U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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)
 
 
Old 01-23-2021, 05:29 PM
 
1,209 posts, read 329,118 times
Reputation: 884

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
I'm well aware of Chicago's history and if you do some research I have highlighted many times in NY vs. Chicago threads that zoning laws and height restrictions in Chicago gave NY 70 years of height thresholds being surpassed unanswered by the one city that had the demand and technology to equal or surpass them from the beginning. Chicago was building 300' when NY struggled to surpass 16 stories. It was Chicago that banned tenements and mid & high-rise residential until Marina City in 1964. NY never had these restrictions and took the exact opposite approach to providing housing explaining the vast difference in pre-war height/density between the two.

I know how much you think height is some petty, unimportant characteristic of a building's design but it was building taller that gave birth to the "skyscraper" and the desire to progress remains today.

If you believe tall buildings to be so non-essential to a city's profile do yourself a favor and view pictures of Chicago pre-Hancock and post. Pre-Sears and post. Pre-Vista and Post. See if you can realize what they provide for their surroundings and in aggregate for the city in general.

Look at Manhattan in 2008 and 2020. Shang-Hai in 1990 and 2020. Go back and read threads between 2000 and 2008 and see how many Toronto posters are saying it ranks above Chicago. See how many people had Dubai in their top ten cities list in the 1990's.

Report back your conclusions here when you're finished.
Sorry about and perception or misconstrued comments on my part. Still on my opinion and facts....

We all know what oil profits built in Dubai. I also noted in post how the Borj Khalifa even built with migrant labor costing 1.5 billion $$$ in 2016. Did not in itself, turn a profit. It was a State desired Glory Tower that happened to have a Chicago Architectural firm SOM.

Some aspects on the building and how the Saudi government works to any means to get them.

- National Political will in Dubai has all authorities favor progress at all costs and for an iconic project like the Burj. Afterall.... it is a monarchy-dictatorship.
- They would sweep all obstacles out of the way including existing residents, environmental and safety regulation and opposing points of view regarding the best use for the land.
- Labor cost Dubai is an attractive lure for educated professionals thanks to the high pay, low taxes and expat work force.
- For "blue collar" workers however it's a different story. While they may earn more in Dubai than at home, the average hourly rate is considerably lower than other countries. This is combined with practically zero workers rights and entitlements.
- There may have been existing structures of some sort but it wouldn't have been an existing urban area, making access a great deal easier than if you're building in an already built up area.

Dubai also has what looks like wanting a Chicago river look and mock Navy Pier even. There is a YouTube video on what if NYC New World Trade Center and ole Sears (Willis) Tower .... switched cities and places with pictures.

Even ole Sears Tower had Sears buy a street and many existing buildings first. The street level new redo cost a whopping $500 mil.


The New World Trade Center - Freedom Tower NYC cost over double the cost of the Burj Khalifa. Delays, Labor and many other things.

I don't dislike supertalls. I surely want more for Chicago. I did not say anything against One Chicago or its huge double podium. For supertall status.... I also said just put a spit on it.... viola. I do not criticize Trump Tower Chicago. Just noted it could have and WAS to be taller and Trump hated the Spire would over shadow his building and said so back in a day.

I too had pride as a homer for past supertalls proposed and ultimately mor many reasons... never got built disappointing me back in a day.

So now I hope for them. Applaud what we do get and I always like the finished building much more then I thought. Why I save my views if One Chicago for the finished product.

Woud I have loved Chicago get the Burj Kalifa? You bet and there is even a YouTube video on what NYC will probably never get a mega-tall. I look forward to Tribune East and expect it delayed till maybe next year or posibly downsized. I merely say its sleekness opposite of the original Tribune,s majesty. In no way cancelled or shortened.

I always say Chicago managed to get what it was ordained for and will continue.

Last edited by NoHyping; 01-23-2021 at 05:46 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2021, 02:43 PM
 
334 posts, read 137,727 times
Reputation: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHyping View Post
Sorry about and perception or misconstrued comments on my part. Still on my opinion and facts....

We all know what oil profits built in Dubai. I also noted in post how the Borj Khalifa even built with migrant labor costing 1.5 billion $$$ in 2016. Did not in itself, turn a profit. It was a State desired Glory Tower that happened to have a Chicago Architectural firm SOM.

Some aspects on the building and how the Saudi government works to any means to get them.

- National Political will in Dubai has all authorities favor progress at all costs and for an iconic project like the Burj. Afterall.... it is a monarchy-dictatorship.
- They would sweep all obstacles out of the way including existing residents, environmental and safety regulation and opposing points of view regarding the best use for the land.
- Labor cost Dubai is an attractive lure for educated professionals thanks to the high pay, low taxes and expat work force.
- For "blue collar" workers however it's a different story. While they may earn more in Dubai than at home, the average hourly rate is considerably lower than other countries. This is combined with practically zero workers rights and entitlements.
- There may have been existing structures of some sort but it wouldn't have been an existing urban area, making access a great deal easier than if you're building in an already built up area.

Dubai also has what looks like wanting a Chicago river look and mock Navy Pier even. There is a YouTube video on what if NYC New World Trade Center and ole Sears (Willis) Tower .... switched cities and places with pictures.

Even ole Sears Tower had Sears buy a street and many existing buildings first. The street level new redo cost a whopping $500 mil.


The New World Trade Center - Freedom Tower NYC cost over double the cost of the Burj Khalifa. Delays, Labor and many other things.

I don't dislike supertalls. I surely want more for Chicago. I did not say anything against One Chicago or its huge double podium. For supertall status.... I also said just put a spit on it.... viola. I do not criticize Trump Tower Chicago. Just noted it could have and WAS to be taller and Trump hated the Spire would over shadow his building and said so back in a day.

I too had pride as a homer for past supertalls proposed and ultimately mor many reasons... never got built disappointing me back in a day.

So now I hope for them. Applaud what we do get and I always like the finished building much more then I thought. Why I save my views if One Chicago for the finished product.

Woud I have loved Chicago get the Burj Kalifa? You bet and there is even a YouTube video on what NYC will probably never get a mega-tall. I look forward to Tribune East and expect it delayed till maybe next year or posibly downsized. I merely say its sleekness opposite of the original Tribune,s majesty. In no way cancelled or shortened.

I always say Chicago managed to get what it was ordained for and will continue.
This post provided more clarity on your position. Sometimes you come off as anti-height as if wanting taller buildings is a fools' quest.

I think that we can both agree that New York has always had the advantage in terms of wealth, foreign buyers, land values, real estate magnates, etc. These have all remained a constant. Despite this Chicago has always managed to hold its own or even out innovate New York and has contributed profoundly to the progress of architectural design, urban planning, construction technology and structural engineering well beyond its proverbial weight. I don't know the reasons during this last decade that suddenly Chicago's disadvantages are reflected through our lack of architectural prowess and our quality of designs match our feasibility.

The Chicago Spire as just one example of the pre-2008 landscape was a monumental breakthrough in design with its revolutionary rotating form that had never been attempted. Calatrava at the time was arguably the most noted architect in the world. The project cost was $1.2 billion with a $40 million penthouse. Those figures were astronomical at the time, especially by Chicago standards. It broke ground with the penthouse being sold and nearly 1/3rd of the units under contract. Over half of those units were sold to foreign buyers that allegedly don't exist in any significant number for Chicago. At this same time two other world class super-talls (Trump) and Waterview Tower with a 5-star Shangri-La hotel are set to redefine the river canyon. If not for the global recession we would have seen 3 supertalls with high-quality designs simultaneously reimagine what is possible for our river canyon landscape.

Metrics in Chicago that largely determine demand for these types of bold and ambitious projects since 2008 have only improved. Our GDP is larger, percentage of residents with a 4-year degree is the largest of any big city in the nation. We led the U.S. in foreign direct investment and corporate relocations for 7 consecutive years. We also lead in the rate of return on VC investment dollars. Our tourism both domestically and internationally is at all-time highs. Chicago by a wide margin also saw the largest increase in number of households making six-figure-incomes. There was a return to city centers nationally with the majority of cities seeing an explosion of construction and reurbinzation.

How can all of these metrics exist while simultaneously there is allegedly no justification to build supertalls or more inspired architecture in a city that is globally renowned for its achievements? I would point to those metrics as providing perhaps the most stable period in our history to embark upon an architectural renaissance. Yet this didn't happen. What unfolded the last decade is ultra conservative designs with nearly identical aesthetics and scale that have created plateaus and swaths of banality like the river confluence.

Now all of a sudden it's too expensive to build tall or with sculpture. Costs increase exponentially when you surpass 800'. Land values don't justify building tall. Natural materials aren't practical in Chicago with the ice in the winters and hot summers causing expansion and contraction that raises maintenance costs. You can't recoup your investment with the cost of bronze/brass/copper. Every excuse is given to justify mediocrity on behalf of corporate developers dumbing down Chicago's rich architectural landscape even though when you compare costs you see that it isn't a matter of resources or practicality. This is an era of greed with corporate developers buying up all the desirable locations who are totally detached from feeling any sense of obligation to to honor one of the the most hallowed architectural museums with their contributions.

David Childs understood the city's legacy and significance of the stage that comes with designing a prolific tower in Chicago. Most accomplished architects who speak of Chicago have only the utmost reverence. Jim Goettsch is not in that class. He is the modern Mies Van Der Rohe who believes that how a building meets the sky is not critical. He is Mr. efficiency, glass slabs/aluminum accents/set-backs/flat-roofs and has designed One Chicago, BoA Tower, BMO, 150 N. Riverside, 111 S. Wacker and quite a few other large towers. Wolf Point is essentially a Goettsch carbon copy by Pelli. With all these buildings being being prominent and within close proximity one architect's minimalist vision has utterly dominated our city's aesthetic. As I said before the modern day equivalents of a Bertrand Goldberg are not being tapped to design our significant developments. They are recycled designs by well connected sacred cows who do not push the envelope. They are hired by corporate firms that are looking to flip a property in a few years and move to the next one. Nowhere in this equation does quality, diversity, innovation and elevating standards factor in.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2021, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Chicago
3,268 posts, read 5,752,775 times
Reputation: 3922
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
Related commissioned David Childs to design and Bill Baker to engineer the buildings on the former Chicago Spire site. Childs speaks to his inspirations being the people of Chicago's devotion to architecture and our rich masonry tradition. The design was the antithesis of a slab. Related said specifically that this project was about honoring "legacy." That is a totally different ambition than max ROI and why we saw such elegant and thoughtful structures.

Related would have never frivolously spent the money that these elites of their field demand for a visionary concept that wasn't rooted in practicality. After all the number crunching and market analysis they calculated the risk to be acceptable and presented their plan to the city. When the edict was issued that they couldn't include a luxury hotel flag that was to account for over 200' of the project and a substantial amount of projected profit they redesigned the development over a 2 year period.

We see with the current iteration many cost cutting measures that places the project in an entirely different category in terms of impact and quality. In this situation, originally they understood that the location is prominent. It has a storied past where a once bold vision for the world's tallest building with a revolutionary design comes attached to it which brings certain expectations as well as a Jeanne Gang designed building being within close proximity which they would have to compete with for tenants/customers. These factors raised the profile from their typical design standard. The city/Reilly made a conscious decision that gravely impacted the significance of the proposal.

Like I said these are choices on the behalf of developers. They can shrewdly build reductive architecture in a race to build the most unoriginal buildings possible or they could understand that they are defining the cityscape and skyline which is Chicago's greatest asset for generations to come and find inspiration to innovate and leave behind a rich legacy even at the sacrifice of maximizing profits once in a while. We are not L.A. or Toronto that lacks a history of skyscraper and architectural supremacy.

If it was as black & white as Chicago is not a good market for innovative architecture due to real estate values and construction costs we wouldn't be the city that we are with the endless examples of superior design. Wolf Point will be around $1 billion if not over that figure when its done. With that amount of money there are endless possibilities. They chose a very conservative option. I will never believe luxury condo units at the river confluence next to the Loop and River North in a supertall wouldn't sell for exorbitant amounts.
I think you're confusing the role of a developer in deciding what gets built and how it looks. Developers do not build something without other parties in mind. They build FOR clients. Those clients are organizations with much deeper pockets than any single person could ever obtain (other than the .1% of course). Developers don't get a say in how tall something is or what their budgets are. They operate within the requirements of their primary investors. Sometimes those are private equity firms, other times they are individual corporations like Boeing or Sears.

With COVID and the decimation of Commerical real estate. I think the people who are developing and invested in Wolf Point are probably losing quite a bit of sleep. It's not easy times for commercial real estate and I think that supertalls are in jeopardy at a global scale!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2021, 06:52 AM
 
334 posts, read 137,727 times
Reputation: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGuy2.5 View Post
I think you're confusing the role of a developer in deciding what gets built and how it looks. Developers do not build something without other parties in mind. They build FOR clients. Those clients are organizations with much deeper pockets than any single person could ever obtain (other than the .1% of course). Developers don't get a say in how tall something is or what their budgets are. They operate within the requirements of their primary investors. Sometimes those are private equity firms, other times they are individual corporations like Boeing or Sears.

With COVID and the decimation of Commerical real estate. I think the people who are developing and invested in Wolf Point are probably losing quite a bit of sleep. It's not easy times for commercial real estate and I think that supertalls are in jeopardy at a global scale!
I understand there are developments that are based strictly on client demands and built to suit their needs. Sterling Bay does a lot of these types. As for Wolf Point, I don't know that Salesforce said no condo units or hotel use but Hines did alter the programming to only office which shortened the height significantly. Is Salesforce or some private equity firm picking blue glass, aluminum mullions/fins, set-backs and flat roofs? Even if they are constrained to a particular budget there is plenty of aesthetic choices that could be made to break up the monotony.

However, I'm almost positive Jim Lethcinger ultimately decided how tall One Chicago was and what it would look like. He commissioned the architects and worked with them on the design which went through multiple revisions. Related decided the height, materials and look for One Bennet Park. Same for Related and 400 N. LSD until Reilly's decree altered the plan. David Childs spoke about Related allowing him the freedom to imagine his interpretation of an homage to Chicago tradition, saying they are a wonderful firm to work with. Wanda/Magellan was the same with Jeanne Gang for the design of Vista. Time/JK Equities with Helmut Jahn for 1000M etc.

Take Riverside for instance, they have commissioned Goettsch for three 700'+ riverfront properties last cycle. I'm sure the developers have a say in who designs their buildings and the final look/scale. I highly doubt corporations are lining up for a Goettsch tower and dictating to Riverside that they must use him and the design must ape the others. At this point it's essentially a partnership.

As I said previously there are interviews with 111 W. 57th's developers talking about why the chose the materials, their ambition to create the height of luxury, the tapering form, footprint, height etc.

Even if it is design by committee on the majority of projects someone on the financial end should have the ambition to raise the standards beyond mediocre glass-slabs.

Garrett Kheller had many investors from around the world while trying to build the Chicago Spire. It was his ambition to build the tallest building in the western hemisphere and for having Calatrava redesign the original Fordham Spire that brought the rooftop to 2,000' rather than a spire which was Kheller's vision for the site. He filed plenty of lawsuits against these "partners" in the unraveling of the project. I think this was a typical case of him selling his dream to investors who had little say in the design. Nobody was going to tell him to cut 500' off the building and make it a box.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2021, 07:29 PM
 
1,209 posts, read 329,118 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
45 Broad St. This design is regal with bronze detailing that culminates in a decorative crown that is unmistakably neo-Art Deco. Unlike One Chicago and Wolf Point South it doesn't simply incorporate stepped set-backs and vertical fins then claim to be Art Deco inspired. This building actually goes the extra mile and uses materials and patterns that defined Art Deco's style. This is light years beyond what Chicago is building which has given up its architectural identity.

This tower and 9 Dekalb both would have made much better tributes to the Tribune building than what Chicago's Smith & Gill proposed for Tribune East.

45 Broad St.

130 Williams is a dark colored hand-cast textured concrete with bronze detailing. The design has arches of differing shapes and scale which switch to open air large recessed balconies as it rises. Each floor flares out from the one below to form pointed edges. Again this design is light years beyond anything Chicago is building.

130 Williams

There is no doubt that New York has clearly become the leading frontier for architectural expression and innovation. Chicago was once home to the greatest collection of architects and structural engineers but that was some time ago. The scene has been watered down by being dominated by Mies Van Der Rohe's disciples who continue to use floor-to-ceiling glass curtain walls as the main design language in a box/slab form.
Just a link on might NYC and one of the most expensive to own a condo in...extra-skinny super-tall some find awesome and best Chicago.... Most of them in NYC are with wealthy foreigners that bought them for whatever.... even a quick resale buck.

Only a few years old and all kinds of issues. Leaks with fault plumbing and litterally.... creakin walls. What happened to just swaying chandeliers.... Here a NYC better tower....

Title: The Downside to Life in a Supertall Tower: Leaks, Creaks, Breaks.

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproje...-432-park.html

From link.
- 432 Park, one of the wealthiest addresses in the world, faces some significant design problems, and other luxury high-rises may share its fate.
- Six years later, residents of the exclusive tower are now at odds with the developers, and each other, making clear that even multimillion-dollar price tags do not guarantee problem-free living.
- The claims include millions of dollars of water damage from plumbing and mechanical issues; frequent elevator malfunctions; and walls that creak like the galley of a ship. -- all of which may be connected to the building’s main selling point: its immense height,
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2021, 12:09 AM
 
334 posts, read 137,727 times
Reputation: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHyping View Post
Just a link on might NYC and one of the most expensive to own a condo in...extra-skinny super-tall some find awesome and best Chicago.... Most of them in NYC are with wealthy foreigners that bought them for whatever.... even a quick resale buck.

Only a few years old and all kinds of issues. Leaks with fault plumbing and litterally.... creakin walls. What happened to just swaying chandeliers.... Here a NYC better tower....

Title: The Downside to Life in a Supertall Tower: Leaks, Creaks, Breaks.

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproje...-432-park.html

From link.
- 432 Park, one of the wealthiest addresses in the world, faces some significant design problems, and other luxury high-rises may share its fate.
- Six years later, residents of the exclusive tower are now at odds with the developers, and each other, making clear that even multimillion-dollar price tags do not guarantee problem-free living.
- The claims include millions of dollars of water damage from plumbing and mechanical issues; frequent elevator malfunctions; and walls that creak like the galley of a ship. -- all of which may be connected to the building’s main selling point: its immense height,
I'm not a fan of 432 Park Ave. but that is shocking to read they're having that many problems. It's hard to believe that they had shoddy workmanship in such a high profile tower.

As for NY's vastly more imaginative architecture they've done it again with the Grand Hyatt redevelopment. Amazing base and crown on this tower. This is how you elevate a simple form with glass curtain-walls and accent fins to something decorative and bold.



Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2021, 04:13 AM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
20,404 posts, read 24,027,978 times
Reputation: 28295
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipaper View Post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s84s9UmQJwA

Chicagoans have much to be proud of, a stunningly beautiful city.
Lake Point Tower, which I consider to be a true work-of-art-design puts this ugly building to shame! I love any building with curves, the more curves the better.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2021, 04:18 AM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
20,404 posts, read 24,027,978 times
Reputation: 28295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert9 View Post
Nice tower but still sad how much we have fallen. Other places around the globe including here in America with New York keep building the worlds tallest towers and we still have not even surpassed our own Sears Tower which goes all the way back to 1974!!
Why not just add a spire to the Sears Tower, like the WTC tower, and voila! you have the tallest once again! IMO, the Sears tower is still the tallest in the country! Chicago should be so proud!

Don't get it! Adding a spire and you have a taller/tallest. L.A. has its Grand Wilshire Tower, they merely added a pole to the top, to declare it the tallest in L.A.! Bull----!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2021, 04:29 AM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
20,404 posts, read 24,027,978 times
Reputation: 28295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dport7674 View Post
I care much less about height than I do innovation and design. Too many generic tall glass rectangles across the country.
There are ways to "dress up" glass rectangles. With my 300k Lego piece collection I design my floor to ceiling towers with 4 different colored glass walls for each side. So you walk down the street, you look at it from one angle, gold tinted glass one side, blue on the other, green on the other., pink on the other. No reason why a rectangular tower should all the be the same colored glass. And? you can mosaic the glass on a rectangular tower as well. Let's be creative!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2021, 09:02 AM
 
Location: ✶✶✶✶
15,083 posts, read 27,805,275 times
Reputation: 10548
Untitled by James Fremont - Four Star Images, on Flickr






A little flourish of color on a drab winter afternoon
Rate this post positively 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.


 

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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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