CHICAGO | 110 N Wacker | 817 FT | 56 FLOORS - Page 111

bhawk66 · #**2201** Posted **Jun 29, 2020, 7:41 PM**

The Charlotte building doesn't need a sign. It's the tallest and most celebrated building in the city. Everyone there refers to it as the Bank of America building. Just like Sears Tower and The Hancock. If anything I could see a "shorter" tower using signage, especially when allowed.

Does the bank actually own any of their towers? It sound a little disingenuous to me to say "Their towers" or "they built those towers" idk, aren't they just primary tenants?

Steely Dan · #**2202** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 12:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Does the bank actually own any of their towers? It sound a little disingenuous to me to say "Their towers" or "they built those towers" idk, aren't they just primary tenants?

Yeah, just as with 110 N Wacker, BofA didn't build most of those towers, they're merely tenants, and it's clear that BofA has a penchant for signing leases in trophy towers where they can buy naming rights.

pianowizard · #**2203** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Does the bank actually own any of their towers? It sound a little disingenuous to me to say "Their towers" or "they built those towers" idk, aren't they just primary tenants?

Yes you are right, my last post was misleading. I should have said what Steely Dan wrote:

"BofA has a penchant for signing leases in trophy towers where they can buy naming rights".

Thus, the "surprise" I expressed should have been that B of A settled for this fairly short (by Chicago standards) office tower when looking for a building that they could slap their logo onto. I probably shouldn't have been surprised, since they were limited by whatever office towers were getting built, and this was already the tallest option in town since 1990.

bhawk66 · #**2204** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Yes you are right, my last post was misleading. I should have said what Steely Dan wrote:

"BofA has a penchant for signing leases in trophy towers where they can buy naming rights".

Thus, the "surprise" I expressed should have been that B of A settled for this fairly short (by Chicago standards) office tower when looking for a building that they could slap their logo onto. I probably shouldn't have been surprised, since they were limited by whatever office towers were getting built, and this was already the tallest option in town since 1990.

Yeah, too bad they couldn't strike a deal at Wolf Point for a super tall. Instead they had to "settle". But man, if you have to settle, than having a glistening building on a world famous river cruise with three shimmering and commanding tridents at its base, than I'd say they did all right

Now slap a pretty sign up top and take a bow.

Skyguy_7 · #**2205** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 7:08 PM**

^ I dub thee.......The Wolverine Building

BrinChi · #**2206** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 7:54 PM**

isn't the height of this building about as tall as office towers get before additional height leads to less floor space on lower floors (i.e. larger core)? isn't this why wolf point south, as an office-only building is ending up at 835 feet? i was driving east on 290 today and this tower actually stands out. it looks as tall as Aon does when approaching from the west.

harryc · #**2207** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 9:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^ I dub thee.......The Wolverine Building

Very apt - I will never be able to unthink it.

Zapatan · #**2208** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrinChi

isn't the height of this building about as tall as office towers get before additional height leads to less floor space on lower floors (i.e. larger core)? isn't this why wolf point south, as an office-only building is ending up at 835 feet? i was driving east on 290 today and this tower actually stands out. it looks as tall as Aon does when approaching from the west.

Yea, I think 60-70 floors is when office buildings stop becoming efficient. Both this and Salesforce could've gone a bit higher though.

kolchak · #**2209** Posted **Jul 1, 2020, 3:13 AM**

BofA didn't build this tower but would it have ever started without their lease commitment?

r18tdi · #**2210** Posted **Jul 3, 2020, 10:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kolchak

BofA didn't build this tower but would it have ever started without their lease commitment?

Probably? Speculating, but perhaps BMO or Salesforce would have landed here instead of BofA?

PittsburghPA · #**2211** Posted **Jul 4, 2020, 2:14 PM**

SteelMonkey · #**2212** Posted **Jul 4, 2020, 5:02 PM**

Sick pano

harryc · #**2213** Posted **Jul 5, 2020, 9:33 PM**

harryc · #**2214** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 3:05 AM**

July 9

Chicago | Wolverine Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

The signage -

Chicago | Wolverine Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | Wolverine Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

July 16

Chicago | Wolverine Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

BrinChi · #**2215** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc

July 16

Chicago | Wolverine Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

I like how the paneling still follows the form at the bottom -- seems like it would be easier to flatten it out. Although on second thought, is that the true form? Weren't the steel columns originally rectangular?

harryc · #**2216** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 4:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrinChi

I like how the paneling still follows the form at the bottom -- seems like it would be easier to flatten it out. Although on second thought, is that the true form? Weren't the steel columns originally rectangular?

The steel columns are still rectangular ;-) They must be clad for fire purposes (IIRC), the choice of round over the more honest rectangular is ......

Evolut110n by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

( a square is just a special rectangle )

BrinChi · #**2217** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 5:16 PM**

LOL so they actually went out of their way to make it bulge out. Interesting.... thanks for the old photo as reference, Harry!

Donnie77 · #**2218** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 5:48 PM**

what a fucking travesty they couldn't keep its original form and drops the overall design by a point imo!

bhawk66 · #**2219** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 6:30 PM**

^ I'm in disagreement there. The clad columns are way more bad ass and coherent to the entire building. I appreciate the admiration of the columns raw structure though.

Also, the designers created an pseudo "X" pattern by that lower treatment. Which is cool I think even though it doesn't follow the true structural design. More than ok with that. Adds to the overall design.

cozy · #**2220** Posted **Jul 19, 2020, 4:14 PM**

it looks epic, absolutely dwarfs some of it's surroundings in those pics. thanks, harry.