swallow it up anyway. But the plaza is boring and barren and it would help push the big office scrapers south.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Could this be the 70 story eco-friendly Adrian Smith building for "Chicago" that was reported in that architecture magazine a day or two ago?

I actually disagree with you guys, I would completely support a building on this site if its tall and skinny and respectful to not just completely blocking the whole side of Sears. If this is the 70 story building of Adrian Smith's it could be 800-1000' depending on use. If there is the demand for this kind of density, and someone is willing to build it, why not take it?

Because it could be awkward and there are sights within a bloc that owuld be better suited for such a developement.

Still...If it is a supertall, these would be the closet 1000' buildings in the world (I believe)

[DHamp]

Originally Posted by honte

^ What "dilapidated buildings"?

I'm not necessarily talking about the blocks immediately around Sears. I'm talking about the whole southwest corner of the loop. Perhaps the word "dilapidated" is what's throwing you off, but take are walk around the area and you'll see some old, tired, fairly short, non-architecturally significant buildings that would be good candidates for replacement in the future, IMO.

I'm just saying that they should take a look around. There is no need squeeze a building on that block with the plethora of build-able locations nearby. If ever there was a building in Chicago that needs and deserves the breathing room, it's the Sears Tower.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ The point is not to just build a building in the area, the point is to build a building that raises the value of their already existing building. In other words, building a hotel a few blocks away from the Sears tower does nothing to increase the value of the Sears tower, building a hotel adjacent to the Sears increases the value of the Sears because of the powerful hotel-office combo. Traveling businessmen wouldn't even have to go outside when they need to go to their conference or work or whatever they are doing, that is the point of building it so close. Personally I'd rather see those other buildable lots left until something really big and important comes along. I'd rather see a 2000' building on one of these lots around the sears rather than a few 600 or 700' buildings.

[DHamp]

Well, then just count me as a NIMBY on this not-yet-a-proposal. Sears needs that space. Period.

[Tom In Chicago]

Yeah I've read the article, but I think that the site they're probably considering is the one on Franklin and Quincy. . . there was a 70 storey proposal for that site back in the 1980s. . .

[tm30]

umm...3.8 MILLION sqft of office hotel? With my quick survey of the site if they built over all of it...thats about 102 stories of OFFICE/Hotel. Easily a 1100er (since we've already proved we can have the two shortest 100 story buildings in the world).

That's referring to the Sears Tower itself, which is undergoing environmental review, not the proposed additional building. We don't know the sq. footage of the new building.

[Loopy]

Originally Posted by honte

^ "A likely site is the north side of Jackson between Wacker and Franklin, which now contains a plaza and the entrance to the tower's observation deck. Beneath them is the tower's parking garage.

A building there would fulfill original ideas for the property as developed by the architectural firm Skidmore Owings & Merrill in the 1960s. Lead architect Bruce Graham allowed for another building on the block, although current zoning doesn't permit it."


Is this really true? I don't remember ever seeing a master plan for the Sears Tower that included a second building. Does anyone have any old model shots or plans showing this?

I have a hard time seeing how the site could fit another building without looking too crowded. And I do think the DeStefano pavilion is a very nice piece of design. However, I suppose an addition could be welcome if the annoyingly blank SE corner gets corrected. (SE and NE corners are the biggest problem with the tower, IMO).

Smith seems pretty respectful of the SOM style, since he was there for so long, so I guess we're probably in good hands.

I think the writer is mistakenly referring to Graham's original Sears design that had six additional tubes, not a separate building, on the south end that was to be a hotel. It was scrapped after construction began, and the tower ended up being sited, awkwardly in Graham's opinion, on the North end of the block.