And I did hear a "rumor" of a possible 500' - 600' tall building between this and Swissotel.
It would be nice if that building was the related bud in the 3 tower rendering.
I REALLY liked the 3 tower design, but if axing the kids gets us a 1500'er? Lets do it. Its not like they couldn't be built later if demand stays strong.
My source tells me that this is the most recent design/rendering.
The height surely may have increased, but the image posted with the taller shoulders is old sorry to say. I think I like that one better.
Not surprising as the other rendering just had a more "conceptual" and pre-VE (or Loewenbergization) feel to it, but still a little disappointing....I'm with others though that would be very happy with this design but with an additional 100-150' added for better proportions...
It's the bummer of the week.... but we knew it was coming.
I wonder if the decrease in glassiness / modernity came from Loewenberg, or the architects' desire to contextualize better with the "stone cliff" of Wacker Drive?
It's the bummer of the week.... but we knew it was coming.
I wonder if the decrease in glassiness / modernity came from Loewenberg, or the architects' desire to contextualize better with the "stone cliff" of Wacker Drive?
Bummer? A possible 1030'? Is no bummer. The height increase and 3 tower plans were seperate occourences...
Also, there was NO decrease in glasiness/modernity form the old render to the current one. None at all.
^ Umm, it's hard to know what you mean with the partial sentences, but I obviously am not talking about a height increase. Although if I don't really like the design, I could care less if it's 3000' feet.
I think the design for this is fine, but seeing how much better it was intended to be, I am disappointed.
The other render was small, so it's ineffective for anyone to make absolute claims about what it was showing or not. But to my eye the verticals were less pronounced and the tower seemed fully glazed. The version we have been seeing for a long time seems to have in-fill glazing with exposed elements, or the "limestone" cladding we've heard about. It makes it look busy and confused whether it wants to have a vertical tendency or a horizontal one. The building in the night renders seemed much cleaner and more focused in its design.
I had a more zoomed out version of this shot that I was going to add the building into, but I accidentally deleted it.
Does anyone have a shot from this angle where you can see the top of the Tides/Shoreham?
Or could someone grab one if they're in the area?
I've been doing a bit of investigating. While I was out of town I received some information on this project.
A clip of the email response that I received: "At this time the building is designed for a height of approximately 900' c.c.d, which leaves it approximately 840' above Upper Wacker Drive."
I do have a higher resolution rendering that I will post later.
The height changes are starting to remind me of the MO height changes though the latest from BVic sounds pretty concrete. It is disappointing but not horrible, if there ever is a supertall in LSE like many I have kind of wanted and hoped for it to happen in the NE parcel across from the Spire.
A clip of the email response that I received: "At this time the building is designed for a height of approximately 900' c.c.d, which leaves it approximately 840' above Upper Wacker Drive."
Upper Wacker/Upper Columbus is where Aqua's height is taken from, correct? So this is basically 20' taller than Aqua?
I would wait until an official design somes out and they start marketing this building until im conviced about the height on this one...Ive heard many people say they saw very recent drawings with this building height over 1000ft so we will just have to wait and see.
I'm not really enamored with the old new look. The old version that we thought was new looks so much better. Or maybe we just need another render. Just doesn't look proportionate to me.
Prev
Linear Mode
