Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Chicago, Illinois
3,047 posts, read 9,000,763 times
Reputation: 1385

Advertisements

Sure would be nice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2014, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Chicago
3,569 posts, read 7,158,022 times
Reputation: 2637
Not this again
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 11:59 AM
 
28,455 posts, read 84,950,339 times
Reputation: 18725
Default What, you don't like the distraction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alacran View Post
Not this again
The opinions of folks that post about the merits / pitfalls of the plan are kind of interesting, don't you think?

The plans are all approved by the city, so that shouldn't really suck up too much time that the city should be spending on other stuff...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
15,331 posts, read 23,762,089 times
Reputation: 7419
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiVegas View Post
This has a 0% chance of happening.

That fraudulent "developer" dude from Ireland (who was discovered to have never actually developed anything) is flat-broke.
You obviously didn't read the article. I don't know whether it will happen in the end, but the article is about a company willing to invest up to $135 million to get the developer out of debt and bankrupty. The company also said it wants to work with the developer to ensure work gets done, and they want to purchase 550 of the originally planned 1200 units. This company also owns 70,000 apartments units across the US, so 550 units is really not that much taking into account their portfolio.

The article and news almost has nothing to do with Kelleher. It has every bit to do with another company wanting to essentially throw a half a Billion dollars at this. As someone with experience in real estate development in another forum pointed out, holding companies like this tend to be pretty conservative with what they do, so there may be something to it. Who knows in the end, but it's positive news.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
15,331 posts, read 23,762,089 times
Reputation: 7419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_liking_FL View Post
I tend to agree with the whiners at Curbed. The size of the building and it's design will dominate the skyline and it just seems out of place, IMO.
Sorry to say, but I completely think this point is moot. Any 2000 foot building would dominate any skyline and look "out of place" in any city around the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Edmonds, WA
8,975 posts, read 10,117,791 times
Reputation: 14246
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Sorry to say, but I completely think this point is moot. Any 2000 foot building would dominate any skyline and look "out of place" in any city around the world.
Yeah... and Chicago's skyline is so eclectic as it is that I don't really see it standing out for any other reason besides its size, though the design is exceptionally unique. I wonder if people said the same thing before the Sear's Tower was built?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
15,331 posts, read 23,762,089 times
Reputation: 7419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
Yeah... and Chicago's skyline is so eclectic as it is that I don't really see it standing out for any other reason besides its size, though the design is exceptionally unique. I wonder if people said the same thing before the Sear's Tower was built?
It would stand out, but it wouldn't be ridiculous. The spire would be near the John Hancock tower which is 1500 feet to the top of its antenna and Trump Tower which is almost 1400 feet to the architectural top. Obviously 500-600 feet is a lot, but for such a big tower it wouldn't look THAT out of place. Not to mention that the Sears Tower is not too far from that and over 1700 feet to its tip.

Aon Center is over 1100 feet tall, AT&T building is over 1000 feet, etc. It would obviously stick out but I don't think it would do so in an awkward way. Plus, there's a bunch more buildings that have gone up since the last rendering that was done like 6-7 years ago. While none of them are close to 1000 feet, it still fills in gaps.

It also depends on your POV. This rendering and POV shows how it and the John Hancock don't look too different in height and that's done with POV and distance

http://i.imgur.com/iNQQm.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Wake County, NC
2,983 posts, read 4,594,748 times
Reputation: 3529
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Sorry to say, but I completely think this point is moot. Any 2000 foot building would dominate any skyline and look "out of place" in any city around the world.
I agree, but with a radically different design from the rest of the skyline it will look even more out of place. If it was set back away from the lake and surrounded by other buildings it would blend in a little better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 09:27 PM
 
9,882 posts, read 9,488,359 times
Reputation: 10054
It looks like a big penis to me.. so i do not like it.

Those people who own/rent condos over there for $2,500 a month are gonna lose their view and they are not gonna like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Lincoln Park, Chicago
498 posts, read 718,727 times
Reputation: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO View Post
It looks like a big penis to me.. so i do not like it.

Those people who own/rent condos over there for $2,500 a month are gonna lose their view and they are not gonna like it.
What's wrong with a big penis?

Also, many buildings are pretty phallic looking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top