CHICAGO | BMO Tower | 727 FT | 50 FLOORS - Page 3

Ned.B · #1 Posted **Mar 24, 2017, 3:01 PM**

Speaking as someone with a little insider info, I'm 100% certain that at least one team is still working on their proposal, and the deadline for submission is sometime in mid-April. I think the Q1 date is from an outdated schedule.

TimeAgain · #2 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:10 AM**

I don't see any tall buildings there.

Should've went with SB.

Kngkyle · #3 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:11 AM**

Massive Union Station project gets a developer

City Hall and Amtrak have selected a real estate firm to lead an ambitious, $1-billion-plus redevelopment of Union Station and land adjacent to the historic structure for a variety of commercial uses.

...include renovating Union Station's now largely empty headhouse into retail, hotel and office space; constructing two 12-story residential buildings over the headhouse; developing 1.5 million square feet of new office space in two towers just south of the station, and constructing 500,000 square feet of residential space in another high-rise on railroad air rights.

That amounts to a total of 3.1 million square feet, all of which the city would like to be completed within six years.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ts-a-developer

ithakas · #4 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Massive Union Station project gets a developer

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ts-a-developer

I'm bummed we're not getting the gorgeous SOM design but actually prefer the programming of this – time to get more mixed-use in the area.

Maybe this will compel Sterling Bay to go for another site in West Loop Gate for their proposal. They could site it two blocks south at Harrison & Clinton, on the full block where the Holiday Inn and parking lot are, across the street from the Old Post Office.

Steely Dan · #5 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:17 AM**

Uh oh!

More Goettsch blue glass boxes.

The natives will be restless.

BVictor1 · #6 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Uh oh!

More Goettsch blue glass boxes.

The natives will be restless.

Placeholder massing, but I too am disappointed in these seemingly 'small plans'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

If this site can't generate a max density supertall tower, then safe to say Chicago will never see another one built again. I hate to see these prime sites close to the west loop train stations be underdeveloped continuously.

It's not "safe to say" that, and in fact, it's kind of a dumb comment seeing as there's a supernal going up now.

Kngkyle · #7 Posted **May 25, 2017, 2:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Placeholder massing, but I too am disappointed in these seemingly 'small plans'.

Hopefully............. not sure on that though.

The Best Forumer · #8 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

I'm bummed we're not getting the gorgeous SOM design but actually prefer the programming of this – time to get more mixed-use in the area.

Maybe this will compel Sterling Bay to go for another site in West Loop Gate for their proposal. They could site it two blocks south at Harrison & Clinton, on the full block where the Holiday Inn and parking lot are, across the street from the Old Post Office.

Horrifying design. Terrible buildings. Chicago can do better than this....

barf.

munchymunch · #9 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Best Forumer

Horrifying design. Terrible buildings. Chicago can do better than this....

barf.

Wished GP switched it up a little bit, I get that they have a certain style, but at this point it’s just getting repetive.

Ned.B · #10 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch

Wished GP switched it up a little bit, I get that they have a certain style, but at this point it’s just getting repetive.

It's funny that you say that as your signature quotes the guy who believed that a universal aesthetic language could be used for every building on every site.

I think while some of the big moves on this building are the same as used at 110 N Wacker, the specific details of the base, lobby, curtainwall etc. are going to make them feel like very different buildings, especially when experienced from the street level. And 110 no longer has this 3 step massing, it's more about the way that the facade steps horizontally to follow the river.

munchymunch · #11 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B

It's funny that you say that as your signature quotes the guy who believed that a universal aesthetic language could be used for every building on every site.

I think while some of the big moves on this building are the same as used at 110 N Wacker, the specific details of the base, lobby, curtainwall etc. are going to make them feel like very different buildings, especially when experienced from the street level. And 110 no longer has this 3 step massing, it's more about the way that the facade steps horizontally to follow the river.

I dont have a problem with GP buildings they are always pretty well done, and turn our nice . However they have shown that they are capable of something different (UBS, Transbay etc.) Excluding 150n Riverside, recently I’ve felt their office tower designs have been looking very similar in Chicago.

And I hope you’re right about tje details, something interesting like 150’s Curtain wall would be nice.

spyguy · #12 Posted **Dec 12, 2018, 5:20 AM**

Looks like they are borrowing some elements from Viceroy for the facade.

Randomguy34 · #13 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:28 AM**

It would have been amazing if a plaza was proposed for the site, since Chicago doesn't really have a proper open plaza, but looks like we got another parking podium instead

ithakas · #14 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

It would have been amazing if a plaza was proposed for the site, since Chicago doesn't really have a proper open plaza, but looks like we got another parking podium instead

I didn't see the plaza as elevated at first (looked more like it could be a shadow), but the article mentions that the plaza/outdoor spaces would be above the transit center, so maybe that's the ground floor?

Kumdogmillionaire · #15 Posted **May 25, 2017, 5:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

It would have been amazing if a plaza was proposed for the site, since Chicago doesn't really have a proper open plaza, but looks like we got another parking podium instead

We definitely have some proper plazas, unless you mean just an entire block of open space that isn't a park

rlw777 · #16 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:30 AM**

ug leave the headhouse alone or design additions with respect for the current building.

ithakas · #17 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777

ug leave the headhouse alone or design additions with respect for the current building.

Considering what Goettsch did with the Viceroy that's probably the aspect I'm most excited about architecturally here.

rlw777 · #18 Posted **May 25, 2017, 1:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

Considering what Goettsch did with the Viceroy that's probably the aspect I'm most excited about architecturally here.

The rendering is far from promising.

spyguy · #19 Posted **May 25, 2017, 5:07 AM**

In its current state (which I'm sure could change drastically over time), I say this is junk. Not only are they throwing a suburban office tower-looking addition on top of Union Station, but the new towers also look pretty lacking.

Jim in Chicago · #20 Posted **May 25, 2017, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

In its current state (which I'm sure could change drastically over time), I say this is junk. Not only are they throwing a suburban office tower-looking addition on top of Union Station, but the new towers also look pretty lacking.

Worse than junk, this is completely disrespectful to the existing building. How could this ever have happened!!

I have no problem with the program, the execution is my issue.