Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: To Be Built: 2,000 ft Calatrava building in Chicago

  1. #1
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,360

    To Be Built: 2,000 ft Calatrava building in Chicago

    2,000 foot tall, 1,300 unit condo building by Calatrava

    It seems that the Calatrava spire proposed earlier this year for Chicago's lakefront will be built, provided the City approves the revised design.

    That is a gigantic building. One could probably see Michigan from the top floors on a clear day.

    If this type of building was inevitable, I think this location next to the lakefront and Lake Shore Drive is an appropriate location.

    Though, if they build it with even 0.5 parking spaces per unit, that is a hell of alot of cars for those immediate streets. Hopefully, the City will allow them to do, like, 0.1 parking spaces per unit.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    The ends can justify the means.

  2. #2
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,172
    Quote Originally posted by mendelman View post
    2,000 foot tall, 1,300 unit condo building by Calatrava

    It seems that the Calatrava spire proposed earlier this year for Chicago's lakefront will be built, provided the City approves the revised design.

    That is a gigantic building. One could probably see Michigan from the top floors on a clear day.

    If this type of building was inevitable, I think this location next to the lakefront and Lake Shore Drive is an appropriate location.

    Though, if they build it with even 0.5 parking spaces per unit, that is a hell of alot of cars for those immediate streets. Hopefully, the City will allow them to do, like, 0.1 parking spaces per unit.
    Well, it does have pretty good highway access (the Lake Shore Drive-US 41/Wacker Dr interchange is just a few blocks away), but that part of Chicago is very much a 'walking' city, within a few short blocks of everything. It's a GREAT location for 'industrial-strength density residential'.

    I am aware of a legal limit on the height of ground-based structures in the USA and it is not all that much higher than this proposed building. The USA's Federal Government owns the airspace above that level and it is under the control of the FAA.

    Its design has morphed from its original very slender 124 floor 'birthday cake candle' design into a more substantial (and TALLER) look. Yes, I do firmly believe that Chicago has usurped NYC as 'tall building central' in the USA. They're going up all over in the '312' part of the city, with two of over 80 floors and many more in the 30-60 floor range currently under construction. I'm just truly amazed at it all.

    I just hope that a public observation deck is in the plans for the top floor.



    Mike

  3. #3
    The licorice stick. It hasn't even been approved and already the building is being mocked.

    Chicago really doesn't understand skycrapers. It's not a contest over who has the world's most obese man. Didn't anyone learn any lessons from the Sears tower?

  4. #4
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,360
    Quote Originally posted by jaws View post
    The licorice stick. It hasn't even been approved and already the building is being mocked.

    Chicago really doesn't understand skycrapers. It's not a contest over who has the world's most obese man. Didn't anyone learn any lessons from the Sears tower?
    I didn't think of that as mocking. More like a pyhsical comparison.

    Btw, the Sears tower is a wonderful composition. You can't due a classical styled building (or whatever else you think it should be) at 1,451 feet, because the classical orders aren't scalable to the size.

    Why is this such a problem for you? The Calatrava tower would have something like 134 units/acre and is redevelopment in the center of the city.

    I don't see any metaphor for "most obese man".
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    The ends can justify the means.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally posted by mendelman View post
    I didn't think of that as mocking. More like a pyhsical comparison.

    Btw, the Sears tower is a wonderful composition. You can't due a classical styled building (or whatever else you think it should be) at 1,451 feet, because the classical orders aren't scalable to the size.
    The Sears tower is a stack of black boxes. It has the artistic value of children's playtoys. Despite being totally huge, it has never surpassed the Empire State Building as a recognizable landmark (a problem that similarly afflicted the WTC). The ESB is not a roman classical building, but it was conceived using traditional architectural practice and has thus a more refined structure.

    It's a shame because the old Calatrava spire almost had this refined profile, but the new twizzler is totally out of scale with anything in its area.
    Why is this such a problem for you? The Calatrava tower would have something like 134 units/acre and is redevelopment in the center of the city.

    I don't see any metaphor for "most obese man".
    If you take a look at the picture of the new tower, past a dozen rows of skyscrapers the city is completely flat. There is no economic logic for this type of extreme centralism. Since the tower has no artistic merit either, the only reason it is being built is to be big for bigness' sake, just as the Sears tower was. It will be seen from Canada. Hooray?

    This tower will be a landmark on par with the West Edmonton Mall.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally posted by jaws View post
    The Sears tower is a stack of black boxes. It has the artistic value of children's playtoys. Despite being totally huge, it has never surpassed the Empire State Building as a recognizable landmark (a problem that similarly afflicted the WTC). The ESB is not a roman classical building, but it was conceived using traditional architectural practice and has thus a more refined structure.

    It's a shame because the old Calatrava spire almost had this refined profile, but the new twizzler is totally out of scale with anything in its area.

    If you take a look at the picture of the new tower, past a dozen rows of skyscrapers the city is completely flat. There is no economic logic for this type of extreme centralism. Since the tower has no artistic merit either, the only reason it is being built is to be big for bigness' sake, just as the Sears tower was. It will be seen from Canada. Hooray?

    This tower will be a landmark on par with the West Edmonton Mall.
    I know Jaws is concerned about architecture, but what if that is not the intent of the develper? Maybe he just wants a functional building and the market study has shown that this size of a building is appropriate. Not every building built has to be a work of art, or does it?? and why does it if you say it does??? Isn't functionality enough?
    Who's gonna re-invent the wheel today?

  7. #7
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,360
    Quote Originally posted by ssnyderjr View post
    Isn't functionality enough?
    To answer for jaws...No. Otherwise this project would be a cheaper verison (though larger) of WTC 1 or 2.

    jaws...you are correct that one could scale Art Moderne style (like the ESB) to this size/height, but I don't think that is economically possible today, even for a developer jaggernaut like Shelbourne.

    I wasn't a huge fan of the upcoming Trump Tower in Chicago from the renderings, but it has grown on me and will be a nice addition to the City and a good vista end for the northward view up the Wabash corridor in the Loop. So, maybe with time and better renderings, so will the Calatrava tower.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    The ends can justify the means.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    7,324

    Hey!

    Quote Originally posted by jaws View post
    The Sears tower is a stack of black boxes. It has the artistic value of children's playtoys. Despite being totally huge, it has never surpassed the Empire State Building as a recognizable landmark (a problem that similarly afflicted the WTC). The ESB is not a roman classical building, but it was conceived using traditional architectural practice and has thus a more refined structure.

    It's a shame because the old Calatrava spire almost had this refined profile, but the new twizzler is totally out of scale with anything in its area.

    If you take a look at the picture of the new tower, past a dozen rows of skyscrapers the city is completely flat. There is no economic logic for this type of extreme centralism. Since the tower has no artistic merit either, the only reason it is being built is to be big for bigness' sake, just as the Sears tower was. It will be seen from Canada. Hooray?

    This tower will be a landmark on par with the West Edmonton Mall.
    The West Edmonton Mall RULES.....I had some real fun there.....and it looks pretty darn good inside Some of the other big buildings around the world are looking kinda cool.....why can't we get some of that creativity going here?? I'd like to see a design of this so called TWIZZLER building....
    Skilled Adoxographer

  9. #9
    Quote Originally posted by ssnyderjr View post
    I know Jaws is concerned about architecture, but what if that is not the intent of the develper? Maybe he just wants a functional building and the market study has shown that this size of a building is appropriate. Not every building built has to be a work of art, or does it?? and why does it if you say it does??? Isn't functionality enough?
    Whose interest are we supposed to be looking out for, the developer's or the city of Chicago's?

  10. #10
    Member
    Registered
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    7
    i find plenty of beauty in the sears tower . . .

  11. #11
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,172
    Quote Originally posted by mendelman View post
    To answer for jaws...No. Otherwise this project would be a cheaper verison (though larger) of WTC 1 or 2.

    jaws...you are correct that one could scale Art Moderne style (like the ESB) to this size/height, but I don't think that is economically possible today, even for a developer jaggernaut like Shelbourne.

    I wasn't a huge fan of the upcoming Trump Tower in Chicago from the renderings, but it has grown on me and will be a nice addition to the City and a good vista end for the northward view up the Wabash corridor in the Loop. So, maybe with time and better renderings, so will the Calatrava tower.
    I happen to agree that the Sears Tower is a good design that strikes me as being something that is intended to convey a sense of 'we mean BUSINESS', which, after all, was and remains its intended use. It fits in well with the Chicago attitude.

    I also think that without the WTC towers, the NYC skyline is just another, albeit bigger than most, agglomeration of anonymous buildings, in which the ESB seems somewhat 'lost'. The WTC was its 'exclamation point!!'.

    And EVERY ONE of those tall buildings was the product of one or more similarly big egos, without whom this would be a very drab, boring world indeed.

    Mike

  12. #12
    Quote Originally posted by mendelman View post
    To answer for jaws...No. Otherwise this project would be a cheaper verison (though larger) of WTC 1 or 2.

    jaws...you are correct that one could scale Art Moderne style (like the ESB) to this size/height, but I don't think that is economically possible today, even for a developer jaggernaut like Shelbourne.
    If the only way to economically build a tower is to make it look like God click-selected a box of reality and deleted it, that should tip you off that the tower isn't worth building.

  13. #13
    Off-topic:
    We did this thread previously

    http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25012

    Twas a time when you could get licorice-flavored twizzlers...
    On pitching to Stan Musial:
    "Once he timed your fastball, your infielders were in jeopardy."
    Warren Spahn

  14. #14
    Quote Originally posted by Gedunker View post
    Off-topic:
    We did this thread previously

    http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25012

    Twas a time when you could get licorice-flavored twizzlers...
    The only difference was that JAWS complimented that (similar) design.
    Who's gonna re-invent the wheel today?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally posted by ssnyderjr View post
    The only difference was that JAWS complimented that (similar) design.
    I did so above as well.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 2
    Last post: 02 Feb 2013, 8:35 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last post: 27 Aug 2010, 11:29 PM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last post: 28 Dec 2004, 1:08 PM
  4. Replies: 65
    Last post: 06 Oct 2003, 12:37 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last post: 05 Oct 2003, 12:10 PM