CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I don't see how the political donations are relevant

Maybe because

The proposed height will require city approval because it is more than 500 feet taller than the ceiling allowed by the Lakeshore East master plan.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Maybe because

The proposed height will require city approval because it is more than 500 feet taller than the ceiling allowed by the Lakeshore East master plan.

Or maybe because these plans are never written in stone nor blood, they're plans, guidelines that are designed to be changed and reconfigured, just like the South Loop plan, with its arbitrary 400' threshold for high-rises along Roosevelt.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Maybe because

The proposed height will require city approval because it is more than 500 feet taller than the ceiling allowed by the Lakeshore East master plan.

LSE Master plan called for 75 story office towers fronting Columbus and as currently planned is less dense then the original concepts for PD 70 which covers all of Illinois Center, which of course was supposed to go all the way to Lake shore Drive. Not really sure where this "500 ft ceiling" comes in as the building envelopes in the master plan also had a range of heights envisioned, varying by geographic location.

[wierdaaron]

I felt bad for that guy at the meeting last Monday who thought he had a zinger of a prepared speech about Reilly's campaign promises and accepting money from developers during Q&A time, and when halfway through his diatribe bored audience members started shouting, "what's the question?!"

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I felt bad for that guy at the meeting last Monday who thought he had a zinger of a prepared speech about Reilly's campaign promises and accepting money from developers during Q&A time, and when halfway through his diatribe bored audience members started shouting, "what's the question?!"

Awesome! Hope he felt like a dick.

[wrab]

Kudos to S/G for identifying LSE's disconnect from downtown as a site challenge & for conducting some great circulation research in response.

[Domer2019]

IMO, this pic really shows why this tower deserves its full height, regardless of where cars drive.


- Chicago Architecture [Editor] http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...a-magic-wanda/
Also, credit to rlw777 for posting this on skyscrapercity


In other news, I think the Wanda will be an excellent perpendicular compliment to Lake Point Tower across the river.

[Zapatan]

^^^ Thanks for the picture, can't wait for this to rise!

Originally Posted by Domer2019

In other news, I think the Wanda will be an excellent perpendicular compliment to Lake Point Tower across the river.

I think it's way better looking that Lake Point Tower honestly. It'll complement whatever rises at the Spire site even better since that's more likely to be of a similar height.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

^^^ Thanks for the picture, can't wait for this to rise!



I think it's way better looking that Lake Point Tower honestly. It'll complement whatever rises at the Spire site even better since that's more likely to be of a similar height.

Lake Point tower is almost 50 years old. What did Asia and Dubai look like then

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Lake Point tower is almost 50 years old. What did Asia and Dubai look like then

I think the lakepoint tower is definitely unique and cool in it's own right (I like the shape), but part of me thinks it's kind of ugly, maybe it's the facade.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I think it's way better looking that Lake Point Tower honestly. It'll complement whatever rises at the Spire site even better since that's more likely to be of a similar height.

The Related Spire project site tower could be taller. I'm guessing its going to be at least 1,200 feet, but could go as high as 1,500 feet. Just because I don't think Related is going to waste the site on something shorter. But we'll see!

[Domer2019]

To quote myself:

Originally Posted by Domer2019

IMO, this pic really shows why this tower deserves its full height, regardless of where cars drive.


- Chicago Architecture [Editor] http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...a-magic-wanda/
Also, credit to rlw777 for posting this on skyscrapercity

the ground level is at ground level, and should be regarded as such

[wierdaaron]

I don't think it's worthwhile to frame the design of this building in our minds as being rounded down from civicly significant buildings that speak to the core of what it means to be in Chicago and get included in skyline keychains and postcards. This is a residential building inside a weird pocket universe that exists right next to the loop where a bunch of ornamental buildings are scattered around a walled-off secret garden. You should be thinking of any new LSE building design as being rounded up from "The Chandler".

Frame it in your mind as if you woke up after a long nap and someone said guess what, Magellan just shit out another condo tower in Lakeshore East. You'd wince, and ask what it looks like. Then imagine you saw the most recent renders of this building. You'd kiss whomever you were talking to, and skip all the way home.

[sentinel]

The hatred towards this design is...whatever.

[chiphile]

Let me put the whole Frustum thing to rest.

the entire Hancock is one fucking frustum.

OK. talk about something else now folks.

I wonder, if the hancock were proposed today, how much "arbitrary" bullshit we would hear about the necessity of the higher floor plates being smaller than the lower floors? The only reason no one is questioning the Hancock's shape is because it's old and considered the classic symbol of Chicago. Build wanda in 1960 and it would've been, perhaps not the best skyscraper, but it would've been considered classic Chicago.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by chiphile

Let me put the whole Frustum thing to rest.

the entire Hancock is one fucking frustum.

OK. talk about something else now folks.

I wonder, if the hancock were proposed today, how much "arbitrary" bullshit we would hear about the necessity of the higher floor plates being smaller than the lower floors? The only reason no one is questioning the Hancock's shape is because it's old and considered the classic symbol of Chicago. Build wanda in 1960 and it would've been, perhaps not the best skyscraper, but it would've been considered classic Chicago.

I like the Wanda design but this is a poor comparison. The Hancock frustrum fits the program of the building. Larger floor plates for offices smaller floor plates for residences. And aesthetically emphasizes the buildings height so from the base it looks like its even taller than it actually is it also communicates stability and strength. Not to mention the structural purpose of the shape and benefit of smaller lighter floors as the building ascends

[Randomguy34]

^^^ Just the post's bold text alone wins everything

[ardecila]

Except that the Hancock is almost 100% rationalist.

Office uses demand larger floorplates than residential - you can be far from a window in an office, but in a condo unit it would suck hugely. Parking wants even bigger floorplates, because with a given number of spaces, bigger floorplates means fewer levels and fewer ramps to drive up. The mixed-use proforma for the building wants three differently-sized floorplates.

The most logical form here is a tower with two setbacks at the transition from parking to office and office to residential. But setbacks are odd (who gets to use the roof space?) and sometimes require costly transfer floors. A tapering form/frustum solved the problem, just like it did at First National/Chase Plaza. I've also heard that the taper reduced problems with wind loading at the uppermost levels.

[FlashingLights]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Except that the Hancock is almost 100% rationalist.

Office uses demand larger floorplates than residential - you can be far from a window in an office, but in a condo unit it would suck hugely. Parking wants even bigger floorplates, because with a given number of spaces, bigger floorplates means fewer levels and fewer ramps to drive up. The mixed-use proforma for the building wants three differently-sized floorplates.

The most logical form here is a tower with two setbacks at the transition from parking to office and office to residential. But setbacks are odd (who gets to use the roof space?) and sometimes require costly transfer floors. A tapering form/frustum solved the problem, just like it did at First National/Chase Plaza. I've also heard that the taper reduced problems with wind loading at the uppermost levels.

Bingo the hancock was designed for structural/functional reasons to be the shape it is. This is designed with form & design reasons. Absolutely TERRIBLE comparison. Embarrassing that he even tried to make this comparison.

[Zapatan]

Man people are making such a big deal out of nothing, it doesn't even taper in and out *that* much.

I find it unique and appealing, and it'll be quite tall to boot, can't we just be happy this is probably getting built in Chicago?