CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

Would've been great to get something like VIA 57 his where Cirrus & Cascade are. Otherwise, I haven't been that impressed with BIGs other NY developments or proposals. We kinda got a shorter but better version of the Spiral with One Chicago, their project on the Brooklyn Waterfront looks dated, and the WTC 2 proposal was regrettable.

I'd rather have SHoP come and deliver something stunning, they have been on a roll and their not-too-glassy, neo-deco style is exactly the architecture we need in Chicago. Hell, give them the Thompson Center redevelopment or a prime River North parking lot..

Same. Haven't been impressed by a lot of BIG work in NYC. I have been hoping to see something from SHoP come up in Chicago as well. With their experience adding highrises with small footprints to historic structures thought they would have been a perfect choice for the Reid Murdock Building hotel addition.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

**********************************

While I agree that One Chicago is an outstanding development and that SHoP has created outstanding designs in several super-talls, these all benefit from

their referencing and manipulating Art Deco ideas and I would prefer them to be "greener."

I know that there is great disdain for many examples of greener architecture and I am not saying BIG has shown consistent creativity, but what I would prefer

to see are greater efforts made in that direction. The vast majority of urban development is failing to meet the scale of what is needed environmentally for

the future.

Chicago has a history of groundbreaking design innovations and I would like to see the city try to be at the forefront of balancing design and being environmentally

responsible.

I suppose the future belongs to the investors and their private fortunes.

I’m not sure what is being suggested here. Skyscrapers are a challenge in environmentally friendly design to begin with. The easiest path is improving systems, not exterior appearance. The goal is energy efficiency and low resource usage. For example, efficient elevators and heating systems, automated window treatments and high quality cladding and low flow plumbing fixtures. Often many buildings inherently employ these strategies without being ostentatious on “green” building design. The use of more prominent methods, like doubled cladded facades and shading devices and live walls end up being maintenance nightmares and run the risk of failing during commissioning to deliver on their promise. In the end, environmental stewardship isn’t always an architectural design solution but an engineering solution even if that means these achievements are visually hidden.

[colemonkee]

I would take a hundred 609 W. Randolph's here in LA without hesitation. It's not flashy, but it's very nice, and feels modern enough while using classic materials that don't feel cheap.

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

December 6, 2021





A mobile drill rig was on-site in the morning.

This is very exciting. Banana exciting.

[southoftheloop]

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker

This is very exciting. Banana exciting.

Yes. This project is slick

[thegoatman]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I would take a hundred 609 W. Randolph's here in LA without hesitation. It's not flashy, but it's very nice, and feels modern enough while using classic materials that don't feel cheap.

Yess, 609 W Randolph is phenomenal infill. These infill projects that invite height, retail, and more residences to non-loop neighborhoods are more exciting to me than all the skyscrapers being built right now downtown.

[r18tdi]

The key to making skyscrapers more green is adding trees to every single setback in renderings. Nevermind that the these sky gardens almost never materialize...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by bcp

Green-built or not, high density is the most effective way to improve environmental impact (read as "people will walk")

I am not directly In the know, but a friend of mine who is a handful of years ago told me that larger buildings contribute a ton to the whole greenhouse gas issue. Larger than cars in some cities and its not as well known. Obviously we should be building high density (comfortable levels) but choosing the systems, materials, etc that make up each building is important to this otherwise you haven't really accomplished much. Well this is according to my friend

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I am not directly In the know, but a friend of mine who is a handful of years ago told me that larger buildings contribute a ton to the whole greenhouse gas issue. Larger than cars in some cities and its not as well known. Obviously we should be building high density (comfortable levels) but choosing the systems, materials, etc that make up each building is important to this otherwise you haven't really accomplished much. Well this is according to my friend

Building construction and materials, as well as Operations generate 40% of CO2 emissions:

https://architecture2030.org/why-the-building-sector/

[left of center]

I gotta imagine that getting several hundred units in one single midrise/highrise building has got to be better for the planet than a respective amount of SFH in a subdivision out in exurbia once all is said and done. Not just by adjusting for emissions from commuting vs walking, but also the vast acreage of farmland/wilderness that the suburban style of development would consume.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

It's hard to measure the environmental impact of a building, since living in dense environments is more efficient than living in sprawl (in emissions/person). How many people have the JHC or Sears Tower convinced to move to Chicago? How much do marquee buildings contribute to the urban form that draws people to live in cities and/or the denser metropolitan area?

Within a reasonable margin, I wouldn't prioritize energy efficiency between skyscraper proposals if one design is clearly a winner.

True, it is complex as you have to factor in the benefits of dense, urban living potentially with being in a walkable environment and reducing the carbon footprint of those who might otherwise drive. In any case, these things are prioritized, I believe, by smart investors and developers from what I understand. These are costs upfront that will reduce the long term cost anyway and that's pretty important from a $$ perspective regardless. Some of the big architecture firms like Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill do a bit of work to help potential clients understand what the costs will be of various materials, windows, energy systems, etc. That much I know, and it's not necessarily some afterthought.

[dewbs]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Building construction and materials, as well as Operations generate 40% of CO2 emissions:

https://architecture2030.org/why-the-building-sector/

In addition to the points made about walking, it also seems relevant that each person is using much less space in a city. That is, the amount of construction materials and the energy involved in operating a 2000 sqft apartment is presumably significantly smaller than in a 4000 sqft SFH.

On the other hand, probably once you start to go very tall this all probably flips, especially when steel and concrete are involved (plus the cost of elevators, killing birds, etc.). Five to six feels right to me in terms of getting a smaller footprint plus walkability and being able to use lumber for construction (thereby sequestering carbon).

[r18tdi]

Demo permits issued to clear way for 18-story residential tower
Nice to see this 1044 Van Buren moving forward. Shame about the redesign though...

Before:


After:

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by dewbs

In addition to the points made about walking, it also seems relevant that each person is using much less space in a city. That is, the amount of construction materials and the energy involved in operating a 2000 sqft apartment is presumably significantly smaller than in a 4000 sqft SFH.

On the other hand, probably once you start to go very tall this all probably flips, especially when steel and concrete are involved (plus the cost of elevators, killing birds, etc.). Five to six feels right to me in terms of getting a smaller footprint plus walkability and being able to use lumber for construction (thereby sequestering carbon).

Just a mention but the landlord I used to rent from recently completed a 5 story apartment building and it isn’t using gas. It can, it’s installed. There’s a geothermal system but it performed better than expected so the gas isn’t being used to run furnaces. It was a benefit of using high quality windows, load bearing masonry for thermal mass, and efficient HVAC

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

According to the State's timeline, the Thompson Center redevelopment will be selected some time this month: https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/Thom...ges/About.aspx

I know there was some chatter about JP Morgan possibly wanting a new tower. Only a few blocks away would make it an easy transition for their workforce. Someone make sure Mr Dimon gets this memo!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Rizzo

Just a mention but the landlord I used to rent from recently completed a 5 story apartment building and it isn’t using gas. It can, it’s installed. There’s a geothermal system but it performed better than expected so the gas isn’t being used to run furnaces. It was a benefit of using high quality windows, load bearing masonry for thermal mass, and efficient HVAC

Plus, Peoples Gas are a bunch of nitwits, so there's that as well....

[BVictor1]

1400 S. Wabash

12.07.21

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker

I know there was some chatter about JP Morgan possibly wanting a new tower. Only a few blocks away would make it an easy transition for their workforce. Someone make sure Mr Dimon gets this memo!

Yes, but it would be a shame to see the JRTC fall for a 800-foot blue glass econo box

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Yes, but it would be a shame to see the JRTC fall for a 800-foot blue glass econo box

Don't be surprised if Chase's new Chicago flagship doesn't even reach close to 800 feet. Some of the proposals that I have seen have been under 700, including a Thompson Center proposal. I wouldn't expect anything that transforms the skyline from them. My read is they basically just want what BofA and BMO just got.

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by Ned.B

Don't be surprised if Chase's new Chicago flagship doesn't even reach close to 800 feet. Some of the proposals that I have seen have been under 700, including a Thompson Center proposal. I wouldn't expect anything that transforms the skyline from them. My read is they basically just want what BofA and BMO just got.

That's a shame. Was hoping they'd want to 'one up' both BoA and BMO. Their new building in NYC is definitely built with intention to impress over just functionality. I was hoping maybe that could carry over into a new building in Chicago as well. But maybe they only care about their headquarters.