CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[forumly_chgoman]

Originally Posted by GregBear24

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.

^^^^^
BS jam it ....
... its enormity will speak for itself...it is the capital letter at the start of the sentence and simultaneously the exclamation point at the end of the sentence

[denizen467]

I also think the ST block is hallowed ground and shouldn't be encroached upon. The longtime world's tallest should be entitled to occupy an entire block. Re-executing the southern plaza isn't a bad idea, though.

I guess it's not the end of the world, though, if done well. Density has its upside too.

But it's pretty interesting thinking that one can take away all of the views from 1/3rd of the south-facing ST tenants (up to the 50th floor) and still benefit. Those are the hard-to-lease floors.

[denizen467]

In related news, the Smith + Gill website has recently changed from saying "WEBSITE TO LAUNCH IN 2007" to saying "WEBSITE will launch OCTOBER 2007".

So we can finally expect to be dazzled soon by what they've been cooking up over these 12 months.

[chicubs111]

Sears Tower may get sibling
Owners mull hotel, retail structure


"The current iteration of the hotel design depicts a five-sided tower housing a hotel with at least 550 rooms and 50,000 square feet of retail, the source said."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sat_searsoct13,0,6270903.story

[a chicago bearcat]

this is not the zero energy tower, but the green space on what looks like the existing plaza is a green roof on top of around 3 floors of retail and other amenities

my thought is, build on the site of the ugly sears tower parking garage.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by denizen467

I also think the ST block is hallowed ground...

lol

[harryc]

Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat

....
my thought is, build on the site of the ugly sears tower parking garage.

Great idea. Currently they are digging the garage E of Sears a bit deeper to put shops in. The garage floor was laid directly on top of the old buildings, you can see pieces of the old red facade (?), oil tanks and brick.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Wild Onion Mike

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?

Well, the plaza of the Hancock is totally different than the one at Sears, because it actually has life. There's retail space and human activity. The plaza of Sears is a baren plain. Daley Plaza, the arch and others are more successful.

Originally Posted by GregBear24

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. 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.

As long as you admit your shortcomings

[jcchii]

density is good, and I don't hate this at all

if the building only goes halfway up sears then it won't crowd it from most angles

[Alliance]

The area around Sears needs density like none other. 311S Wacker and the large tower of the AT&T building are both a block away form Sears. This area needs badly ( and not 1000' towers spaced every other block apart with nothing in between. Unless you count 111S wacker, there is a one block dead zone around Sears. This tower doesn't even block that much of Sears. And, guess what, there are still going to be 3.5 other sides of Sears that you can look straight up at (blame that stupid domed entrance for blocking the best of them).

Its an uphill climb arguing against this tower. All I see is some of you acting like NIMBY's. Only instead of acting like you're loosing 15% of your view from your backyard, you're loosing a view of 15% of your tower. Who cares? Don't you LIVE in a city? In a city, aren't there buildings next to other buildings? Are you afraid that the new building might cast shadows on Sears? These arguments are weak.

The economic, revitalization, and architectural benefits to this building are all there...not to mention the protential to increase local land values and spread future development (including a skyline that doesn't die of a heart attack at Van Bueren). The plaza redo is a dramatic improvement. I've NEVER seen anyone in that plaza admiring Sears...they're practically always on the sidewalk. The plaza even looks like its based off of Hancocks (which is rather nice...fountain?). The redo would not only encourage people to go to the skydeck but linger around the area. Maybe some actual retail/restaurants would pop up across the street in the new tower on 311S Wacker's block. Maybe they're will be retail in the building.

This project is a complete GO.

[DHamp]

Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat

this is not the zero
my thought is, build on the site of the ugly sears tower parking garage.

Hell yes. Build on that parking garage right next door. They could even make a skybridge or two from the hotel to the tower, on that side. Re-do Sears's plaza and build a hotel tower to the east of it. Just don't build that thing on Sears' block.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Alliance

The area around Sears needs density like none other. 311S Wacker and the large tower of the AT&T building are both a block away form Sears. This area needs badly ( and not 1000' towers spaced every other block apart with nothing in between. Unless you count 111S wacker, there is a one block dead zone around Sears. This tower doesn't even block that much of Sears. And, guess what, there are still going to be 3.5 other sides of Sears that you can look straight up at (blame that stupid domed entrance for blocking the best of them).

Its an uphill climb arguing against this tower. All I see is some of you acting like NIMBY's. Only instead of acting like you're loosing 15% of your view from your backyard, you're loosing a view of 15% of your tower. Who cares? Don't you LIVE in a city? In a city, aren't there buildings next to other buildings? Are you afraid that the new building might cast shadows on Sears? These arguments are weak.

The economic, revitalization, and architectural benefits to this building are all there...not to mention the protential to increase local land values and spread future development (including a skyline that doesn't die of a heart attack at Van Bueren). The plaza redo is a dramatic improvement. I've NEVER seen anyone in that plaza admiring Sears...they're practically always on the sidewalk. The plaza even looks like its based off of Hancocks (which is rather nice...fountain?). The redo would not only encourage people to go to the skydeck but linger around the area. Maybe some actual retail/restaurants would pop up across the street in the new tower on 311S Wacker's block. Maybe they're will be retail in the building.

This project is a complete GO.

I completely agree with you alliance. I was going to say something of that effect (Stop being NIMBYs), but decided that it would be mean to do so. Alliance, there will be retail in this building, something sizable like 50,000sf. That makes this even better. I'm really not afraid of this blocking the Sears in anyway, get over it, the Sears will eat this building alive.

Originally Posted by DHamp

Hell yes. Build on that parking garage right next door. They could even make a skybridge or two from the hotel to the tower, on that side. Re-do Sears's plaza and build a hotel tower to the east of it. Just don't build that thing on Sears' block.

I'd rather save that parking garage for something more substantial, let its land values continue to go up, then maybe we'll get something like a 1200'er or a 1800'er there! BTW I'm glad they are putting retail into the bottom of the Sears parking garage.

NO, no skybridges piercing the Sears, that is not acceptable, unless you only mean across a road on the second level, from the parking structure.

[DHamp]

Wow. On a forum where so many of you guys scream and holler about "facadectomies" and generally despise any talk of tearing down any building built before 1940, especially when surface or multilevel parking is nearby, I'm surprised at how many of you are willing to allow, hell, support the defacing of a undeniable architectural icon of our city. And yes, this tower would deface it by ruining the street view of the southern facade. You guys wouldn't talk like this if it were talk of building a hotel on JHC's plaza. Admittedly, Sears' plaza isn't a destination like Hancock's. But they can liven up ST's plaza without building a tower right in front of it. I don't know what else to say. I'll get off of my soapbox and just hope to myself that this one dies on the vine.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Originally Posted by DHamp

Wow. On a forum where so many of you guys scream and holler about "facadectomies" and generally despise any talk of tearing down any building built before 1940, especially when surface or multilevel parking is nearby, I'm surprised at how many of you are willing to allow, hell, support the defacing of a undeniable architectural icon of our city. And yes, this tower would deface it by ruining the street view of the southern facade. You guys wouldn't talk like this if it were talk of building a hotel on JHC's plaza. Admittedly, Sears' plaza isn't a destination like Hancock's. But they can liven up ST's plaza without building a tower right in front of it. I don't know what else to say. I'll get off of my soapbox and just hope to myself that this one dies on the vine.

The street view of the southern facade? That might be a halfway decent argument (at best) if there was actually street activity south of Sears. I walk by the area just south of Sears a lot on my way to/from work - it's pretty barren there. So I don't think that it's a negative that the street view of the southern facade would be ruined when there is hardly anyone who has a street view of the southern facade to begin with.

[Nowhereman1280]

Dhamp, I don't understand what is so shocking about the idea that a building will be built next to another building. I mean look at Aon, it is more monolithic (IMO) than Sears, but it does just fine with Buildings on all three sides. The Sears' soaring heights are not going to be threatened by the addition of an adjacent 700' tower on a lot that was originally intended for another tower anyhow.

The reason I would care if they were planning to build on JHC's plaza is that that plaza is a fraction of the size of this plaza, is very much used, and is on Michigan Ave. Michigan Ave is the primary street of that area of town and building a building that would block the view of JHC from the main street would indeed be a travesty, the main street in the Sears area is Wacker, the view from Wacker will be preserved. If this was being built on the half-barrel lobby of Sears, between it and Wacker, then I would be pissed, but its not, so I don't care.

The differences between the JHC plaza and this one are vast, you can hardly compare them.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by DHamp

Wow. On a forum where so many of you guys scream and holler about "facadectomies" and generally despise any talk of tearing down any building built before 1940, especially when surface or multilevel parking is nearby, I'm surprised at how many of you are willing to allow, hell, support the defacing of a undeniable architectural icon of our city. And yes, this tower would deface it by ruining the street view of the southern facade. You guys wouldn't talk like this if it were talk of building a hotel on JHC's plaza. Admittedly, Sears' plaza isn't a destination like Hancock's. But they can liven up ST's plaza without building a tower right in front of it. I don't know what else to say. I'll get off of my soapbox and just hope to myself that this one dies on the vine.

Exactly what's being defaced? A barren plaza? You can get off it... This proposed building will not ruin the street view as there are 3 other sides to view the tower from. And as mentioned before, the plaza for the Hancock is an active space, so there is no comparisson.

[GregBear24]

I don't believe the problem of this barren area is because of sears plaza. Sears' plaza absolutely needs to be revamped bigtime, but would a building directly south of sears change the area that much? Look around sears and union station- there's nothing ANYWHERE. I just don't see why they can't build this across the street next to stupid 311, and re-vamp the plaza with greenery and some retail perhaps. A retail/hotel/residential building immediately north of 311 would be better imo. I love density as much as the next guy, but the problem is the general area around sears as much as it's the sears' desolate plaza itself. This plot just doesn't seem like a priority to develop first- I know the response will be "why not?", but if you want to make the whole "area" better, then you have to think OUTSIDE the big black box.

[Alliance]

side note: NCS is reporting that The Peshtigo will begin construction in Q1 08. They're also going for LEED. Full article here.

This lot is being developed first because its the CLOSEST to Sears. End of story. Without this building, the plaza would not be redeveloped either.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by honte

"We would love to see first-class retail in the West Loop," Sedler said, "but at the same time we have to see something that benefits the area."

... because, of course, the only conceivable thing that could benefit the area is less than 10 stories.

You don't have retail because of your NIMBY group, you dumb shit. Your neighborhood will never evolve to its fully potential. You do not have the density needed for a thriving retial scene.

Your group's idoitic height limitation forces developers to max out as of right zoning on high priced real estate, which means ground floor parking to keep the costs down. The end result is blank walls facing sidewalks and only a scattered selection of retial locations. You cannot have a successful pedestrain oriented retail strip with huge gaps of blank walls facing the street.

The height cap also then causes higher prices for the condos in smaller buildings with no views and no ammenities. Which in turn take longer to sell and cause new developments (which would add vibrancy) to lag in sales.

You idoits ruined your own neighborhood.

[NSawyer]

Look around sears and union station- there's nothing ANYWHERE. I just don't see why they can't build this across the street next to stupid 311, and re-vamp the plaza with greenery and some retail perhaps. A retail/hotel/residential building immediately north of 311 would be better imo.

The group that owns the Sears Tower doesn't own the land north of 311 or the lots around Union Station so those sites are not viable options. The only part of this project that I have a problem with is the $60 mil for the city.

Sidenote: I've tried to click on the "Quote message" box but it doesn't seem to work. Does anyone know what I might be doing wrong?