CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 185

Sir Isaac Newton · #**3681** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

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...

I think I remember reading recently that someone (perhaps Carley?) was thinking about developing the plaza directly to the north of 311 South Wacker....and I think I've heard that there are ideas to develop the parking lot directly south of 311 South Wacker.

I do think that a thin, 600-800 foot hotel could work next to Sears. 311 South Wacker is quite tall and close to Sears, yet it still compliments Sears pretty well.

I think that part of the reason Sears' vacancy rates haven't been that great is because it is practically at the edge of the loop. One block south of Sears is Van Buren, and once you go south of Van Buren, in that area, there is currently NOTHING. Just empty lots, the river, the expressway, ramps to the expressway, and the empty old Post Office. Even Wacker, which is such a well-known street, ends with a wimper once it crosses Van Buren.

I think that once 255 West Van Buren is completed, and then other possible projects go up in the Southwest corner of the Loop such as the possible hotel next to Sears, the two lots next to 311 South Wacker, Wacker Plaza, the Post Office project, and Franklin Point, Sears will become a much more desirable building for companies to set up shop at.

jpIllInoIs · #**3682** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 6:56 PM**

^^ Scrapped after construction began!! I wonder if the caisson were poured??

Loopy · #**3683** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

^^ Scrapped after construction began!! I wonder if the caisson were poured??

Very unlikely. In his Oral History, Graham says once that the hotel was cancelled after tower was "sited", and later says that it was under construction when the addittional tubes were cancelled. He probably means site-prep, if it is even an accurate statement at all.

http://www.artic.edu/aic/libraries/caohp/graham.pdf

Pages 67-69 of the PDF

BVictor1 · #**3684** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loopy

Very unlikely. In his Oral History, Graham says once that the hotel was cancelled after tower was "sited", and later says that it was under construction when the addittional tubes were cancelled. He probably means site-prep, if it is even an accurate statement at all.

http://www.artic.edu/aic/libraries/caohp/graham.pdf

Pages 67-69 of the PDF

Awesome find. I read a few pages of it, and I can tell you the bumble fucks in the West Loop should get a clue and learn how to live in a real city.

spyguy · #**3685** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 10:04 PM**

The Tribune has an image of this Sears addition

Looks to be about ~55-60 floors

Steely Dan · #**3686** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 10:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Not sure why the JDL project was never added to the front page or Emporis, but here is a rendering anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

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

thank you gentlemen, this one has now been added to page 1.

edit:

that sears tower tower looks kinda cool. i've got no problems with that block getting a bit more crowded, the southwest corner of that block always seemed like a waste of space anyway.

Dan in Chicago · #**3687** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 10:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

The Tribune has an image of this Sears addition. Looks to be about ~55-60 floors

If that comes up to the level of the first setback on the Sears Tower, it would be 671 feet tall.

F1 Tommy · #**3688** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 11:16 PM**

Im not sure if I like that building so close to Sears Tower.I wonder if they have any of the Skidmore Owings and Merrill drawings for the the original proposal for a second building on the lot.

Tom Servo · #**3689** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 11:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

The Tribune has an image of this Sears addition

Looks to be about ~55-60 floors

very nice. could this city be taking baby steps in the right direction?

Alliance · #**3690** Posted **Oct 12, 2007, 11:55 PM**

Initially...I'm not impressed. Looks like more of the Smith I hate.

Has potential though. Least its better than Tump or Burj Dubai

. Least its not an initial negative. Park looks primising.

Any other thoughts on if htis is the 70 story zero-energy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

very nice. could this city be taking baby steps in the right direction?

baby steps? You mean sprinting of course...

BVictor1 · #**3691** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 12:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

The Tribune has an image of this Sears addition

Looks to be about ~55-60 floors

I like the greening of the plaza, it makes the place more inviting.

Also, I don't think that we can really judge the quality of the design at this moment, seeing as were looking down upon it from 1,100' feet up.
Once we get true renderings and perspectives, then the judgements can begin.

chicubs111 · #**3692** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 12:33 AM**

Sear Tower owners look at adding second building
By Suand Diesenhouse | Tribune staff reporter

"One possible scenario for a companion to the nation's tallest skyscraper now making its way around Chicago City Hall is a hotel and retail structure designed by Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill Architecture"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-071012sears-towers,0,5480945.story?coll=chi_tab04_layout

HK Chicago · #**3693** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 2:52 AM**

^great placement on the smith tower... theres nothing south of Sears that meets Wacker but this could fill that spot nicely. nice that it's no taller than the 50th story setback on Sears, so it doesn't interfere with it's profile too much. The exterior pattern will match Hyatt nicely, and the new-modern look will counterpoint AT&T (Smith again) nicely. Also helps fill out the bare Sears view from the SW.

Initial impression is that this works well on its own, in relation to Sears, Wacker streetwall, and the skyline. The only thing it can't improve is 311.

LaSalle.St.Station · #**3694** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 3:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

The Tribune has an image of this Sears addition

Looks to be about ~55-60 floors

This is utter BS. It completely deforms the massive base of Sears with bull crap " add on " itis of what is an American ICON.... I piss on this proposal.

the urban politician · #**3695** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 3:06 AM**

I like it in principle. But I'll admit I'd have to walk around the site (not likely to happen any time soon

) to get a good idea of the context.

I've never liked Sears' plaza--it always seemed a bit dead to me. And this project being a hotel with retail space, it sounds like it may add activity to an area that otherwise empties out on evenings and weekends

Nowhereman1280 · #**3696** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 3:37 AM**

First of all, I am fairly impressed with the effort on the new tower by Sears, at first I thought that there was real potential for disaster here, but it seems to blend in with the Sears in an odd way. I don't think it will mess of the profile, which is best when viewed from the Southeast or Northwest anyhow...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loopy

Very unlikely. In his Oral History, Graham says once that the hotel was cancelled after tower was "sited", and later says that it was under construction when the addittional tubes were cancelled. He probably means site-prep, if it is even an accurate statement at all.

http://www.artic.edu/aic/libraries/caohp/graham.pdf

Pages 67-69 of the PDF

AMAZING link, I'm reading the whole thing and just got to the part about the Sears as you said. I think everyone should also go read the large paragraph on bottom half of page 63, I think all of us Chicago forumers will agree on that!

bnk · #**3697** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 3:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

First of all, I am fairly impressed with the effort on the new tower by Sears, at first I thought that there was real potential for disaster here, but it seems to blend in with the Sears in an odd way. I don't think it will mess of the profile, which is best when viewed from the Southeast or Northwest anyhow...

AMAZING link, I'm reading the whole thing and just got to the part about the Sears as you said. I think everyone should also go read the large paragraph on bottom half of page 63, I think all of us Chicago forumers will agree on that!

Agreed great link.

Wild Onion Mike · #**3698** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 4:42 AM**

Loopy, thanks for the link. I almost can't stop reading it. Graham was apparently riduculously witty and unabashedly loved Chicago. That bottom paragraph on pg 63 got me started and now I have the read the whole text.

Regarding the proposed tower next to Sears: I actually like the design, but am not certain I like it encroaching upon Sears. It could end up looking like a lamphrey attached to a shark OR a really nice counterpoint to the banded rythmes of Sears' horizontal and vertical lines.

Everybody hit the nail on the head when they say the current plaza south of Sears really sucks the life out of any possibility for urban vibrancy along that side of the block and maybe that's why I could see this possibly working.

Yet, how would everybody feel about the same proposed tower being placed alongside the Hancock? Personally, I give that a resoundingly huge thumbs down. It's not just the size of these buildings or the fame of these buildings that I feel causes us to deeply question whether another building should straddle them. I think it's the fact that these buildings are monolithic in nature. Would we be happy seeing a second structure added to the Washington Monument, the Arch, The Empire State Building or Daley Center?

honte · #**3699** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 6:31 AM**

^ Yeah, I basically think this sucks. Sorry guys to be a downer. There are too many other places in this part of town that really could use this tower. And the SE corner is still going to be a big blank wall after it's all said and done, unless they really go to town with the plaza. Bummer.

I know the plaza is a bit empty feeling, but it's a great luxury to be able to wander around the base of a supertall, wouldn't you agree. Sure, liven it up a bit, but don't crowd the life out of it.

And oh yeah, $60M of our money for this? For what, another damn tree-covered roof!? If Buck can build 'em with his own cash, let these guys do it too.

GregBear24 · #**3700** Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 6:49 AM**

I hate to be a dick as well, but I have to assertively disprove of this idea of putting something that close to the sears tower. The plaza should be reconfigured, and more green, but I love being able to walk around the base and look up at brilliance from the spacious plaza. The west and south of sears needs beefing up, and the people who own sears have plenty of other options within 1-2 blocks to develop something spectacular. I don't care how good any proposal is for this site, it's plain stupid to put another building there. Build 20 highrises on every block of the city for all I care, but don't cram them too close to architectural masterpieces. Wrigley, Hancock, Tribune, sears, and others have breathing room for people to appreciate them- I sometimes even wish that aon had more room on all sides so I could enjoy the verticality of it even more than I already do. Maybe I'm an anti-density nimby bitch for saying that, but I've always loved the space sears has around it for all visitors from around the world to appreciate the scale and grandness of this monster.