CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Is it the height or the design that's irking you?

The design.

[BVictor1]

Seems like there are more dislikes than likes.

Feel free...

info@jahn-us.com

312.427.7300

[LaSalle.St.Station]

I love it. Gracefully sweeping. The first design seemed rather gimmicky with off center boxes. I thought the trend was away from starchitect gimmickery.

Adherence to Michigan ave street wall in design is a farce for anything south of the Hilton hotel, who cares if it doesn't mesh with its blah neighbor. Any chance for the same landmark street wall at the far south end of Boulevard Michigan was blown decades ago with the lowenburg 1100 s Mich ave structure.

[Kngkyle]

Are those of you who like or love the re-design only looking at it from the 15th floor and above? 'graceful' and 'refined' are not adjectives that can be applied to the base of this tower by any stretch of the words.

[spyguy]

Yeah...not feeling this one anymore. Not a cohesive design, from top to bottom (and sides), and *now* it looks out of place on Michigan Avenue (so it's strange to hear minimal complaints at the meeting). Needs more revision.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Are those of you who like or love the re-design only looking at it from the 15th floor and above? 'graceful' and 'refined' are not adjectives that can be applied to the base of this tower by any stretch of the words.

I like the building by itself, though I agree the base could use some work. It is not as bad as it could be though. I might like the base from the first iteration better, and the top section from the second iteration better.

[sox102]

Unfortunately the owner probably won't have the budget for either exterior facade option. It will end up being another cheaply built high rise.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station

I love it. Gracefully sweeping. The first design seemed rather gimmicky with off center boxes. I thought the trend was away from starchitect gimmickery.

Huh? The new revision is the gimmicky one. It looks like two different buildings stacked atop each other, like something from Dubai that got squeezed between two older buildings.

The old design was unified from top to bottom, and the cantilevers were integrated with the design. It was extremely Chicago, muscular and sleek.

"[A skyscraper] must be every inch a proud and soaring thing, rising in sheer exultation that from bottom to top it is a unit without a single dissenting line." - Louis Sullivan

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The old design was unified from top to bottom, and the cantilevers were integrated with the design. It was extremely Chicago, muscular and sleek

Agreed.

That's one thing I really loved about the old design that I find the new one really lacks: the same bold, big-shouldered structural expression that Sears, Standard Oil, and Hancock all brought to the scene when they were new.

Subjective "elegance" is over-rated.

[Steely Dan]

^ amen!

The first design was ALL chicago.

The redesign is far more generic.



It's sad that we'll never be able to walk down michigan, look up, and see this:

[marothisu]

I like the cantilever of the old design, but for me it was too boxy. Again though, that's subjective.

[BVictor1]

A few more images...

[2PRUROCKS!]

I like this design much better than the previous design. I like almost all of Jahn's stuff but the last design just seemed very clunky and not well thought out. It was too boxy and lacked elegance.

I much prefer this design. I like the curves in the façade and the corners. I like the cantilever much better in this design... you can actually see now how it has a purpose. I like how the tower seems to twist with alternating rounded and right angle corners. I like how the façade looks almost faceted on the south and north elevations. I like the crown and the x bracing. If the façade is similar to 50 West in New York this will be a stunner indeed.

It appears that there are two shades of glazing for the windows in some of the renders. The east and west volumes look like they have different tints in their glazing. Can anyone who was at the meeting last night shed more light on this?

My one concern is the base. The base does look a bit clunky and not well detailed. It also seems overly disjunct from the tower above. I think the two dark columns look somewhat cartoonish. Hopefully this will get refined. Part of the problem is the quality of renders we have seen so far. None of them are very well detailed and they are all somewhat cartoonish.

[Zapatan]

I like this design better, shorter but still tall and definitely better looking

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

It appears that there are two shades of glazing for the windows in some of the renders. The east and west volumes look like they have different tints in their glazing. Can anyone who was at the meeting last night shed more light on this?

My one concern is the base. The base does look a bit clunky and not well detailed. It also seems overly disjunct from the tower above. I think the two dark columns look somewhat cartoonish. Hopefully this will get refined. Part of the problem is the quality of renders we have seen so far. None of them are very well detailed and they are all somewhat cartoonish.

Shadows due to a slight "twist" in the floor plate.

It goes from rectangle to a parallelogram.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

I guess its design fits in better with OMP and the Grant(if you like that), but it just looks rushed together and sloppily done.

Kind of hoping this building doesn't get funding so something better can come to fruition. That or a redesign that flows better than a dammed river

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Agreed.

That's one thing I really loved about the old design that I find the new one really lacks: the same bold, big-shouldered structural expression that Sears, Standard Oil, and Hancock all brought to the scene when they were new.

Subjective "elegance" is over-rated.

Agree with these sentiments. The new tower design is definitely not bad (base needs work as others have said), but the old design was saying fuck you to gravity in true Chicago form.

[camdoodlebop]

a panorama pulled from curbed chicago

[Notyrview]

Steely is correct. The first design was a Chicago building, it was also more cerebral. This one is for consumers but i guess that's the game.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...01-column.html

Architect Jahn's shortened Michigan Avenue tower a successful trim

By: Blair Kamin
Cityscapes

March 1, 2016

Sometimes, less is more.

That's certainly the case with the Helmut Jahn-designed 1000 S. Michigan tower, which just got an architectural haircut of nearly 200 feet and emerged looking more stylish than before.

Actually, "haircut" is the wrong word. This residential tower wasn't just shortened. It was transformed from a precarious-looking series of stacked cubes to a more graceful (and stable-looking) silhouette that resembles a subtly sculpted glass vase.

If the plan lives up to its conceptual promise, the outcome should enhance both the Historic Michigan Boulevard District, a clifflike row of high-rises across Michigan Avenue from Grant Park, and the skyline. The tower would be Jahn's tallest and most prominent high-rise in the city. And it would serve as a beacon for a revitalized South Loop.

The tower would rise on what is now a surface parking lot near the historic district's south end; plans call for 370 condominiums and 136 apartments. Unveiled at a community meeting Monday, the redesign was prompted by concerns from the Commission on Chicago Landmarks that Jahn's original scheme was out of scale with the historic district. That concern was right.