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

[aaron38]

Was the ground level entry the true ground, the level of LSE park? Or the entry on Upper Wacker? Because that's a ~40' difference in height right there.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ He already said hes almost 100% certain that the number was taken from the main entrance. Even with that 40 feet, this would still basically be a supertall...

Perhaps the developers have been emboldened by the proposal of W=A across the river and have more FAR to burn from the replacement of the site south of Aqua with the school?

I'm telling you we are starting to get a plateau at 1050-1150', this needs to change less we end up looking like SF or Vancouver!

[10023]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I'm telling you we are starting to get a plateau at 1050-1150', this needs to change less we end up looking like SF or Vancouver!

Or SF set on top of Vancouver, more accurately.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^

I'm telling you we are starting to get a plateau at 1050-1150', this needs to change less we end up looking like SF or Vancouver!

Who'd have ever thought that we'd be saying this about a 1,000' footer?

If we could get more height like this on the southern edge of the skyline it would be sweet.

I think that we should really push for something in the 1,500' range at LSD and Wacker.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yeah, that would be optimal.

But then we have to find a spot to put that potential WTB that crazy Iranian-Texan wants to build.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I'm telling you we are starting to get a plateau at 1050-1150', this needs to change less we end up looking like SF or Vancouver!

Well, i agree, but not really. The main issue for me is that ALL of Chicago's newsueprtalls will be along the river (save W=A and which is a precious block or two away) Aon is in the mix too. Then there are the (soon to be weak peaks of 333 -Sears-AT&T and Watertower Place-JHC-900)

...did I just call Sears weak?...

Just like the first part of the last century, Chicago's big developmnets are along the river. 1050-1150' is fine...its just the new 700'. The main issue for me is that we need to move this king of height outside of this specific area. Serously, the river is a fault-line of construction. This tower is not a shaky proposal either, I'd be shocked if it wasn't built.

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I think that we should really push for something in the 1,500' range at LSD and Wacker.

Absolutely. I'd be skeptical of anything near the height of Aon. This is about what is best for the plan of the city, not a pointless request for height like @ WP...which should be a good 1500' or so.

Should we start a political action committee?

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Yeah, that would be optimal.

But then we have to find a spot to put that potential WTB that crazy Iranian-Texan wants to build.

Wolf Point or just behind 200 N Riverside. SOmewhere towards the back of the skyline where it will blend in.

[Dr. Taco]

^ or the front, for people like me (and everyone else who doesn't live in a boat)

[BorisMolotov]

I'd like the next supertall to be in the Loop south and east of Sears.

[Nowhereman1280]

I'd like the next big one (1500+) maybe the crazy Iranian-Texan's WTB to be somewhere in the near south loop, like north of Roosevelt south of the loop El. This would really link the peak we will see on the south side of Grant Park with the Sears cluster. It would also be nice to see a 1300+ a little south and west of Hancock, maybe at Chicago and state where that stupid parking lot is now...

[DePaul Bunyan]

Wow, LSE seems to be loading the bases. I hope that LSD-Wacker gets knocked out of the park.

[Tom In Chicago]

sentinel - I just came back from an Aqua meeting where there was a North Elevation rendering of this Arquitectonica tower and the total height (ground level entry to top of roof) was listed as 1,030'-4" - this was the most recent iteration of the design, btw - very similar to the original, but seemed to have more texture in terms of the banding between floors and also on the glazing pattern itself

Was this the rendering you saw?


. . .

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

sentinel - I just came back from an Aqua meeting where there was a North Elevation rendering of this Arquitectonica tower and the total height (ground level entry to top of roof) was listed as 1,030'-4" - this was the most recent iteration of the design, btw - very similar to the original, but seemed to have more texture in terms of the banding between floors and also on the glazing pattern itself

Was this the rendering you saw?


. . .

Oi, whats the 2 buildings on the side? Those are new as well. Great news on the new height!

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

sentinel - I just came back from an Aqua meeting where there was a North Elevation rendering of this Arquitectonica tower and the total height (ground level entry to top of roof) was listed as 1,030'-4" - this was the most recent iteration of the design, btw - very similar to the original, but seemed to have more texture in terms of the banding between floors and also on the glazing pattern itself

Was this the rendering you saw?


. . .

No actually it was just a rendered, front elevation of the tallest main building - as far as I know those two side buildings flanking the main one are really new, I was not aware of those and the rendering that I saw did not indicate those either.

[Alliance]

Good lord. Even the little babies got holes in em too. The flankers are like 500' and 600' foot towers as well.

This iteration, as a development, looks much better, but I'd like to see a daytime drawing. I'm sure since Aqua is sold, they'll start merketing this come next year. (but could they really market all 3 towers?)

[Steely Dan]

woah, i wasn't expecting this project to sprout buds. and that rendering does make it look like it could be a bona fide 1,000 footer. looks interesting from what little can be discerned from the tiny rendering.

[pip]

^So change the thread title to the new height? hehe

[simcityaustin]

Wow, they really pulled it all together. What a great way to compliment the main tower. It does look taller and thinner (b/c of the added) as well. It feels better proportioned. Agreed about the need for a daytime render.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pip

^So change the thread title to the new height? hehe

until we can get a new corresponding floor count to "confirm" the new height figure, i'm gonna leave the thread title alone.

[honte]

Originally Posted by simcityaustin

Wow, they really pulled it all together. What a great way to compliment the main tower. It does look taller and thinner (b/c of the added) as well. It feels better proportioned. Agreed about the need for a daytime render.

Yeah, exactly. My enthusiasm for this just trippled.... which is good, because for all the — I give these developers, they never have a project get this far and not get built. Hopefully the three-tower scheme doesn't indicate that they are afraid of the current market, and might shelve the tallest tower for a while / indefinitely. The scheme wouldn't look very nice if only one or two (without the centerpiece) were built.

The one on the right looks like the St. Clair, stretched a bit and LEDified.

Now, if they could just put the pedestrian access hole back at ground level somehow, I would have no complaints.

[SNT1]

Wow, definitely looking like a supertall with that last render.

And two spawns is just

But unless my depth perception is screwed, it looks too tall to be 1030', or else the E-W side is too skinny.