CHICAGO | OneEleven - 111 West Wacker | 630 FT | 59 FLOORS | COM

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Does anybody actually know for sure whether the renderings posted here represent the final actual design Related Midwest is going with? Because I would be surprised if this is the design that's actually built. Looks much more like an early concept from either the new architecture firm that got the job, or one that was pitching for it....

from spyguy's initial post:

Originally Posted by spyguy

I'm not sure if this is the final design or not (by DeStefano and Partners).

any more specificity than that will have to come from spyguy himself.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Does anybody actually know for sure whether the renderings posted here represent the final actual design Related Midwest is going with? Because I would be surprised if this is the design that's actually built. Looks much more like an early concept from either the new architecture firm that got the job, or one that was pitching for it....

Well if you are thinking the cantilever is unrealistic you are wrong. That will be a part of the design in some way or another simply because it is impossible to build square floor plates for the remainder of this tower without such a realignment of the columns. I heard rumors of this months ago and apparently that's how it's going to be. What the top/bottom sections will look like in the final product who knows, but the columns on the SE half of the building simply cannot carry any more load than they were designed to which means the building will have to cantilever over that portion of the site if it is to maximize density and achieve maximum profitability.

[Tom Servo]

you know, i keep looking at those three rendering and thinking... if this comes to fruition, and the base facade looks completely different from the top part, this could possibly one of my favorite buildings of all time. i can't get over how sick of an idea this is!

i almost kind of think it'd be even cooler to leave the base un-finished looking... like one of the buildings you see in berlin that was blown in half and has been re-finished with a slick glass facade...

[ndrwmls10]

Am I the only one who thinks the design is horrible? I mean come on. The top half is beautiful, but doesn't even come close to matching the "serviceable" bottom half. This thing needs to have a more cohesive design. I'm also not the biggest fan of the cantilever, either. I don't mean to sound so negative, I'm not usually, but this is just a big ugh to me.

[NYC2ATX]

I think this is just one of those buildings you either love or you hate. Truth be told, I sort of wish they'd be a little more creative with the bottom half of the building, but let's face it. The concrete superstructure is already built and must be worked with. I think I said this before in this thread, but it's called making the best of a really inconvenient situation. Also, another poster explained the necessity for a cantilevered structure a few posts back. Considering all the limitations of the site in its current state, I'd say we got away with a pretty badass building.

...but then I'll reiterate that I was never a die-hard fan of the Waterview Tower.

[Dr. Taco]

This proposal makes me cry. The idea of it makes me want to come back every day to see if there's any news

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by ndrwmls10

Am I the only one who thinks the design is horrible? I mean come on. The top half is beautiful, but doesn't even come close to matching the "serviceable" bottom half. This thing needs to have a more cohesive design. I'm also not the biggest fan of the cantilever, either. I don't mean to sound so negative, I'm not usually, but this is just a big ugh to me.

the non-cohesion is what i think is so badass. the juxtaposition between the previous failed tower and the starkly modern addition placed atop is genius. the aesthetics of honestly, if you ask me. why hide the failure that was the former project; why not exploit it instead? i hope this turns out...

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I agree, I wish the contrast was greater! Just imagine if they took whatever sections of the original Waterview Facade that were finished and put them on the base. And then, when the run out of them just have those pieces fade to a raw glass facade up until the top of the existing structure. Then the stuff above the break would be completely different. That would be sooooo sick.

[10023]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Does anybody actually know for sure whether the renderings posted here represent the final actual design Related Midwest is going with? Because I would be surprised if this is the design that's actually built. Looks much more like an early concept from either the new architecture firm that got the job, or one that was pitching for it....

I'll second this. Very impressive if this is the actual design they use.

[chicagoisepic]

It would be nice if there was no garden in the middle. Other than that the building is just fine.

[Zerton]

I kind of like how it is 2 completely different buildings. We put different structures side by side, in this case they just happen to be one atop the other.

[chi-arch]

Hard to tell what is really happening with that tall prison fence at the top. Seems completely undesigned. I can appreciate the design aesthetic of the cantilever and the functional reason for its existence, but think the two halves need to be even more different from each other. The massing, scale, height, etc. are actually too close in form IMO and need to be seperated in design even more. This would help with the Paul Bunyon aftermath look of the current design. It's out there, but I think it would work.

[harryc]

[scalziand]

Are those lights usually on?

[harryc]

Originally Posted by scalziand

Are those lights usually on?

Yes

[chicagoisepic]

is this really a proposal? i thought it was approved

[Zapatan]

Sorry I haven't been following this too much but why don't they just finish the current Waterview how it was? Even if the old developer doesn't have the money, apparently the new one does. A design change seems silly as it's already halfway in the air.

How tall is the new one supposed to be and when is it supposed to be finished?

[Rizzo]

^

This is me just guessing. But I think the condo proposal had higher floor to floor ceilings. If you are doing a rental project, you want to keep costs down. Ceilings get a little lower, and there aren't as many floors.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Sorry I haven't been following this too much but why don't they just finish the current Waterview how it was? Even if the old developer doesn't have the money, apparently the new one does. A design change seems silly as it's already halfway in the air.

How tall is the new one supposed to be and when is it supposed to be finished?

Originally Posted by Hayward

^

This is me just guessing. But I think the condo proposal had higher floor to floor ceilings. If you are doing a rental project, you want to keep costs down. Ceilings get a little lower, and there aren't as many floors.

Actually the reason for the change in design is a bit more complex than that. Really this design is a result of multiple forces coming together that make it necessary.

First there is the decision not to build the original design. The original design was highly inefficient as it was an extremely slender, tall, tower. This is not the most efficient use of the site as each extra floor added to the top of the tower takes square footage out of the floors below it and requires increasing amounts of materials for less square footage. The developers want to make as much money as possible so they want to revert to a shorter, fatter tower that has much more efficient floor plates. So instead of having 60 more floors that are only 15,000 SF, they are going to have 30 more floors that are a full 30,000 SF and have more usable space since there will be skinnier columns, more efficient emergency exits, etc.

The second part of the equation results from the fact that the original design only called for a tower over the NW side of the site. This means that the columns on the SE can only support 27 floors while the NW side can support 92 floors. This would typically mean building a square tower above the existing structure is impossible. Luckily for Related this building stopped right before they poured the transfer floor before the final ascent of the 92 floor tower. This means the building at this point is essentially open ended. They can pour a transfer floor at this point and essentially orient the tower in any shape they please. So what they are doing is capping off the existing portion with a transfer floor that brings all of the load bearing capacity of the NW corner back to the core. This means that instead of having a site that can support 27 floors on one side and 92 on the other, they will now have one structural stem capable of supporting 60-some floors.

Then they extended the core a couple floors to leave a little breathing room between the transfer floors (and create what will probably be a sick amenity area) and will need another transfer floor that redistributes the load bearing capacity of the now ultra-strong core back into a grid of equally strong columns (unlike the existing 1/2 strong, 1/2 weak configuration) which allows for a maximally efficient, fatter, shorter tower.

So the reason behind the redesign is a desire to capture the most efficient use of the FAR on this site and save money on the construction of an inefficient, ultra skinny, tower by spending a little extra on a cantilevered transfer floor and filling out the site.

[Nowhereman1280]

Also, after taking another look at the rendering, it appears this building will be almost exactly 700'. If you look it appears to be about as tall as the base of the crown of the 756' Chicago Title and Trust building which is probably about 700' above ground.