View Full Version : Chicago: Last Bastion of the Vertical Dream


STR
October 1st, 2004, 08:40 PM
I was reading an article posted in the French forum. It talked about how many hi-rise architects now prefer to articulate their buildings by making them very distinct as opposed to tall. Beijing's planned CCTV building was cited as an example.

This got me thinking. New yok has has a recent spurt, but while many are interesting, and unique designs, they aren't that tall. Goldman Sachs is going to build 2Msqft, $1.28 billion tower in lower Manhattan, but it's only going to be 800ft! Two prudential is smaller and was less expensive than that. The floorplates of the Sachs building will exceed the lower sections of the Sears Tower in area.

Bank of America is building its tower at Bryant Park, they claim it will be a 1,000ft+, but we all know better. Again, the floorplates are huge, so this giant 1Msqft+ building will only have 57-stories, and chunky, though unique and pointy, profile. Is this what passes for great hi-rise architecture? What happened to the slender visions of long ago?

I will not even mention what has unfolded at the World Trade Center site.

Hong Kong, once the city where anything could be built now has a height restriction. Just a few years ago they were contemplating any number of potential WTB's. However, once Union Square is built out, there is nothing big left on the horizon. The New York of the orient has just up and quit before it even really started. Just 20 years of building supertalls, and their exlaimation point is only 1,500ft. What kind of end is this?

Of course other cities are building tall buildings. Dubai and Shanghai are bulding them by the dozen, but each building is too unique, too different. They lack the organic look of the Big Three. They seem artificial. Dubai and Shanghai look like Las Vegas on horse steriods. Once financing runs out (and it will run out quicker than they think) what will happen? Will they remain sterile billion dollar tourist traps, or will they gain the character that is earned through hard times as well as good?

Which brings me to Chicago. We're also going through a spurt, no made one made of an orgy of oil money and government funding, but of private development. We still are building true skyscrapers. Not giant pieces of abstract art, or stumps that claim to be what they are not. No, what I mean by skyscraper are buildings that are rooted in the ground, and history, and our lives, and at the same time, reach for the sky.

We do not limit them with restrictions. We aren't building pointy shards of glass and steel that have no context, no roots. We are not building 60-story office towers and calling them them giants. We are not building windmills.

True our growth is more measured, more logical today. No one's proposing 4.5Msqft of offices in one building, but with the limited budget, we are building greatness. Nowhere else can you find the height and economic sense combined as well as Waterview. Nowhere can you find a better postmodern piece of glass than Trump Tower. We are building for a new century, but we are not spoiling the masterpieces of the past, or ruining the real estate market with projects far too massive. We are leaving the future open for more great work.

And no one is trying to stop us. No one is complaining about shadows, no one complains about ruining the view of the surrounding landscape. No one is making artificial limits on high we can reach. We are building tall. We are still expressing that once great dream of reaching for the sky. We have not not corrupted that vision, we have not lost it, we still cherish it. We are the last bastion of the vertical dream.

Or have I been asleep?

Steely Dan
October 1st, 2004, 09:31 PM
There are now, unfortunately, a number of NIMBY groups in chicago who complain anytime that anything what-so-ever is proposed, regardless of height.

edsg25
October 1st, 2004, 11:21 PM
Which brings me to Chicago. We're also going through a spurt, no made one made of an orgy of oil money and government funding, but of private development. We still are building true skyscrapers. Not giant pieces of abstract art, or stumps that claim to be what they are not. No, what I mean by skyscraper are buildings that are rooted in the ground, and history, and our lives, and at the same time, reach for the sky.


Or have I been asleep?

What do the following extremely tall buildings have in common:

Hancock, Aon, Sears, Trump, Waterview?

The space necessary to see the whole structure.

Some, of course, do it better than others. Waterview and Trump will use the Chgo River corridor to allow their full height to be taken in. Same would be true in Aon's relationship to Millennium and Grant parks.

Neither Sears or the Hancock offer the same, but they're still highly visible from bottom to top. The Hancock uses a recessed plaza to back itself off from Michigan Avenue; Sears' full block site adds to its visibility.

Contrast this with New York where a good percentage of the buildings are impossible to appreciate their full length up close, due to the walled in property lines. Chicago's super tall care much more about how they look because they actually can be seen.

oshkeoto
October 2nd, 2004, 01:08 AM
Hong Kong has a height restriction? What is it? When was it applied?

STR
October 2nd, 2004, 04:14 AM
^I don't know when it was passed, but new buildings cannot be any taller than the mountain (The name escapes me) to the north of the center city.

Jaroslaw
October 8th, 2004, 05:25 AM
The height restriction in HK refers to the ridge-line behind the downtown district; it has been breached many times (for the Stubbs road condos, for example) and a super project can count on an exemption. Moreover, there is no height restriction for Kowloon, which is an exciting place to be now. The problem I see with HK is more NIMBY-ism (it has held up the new Hopewell center) and concerns over traffic congestion. But if HK gets into another growth spurt based on knowledge products, anything is possible.

Some excellent writing from STR, thank you for that. I would add that the next best hope for supertalls may be Europe, given their concerns about sprawl, and their laws (especially in Germany) that mandate that every office worker be only so far away from natural light. Such restrictions prevent super-large floor plates.

As far as Chicago, the NIMBY tradition is very weak here, there was hardly any protest about TTC or Waterview Tower. The only large thing that was sunk recently was the Adam's Mark hotel in Streeterville, and that was more because of their non-union policy than anything else. And the number of high buildings works in Chicago's favor, because it ups the ante, if you want to get good views you have to go higher and higher, and views drive the residential market.

Also, let's remember that Chicago continues to have almost unlimited land for new development, I am thinking about the long coastline S. of MacCormack place, that's a project for the next 100 years, easily. Imagine a streetwall above the Metra tracks all the way down to Hyde Park!

geoff_diamond
October 8th, 2004, 06:00 AM
I just got chills :) I was beginning to worry that there'd be nothing left for me to do if and when I ever get out of UIC :)

forumly_chgoman
December 16th, 2005, 09:56 AM
With Trump underway and WV hopefully soon to follow I thought I would conjure up this old thread. Other tall projects obviously subsequent to the last post since this one

Legacy
830 S Mich
300 N LaSalle
Mandarin
Calatrava
whatever is planned for the lot near NBC

dare I mention the TV tower .....ouch

any thoughts are we the last bastion of the vertical dream, or are we just stroking ourselves