CHICAGO | Tribune Tower Addition | 1,442 FT | 113 FLOORS

[The North One]

This thing is too beautiful and too perfect, it needs to be built yesterday.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by The North One

This thing is too beautiful and too perfect, it needs to be built yesterday.

Ugh, don't rub it in.

It seems like the only chance left for a Chicago supertall (other than Vista) in the near future. (Assuming 400LSD gets downsized without the hotel)

Unless of course something we don't know of pops up.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Ugh, don't rub it in.

It seems like the only chance left for a Chicago supertall (other than Vista) in the near future. (Assuming 400LSD gets downsized without the hotel)

Unless of course something we don't know of pops up.

I'd imagine that the hotel would downsize the smaller tower for Related on 400 LSD, and OCS could still end up a supertall in the end. I'm hopeful. Sad about WPS big time though

[Tom In Chicago]

Has this (specifically the tower, not the renovation of the existing buildings) been approved by the Planning Commission?

. . .

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Has this (specifically the tower, not the renovation of the existing buildings) been approved by the Planning Commission?

Nosir, it hasn't even filed its PD yet. (Though in the 42nd that typically doesn't happen until after Reilly is satisfied/greased up.)

[Zapatan]

Nosir, it hasn't even filed its PD yet. (Though in the 42nd that typically doesn't happen until after Reilly is satisfied/greased up.)

Where did you hear that? This alone seems like a bad omen that they didn't follow through submitting in September, which if I'm not mistaken was stated way back.

Also Reilly in the picture... there's that

[Fvn]

It would be interesting if they did make it shorter because why hire AS+GG if you're in the end just gonna trim it down?

I guess its all part of the business though

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Fvn

It would be interesting if they did make it shorter because why hire AS+GG if you're in the end just gonna trim it down?

I guess its all part of the business though

It is bizarre. I'm not sure why they would want everyone think they're building a 400+ meter building, pay money for the design (I assume they did?) and then back out.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It is bizarre. I'm not sure why they would want everyone think they're building a 400+ meter building, pay money for the design (I assume they did?) and then back out.

Perhaps they didn't get the positive public feedback on their design they hoped for?

[Sky88]

Beyond many words, we have some news about the project?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Sky88

Beyond many words, we have some news about the project?

No, you'll see it here ASAP when there is though

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Perhaps they didn't get the positive public feedback on their design they hoped for?

Hm, could be. Although I'm not sure what they found wrong with it.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Hm, could be. Although I'm not sure what they found wrong with it.

If you go back to the beginning of the thread for this project you can see a mixed bag of opinions. My core personal issue is that if it is going to pair with the Tribune Tower then it should do a better job with a more traditional stylistic approach. Others on this board claim it does pair with the Tribune Tower and other surrounding towers in more subtle modern ways, though I'm skeptical that these claims are true. Also the building has a general semblance to a lot of the tall buildings that have gone up in China in recent years. New York has several supertalls that don't look like Chinese buildings and I'd prefer we'd do the same.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

If you go back to the beginning of the thread for this project you can see a mixed bag of opinions. My core personal issue is that if it is going to pair with the Tribune Tower then it should do a better job with a more traditional stylistic approach. Others on this board claim it does pair with the Tribune Tower and other surrounding towers in more subtle modern ways, though I'm skeptical that these claims are true. Also the building has a general semblance to a lot of the tall buildings that have gone up in China in recent years. New York has several supertalls that don't look like Chinese buildings and I'd prefer we'd do the same.

To each their own but personally I like (or at least don't mind) the mix of new and old. Would you prefer an art deco knock off like One Bennet Park? I'm not sure how much I like the buildings that try to be 1930's.

It does look a bit Chinese (like KK tower in Shenzhen) but I don't think that's a bad thing. I generally like Chinese buildings (although some are tacky). Some of NYC's towers like the WTC and Hudson Yards also look a bit Asian to me.

[10023]

It is impossible to build anything in a “traditional style” today. The skills and labor don’t exist, nor will they spend sufficiently on materials, nor will the methods be right. So what you will get is some god awful post-modernism. It’s best not to even try.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by 10023

It is impossible to build anything in a “traditional style” today. The skills and labor don’t exist, nor will they spend sufficiently on materials, nor will the methods be right. So what you will get is some god awful post-modernism. It’s best not to even try.

Just to clarify before LVDW beats me to it:

The skills and labor DO exist and the methods may or may not be the same, but they exist in such a manner to create a totally satisfying and true 'traditional' example if so desired...

You are right that it is the high cost of doing so that is keeping projects like OBP from using limestone, bronze, more traditional detailing, etc. and that is really the only reason by far and away why we don't see more traditionally detailed and built 'traditional' examples... (way behind cost being the number one reason, is a lack of desire in general for historic vocabulary followed by a lack of skill and training among architects to produce those designs properly)...

[10023]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Just to clarify before LVDW beats me to it:

The skills and labor DO exist and the methods may or may not be the same, but they exist in such a manner to create a totally satisfying and true 'traditional' example if so desired...

You are right that it is the high cost of doing so that is keeping projects like OBP from using limestone, bronze, more traditional detailing, etc. and that is really the only reason by far and away why we don't see more traditionally detailed and built 'traditional' examples... (way behind cost being the number one reason, is a lack of desire in general for historic vocabulary followed by a lack of skill and training among architects to produce those designs properly)...

This is basically semantics. Ok, so the labor and skills “exist”, but they’re in such short supply as to make this uneconomical. You’d basically need to fly people over from Europe whose normal job is working on historical restorations. And I don’t think the price per square foot in Chicago would justify the cost, even if there was interest. Maybe in Manhattan.

A fully modern design is miles better than more crap like Park Towerr or the Fordham. That’s what you get from “traditional” design these days. OBP is probably the best we’re going to get, especially at Chicago’s real estate values.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

^ Did this dude just call Park Tower crap? Another horrible take by Anglophile troll that is 10023

[10023]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

^ Did this dude just call Park Tower crap? Another horrible take by Anglophile troll that is 10023

I did.

I know everyone was very excited when it was built because it was tall and thin, but it is not good architecture or a passable facsimile of the Art Deco towers that it attempts to emulate.

It is not particularly offensive by Lucien Lagrange standards (he has obviously done much, much worse), but it’s not winning any awards, and a good example of modernism is always going to be better than traditionalist architecture if Park Tower is the standard that one is trying to achieve.

[Busy Bee]

Gonna have to go with 10023 on this one. Park Tower is impressive because of how tall it is and how tall it was when it was built and little more. It doesn't read as offensive, don't get me wrong, but stylistically it feels like hunter green and polished brass.