http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/6637/44381315pa.jpg

Lake Shore plan has superstar air
Developer bringing in Spanish architect

By Blair Kamin and Thomas Corfman
Tribune staff reporters
Published May 18, 2005

Already home to projects by such star architects as Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas and Helmut Jahn, Chicago may be about to add another international superstar to its list: Spanish architect and engineer Santiago Calatrava.

Calatrava, known for his lyrical, structurally expressive buildings and bridges, is expected to unveil a residential high-rise design for a prominent North Lake Shore Drive site on Tuesday, people close to the project said.

The developer for the project, these sources confirmed Tuesday, is the Fordham Co. Its portfolio includes Near North Side luxury high-rises such as the Fordham and the Pinnacle, as well as the Gold Coast midrise known as 65 E. Goethe. Calatrava's modern forms would mark a strong departure from these traditional buildings.

Fordham is buying two sites, located on the west side of the drive along the north bank of the Chicago River, sources said.

Current zoning would allow for two towers: a 540-foot high-rise on the slip and a 350-foot structure along the river.

It is not known whether Calatrava is being hired to design one or both of the proposed towers.

A Fordham spokesman declined to release drawings of the project or provide details.

The hiring of Calatrava for the high-profile residential project would mark a key shift in the current building boom, with a local developer bringing in an outside "starchitect" for a major residential project.

Typically, such projects have been designed by Chicago firms. The 92-story Trump International Hotel & Tower, for example, is by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill of Chicago.

Calatrava's expansion of the Milwaukee Art Museum, which opened in 2001 and features a sunshade that opens like the wings of a bird, has drawn thousands of visitors from Chicago and its suburbs. The design, Calatrava's first American building, anticipates the architect's planned $2 billion World Trade Center transportation hub. Its above-ground portion will resemble a great bird that has alighted on a plaza.

Other recent Calatrava projects include the roof of the Olympic stadium in Athens and the Olympic velodrome.

Last year Calatrava was named by the American Institute of Architects as the winner of its Gold Medal, the institute's highest individual honor. The Gold Medal recognizes an individual whose body of work has had an enduring impact on the theory and practice of architecture. Previous recipients include Frank Lloyd Wright and Louis Kahn.

To make Calatrava's Chicago project possible, Fordham would buy the sites from a joint venture of luxury condominium developer LR Development Co. and Virginia investment firm JER Partners.

About a year ago the venture bought the two sites and another one nearby, paying $37 million. Terms of the deal with Fordham could not be determined, but the joint venture was asking $65 million for the sites Fordham would buy, sources said.

Thomas Weeks, LR's president, declined to comment, except to say that LR and JER are in active development on another site, located just west of Lake Shore Drive between Grand Avenue and Illinois Street.

Christopher Carley, Fordham's chairman, and Calatrava, who has offices in Zurich and New York City, could not be reached for comment.

The Chicago project would not be Calatrava's first major American high-rise commission. Last year he made public a design for a Lower Manhattan residential tower, near the Brooklyn Bridge and the South Street Seaport, that would consist of stacked "glass cubes" located on either side of a concrete core. The project, known as 80 South Street, won raves from architecture critics and public officials. It has yet to begin construction.

Calatrava is no stranger to Chicago. Several years ago he designed two pedestrian bridges that would have spanned Lake Shore Drive, connecting Buckingham Fountain and the lakefront. But city officials shelved the design, though they never explained why.

Although Calatrava later met with Mayor Richard Daley, he chose not to enter the city's design competition, held last year, for five pedestrian bridges along the lakefront.

In recent years Chicago has added several high-profile projects by distinguished international architects.

Gehry designed the Jay Pritzker Pavilion at Millennium Park, which opened last year. In 2003 the Illinois Institute of Technology opened a campus center by Dutch architect Koolhaas and a dorm by Jahn, who is based in Chicago.

----------

bkamin@tribune.com

tcorfman@tribune.com

Yes!!!

540ft and 350ft two-towers? The numbers are okay. But the vacant sites are not just for infills but highly visible which require nothing less than "starchitects."

Hope the renderings are amazing enough to surpass sales goal in one day like 1MP.

im looking foeward to seeing what it will look like accualy , it would be cool to throw that kind of a mixture of architecture into a city so well known for it

In addition, I hope the rendering will be as mindblowing as 80 south street in NYC. That should set a standard for architects and developers to follow.

I have absolutely no concerns about the project being perfect in every way. After all, this is Santiago Calatrava we're talking about. I just hope there's a possibility for them to modify the zoning to allow for increased height. Calatrava's creative genius shouldn't be limited - 80 South St. wouldn't be half the project it is if it weren't so damn tall.

Awesome. I can't wait to see some renderings. BVictor, are you up to it? lol

Oh my god.

sorry, but I'm exhausted. My job is such a pain in the ass

Either way, I still have enough energy to say "this will be awesome!"

This is great--a much-needed infusion of architectural whimsy.

I second Geoff's hope for more height.

In addition, I hope the rendering will be as mindblowing as 80 south street in NYC. That should set a standard for architects and developers to follow.
You high praise sent me to images of 80 South Street. It's daringly different, especially in its articulated engineering, I'll grant; but it looks like a camshaft standing on its end. After the first impression began to wear off, it struck me as somewhat comical IMP. Still, his is a large creative spirit, and I look forward to his proposed building for a city famed for its architectural heritage. Hopefully he will add a striking resonance or resolved dissonance to it.

This is freaking awesome news!!! I was just talking to Sharptent/Steely Dan the other day about how I wished something like 80 S ST was going up around 600 N. Mich. and now this news at an even more prominent site. I think it is great that Chicago is getting a "starchitect" for at least a couple of buildings in this current boom. However, I am also pround that there have been some very good to excellent designs by local architects (e.g., Skybridge, TTC, Waterview, 340, 1MP...). Most cities (e.g., Dubai, HK, and many in the US) have to import "starchitects" sometimes from Chicago (e.g., Jahn, Adrain Smith) to get good designs. Chicago tends to grow and depend on its own more than most cities. But despit all that this is great news that one of my favorite architects will design in Chicago and add variety and challange to the homegrown talent. This rewally ups the anty for developers to hire great architects and promote great, cutting edge designs.

I'm fearful that the developers just want a pretty close copy of 80 south street in Manhattan. It will be a complete shame if that happens. Chicago will then only be a follower and not a trend setter, like it has been sometimes in the past (i.e. Gehry Bandshell).

^The band shell is a completely different animal from Ghery. Yes it uses his same design language, but it is saying something completely different.

ThirdCoast - all of Gehry's recent work (save for, perhaps, the Stata Center at MIT) has that same look to it. That certainly doesn't make Los Angeles, Seattle and Chicago followers of Bilbao. I can also assure you that no matter how much the developers beg him to do so (not that I am suggesting they would), Calatrava would never simply give us a hacked up version of 80 South Street. It's simply against an architect's code to build the same building more than once.

It's simply against an architect's code to build the same building more than once.

i guess mies never got that memo ;)

Well, Mies' buildings have the same subtle differences that Frank Gehry's do. Sure, they're all clad the same and could even be mistaken for one another by the casual observer, but, each is unique in its own way.

i guess mies never got that memo ;)

^Neither did Lowenberg :lol:

I feel that Chicago should be breeding and making use of its own inherent starchitects instead of trying to patronize internationally known ones. Sure it's nice, but why should we go to such effort to lure them in?

Because they keep us on the tip of everyone's tongues, architecturally speaking. There needs to be a continued interest in Chicago architecture for our local starchitects to have anything to even work on, and if bringing in a few heavy-hitters to make sure that we aren't forgotten about when the boys in NY are rounding up development-dollars, then so be it.

I take any starchitect over Lowenberg anytime.

I feel that Chicago should be breeding and making use of its own inherent starchitects instead of trying to patronize internationally known ones. Sure it's nice, but why should we go to such effort to lure them in?

^Because the "old" Chicago, or the "producer for the world" is gone, swept away with globalization. Chicago has moved from being the producer of talent to being the consumer of it.

It's part of the change that is transforming the entire city

Because the "old" Chicago, or the "producer for the world" is gone, swept away with globalization.

Going from producer of talent to consuming talent is not an aspect of a global city. Maybe that could be said for producing basic goods or consuming it, but not talent. A global city should produce more talent than anything else.

^Because the "old" Chicago, or the "producer for the world" is gone, swept away with globalization. Chicago has moved from being the producer of talent to being the consumer of it.

It's part of the change that is transforming the entire city
Chicago has ample architectural and engineering talent, just look at the work they do globally. The lack is with our local developers who either ignore this talent or seriously trim its sails when commissioned. The conservative results rests with the developers for the most part IMP.

Going from producer of talent to consuming talent is not an aspect of a global city. Maybe that could be said for producing basic goods or consuming it, but not talent. A global city should produce more talent than anything else.

Chicago certainly produces incredible talent. There is no doubt about it.

I am just saying that Chicago can "afford" to have superstars around the world design many of its buildings--clearly a sign of world class status. In the early days, Chicago may not have been "wealthy" enough to recruit superstars to design its early buildings, thus it had to draw upon its own talent.

We can also "afford" to rely on outside architects because of the wealth of projects we have. There is enough going on in the City right now for everyone to be able to have a piece of the pie.

There was a private unveiling today to the City of Chicago by the developers and architect, or so we were told. Today myself and Chicago Shawn went to the Fordham Company sales center. The lady there wouldn't tell us a goddamn thing about the design, other than it's something that Chicago has never seen before, and that it's spectacular.

We were told that things will be released later this summer. Hopefully there will be something in the papers tomorrow about it.

I am certainly excited about this project.

I'm also excited... but, I'm pretty sure I've heard "it's something that Chicago has never seen before, and that it's spectacular" before. :) I've since learned not to trust receptionists.

I'm also excited... but, I'm pretty sure I've heard "it's something that Chicago has never seen before, and that it's spectacular" before. :) I've since learned not to trust receptionists.

Maybe, but who was doing the designing? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that it wasn't Calatrava, was it???

I'm sure it's spectacular... but, I'm not going to believe it just because some woman said that :)

Why private unveiling?

Zoning changes is needed because the proposed bldg is higher?
Ongoing negotiation for concession on riverwalk as opened to the public and set-aside housing program?

Better get going before bubble burst.

There was a private unveiling today to the City of Chicago by the developers and architect, or so we were told. Today myself and Chicago Shawn went to the Fordham Company sales center. The lady there wouldn't tell us a goddamn thing about the design, other than it's something that Chicago has never seen before, and that it's spectacular.

We were told that things will be released later this summer. Hopefully there will be something in the papers tomorrow about it.

I am certainly excited about this project.

^Wow, too bad it's a private unveiling.

I'm really excited too. I have to admit though, I would still rather have a private unveiling of a really beautiful woman, but I guess a skyscraper could come in second ;)

I just came from a trip to see this. I am waiting with baited breath.

thats good, cuz chicago has always prided itself on mixing its different architectural styles, a new modern building should look sweet

Here are some of his most famous projects...and visions..

http://www.panynj.gov/images_2004/hub_Calatrava.jpg
http://www.archmatic.com/webplugin/2004/i/1098-bayer1.jpg
http://www.bizzbook.com/hamnen/bilder/TurningTorso/turningTorsoBrygga.jpg
http://www.trazosdigital.com.ar/imagenes/calatrava2.jpg
http://www.drrnwbb.com/blog/images/20040404.01.jpg
http://www.gothamist.com/images/2004_03_santiagocala-thumb.jpg

I think if he designed a highrise in Chicago, it would definetly be positive addition to our skyline.

WOAH, Calatrava was behind *that* NYC vision project?!

Forget everything I just said, I LOVE YOU CALATRAVA (i only knew him for his museum stuff).

Whew!! I'm relieved to see that NYC is stuck with that stack of oil cans. I don't think this mayor will buy into that degree of egocentric designing. Still, I remain excited about having his presence felt in our city.

He sure was simulcra - and it's not just a "vision." It's actually getting built.

Frumie - I don't even know how to respond to the cancer that you've just uttered, so, I won't bother.

Whew!! I'm relieved to see that NYC is stuck with that stack of oil cans. I don't think this mayor will buy into that degree of egocentric designing. Still, I remain excited about having his presence felt in our city.

i can't, for the life me, understand how you don't like calatrava's 80 south street proposal in NYC. it is perhaps the coolest thing ever conceived by a human mind. beyond brilliant and beautiful. it just might be the best thing ever created in any artisitic medium.

i just hope that chicago can get something even 5% as wicked-fucking-awesome as the 80 south street proposal in NYC.

That thing in New York is ... very... unattractive.

That thing in New York is ... very... unattractive.
I agree completely. It will look hideous in New York and would look even worse in Chicago. I just pray to God he gives us something *very* different.

its unique but not my taste. i dont think it would mix well with chicagos architectur but the guy has potential and so im looking forward to see what the guys got in store to grace our skyline

i can't, for the life me, understand how you don't like calatrava's 80 south street proposal in NYC. it is perhaps the coolest thing ever conceived by a human mind. beyond brilliant and beautiful. it just might be the best thing ever created in any artisitic medium.

i just hope that chicago can get something even 5% as wicked-fucking-awesome as the 80 south street proposal in NYC.
Design constitutes one indispensible element of architecture, but design by itself can't trump architecture. I suspect that time will judge this building unfavorably as important architecture, perhaps as a structure more suited to a world's fair ground? My opinion only.

He sure was simulcra - and it's not just a "vision." It's actually getting built.

Frumie - I don't even know how to respond to the cancer that you've just uttered, so, I won't bother.
You might try a rational critique or defense of the building in question using the vernacular of architectural design, I'm certainly open to that. :)

How can you even begin to argue 80 South Street's merit? It is perhaps the most forward thinking change in highrise design since the implementation of the steel frame. Whether or not the design stands the test of time remains to be seen - the same can be said, however, for any of Frank Gehry's or Zaha Hadid's blob-architecture; yet these two continue to have awards and commissions literally thrown at them.

Whether any one person, in particular, happens to think 80 South is aesthetically attractive is really quite irrelevant. It is stunning in its departure. Just as most people look at a Mies building and find it to be boring and uninventive, those of us more familiar with architecture understand the significance of his work; and because of that significance, his structures remain beautiful in and of themselves.

How can you even begin to argue 80 South Street's merit? It is perhaps the most forward thinking change in highrise design since the implementation of the steel frame. Whether or not the design stands the test of time remains to be seen - the same can be said, however, for any of Frank Gehry's or Zaha Hadid's blob-architecture; yet these two continue to have awards and commissions literally thrown at them.

Whether any one person, in particular, happens to think 80 South is aesthetically attractive is really quite irrelevant. It is stunning in its departure. Just as most people look at a Mies building and find it to be boring and uninventive, those of us more familiar with architecture understand the significance of his work; and because of that significance, his structures remain beautiful in and of themselves.
Now wer're talking. So what is in your opinion the most forward thinking change in highrise design with this structure? Mies' architectural vocabulary while sparse, was clearly within the context of the Chicago and Bauhaus Schools. His "less is more" principle worked on all levels of architecture, from the foundation through the steel skeleton to the nuanced fenestration, arriving at a structure of geometric proportions that corrected perfectly the usual distortions of the human eye. That is, the classical architectural problem of entasis was ingeneously achieved by Mies in his structures. All in all, Mies' vocabulary was unique to him, but he worked solidly within modern architectural principles. Of course 80 South is striking, even startling design, but beyond its design what are the fundamental architectural goals that qualify as a "stunning departure" so that it will outlive its initial impression? Mies, Wright, Goldberg, Sullivan, etc., gave us innovative design but in structures that bespeak a sense of place and timelessness, I wonder if 80 South will realize it. Just my thoughts, of course.

Ooh... you were doing so well until you mentioned Goldberg among that amazing list of architects. The only thing Goldberg departed from was reality and good sense. That's neither here nor there, though, we're talking about Calatrava.

His departure lies in the ability to express, better than any that have come before him, the structure as an organic form - all the while without taking on the appearance of a blob. Even the most casual and architecturally-challenged observer can understand the relationships between the natural composition of animals and the design of his works. His buildings always resemble bones sheathed in skin, and I think 80 South is the pinnacle, so far, of his career. He takes the exoskeletal highrise to a completely unheard of level by almost entirely seperating structure from enclosure. The spaces inside these condos become completely secondary to the volumes themselves, precariously cantilevered off of the building's "spine." It is not only the visual effects that are outstanding, but also the difficulty of the problems with which Calatrava forces himself to deal. Most contemporary architects, while many of them create daring visual departures, do little to push the limits of modern engineering. Calatrava, on the other hand, embraces these challenges and always manages to find elegant solutions to the most difficult queries.

Turning Torso in Malmo was a fantastic start for Calitrava's foray into highrise architecture, but, it pales in comparison, in terms of effect, to 80 South.

Well Geoff, your winning me over. The real test, perhaps the only one when it comes to architecture as the art of space is in experiencing the building itself. I hope to be in NYC at some point this summer, and that will be high on my list of sights to see. Thanks for an interesting exchange. I enjoyed it.

Ooh... you were doing so well until you mentioned Goldberg among that amazing list of architects. The only thing Goldberg departed from was reality and good sense.

^ I second that.

Ugly concrete corn-cobs--all of his shit looked the same. Thank God his style was left behind in the 60's and 70's

The corn cobs are brilliant, some of the only lively stuff to come out of the dark postwar period.

Chicago wouldn't be the same without them.

Long live da Cobbs! :cheers:

Save for Sandburg Village, it was the first attempt after years of flight and abandonment to build a complex aimed at drawing people back into the city. I can't say I'm a fan of its Corbusier-style architecture, but it reaffirmed Chicago's status as a city that thinks architecture. As Oshkeoto points up, it made a statement of hope at a rather dark period.

Frumie - I enjoyed the exchange as well... I rarely have to think that hard :) As far as going to see the site for 80 South, good luck with that - I was just in NY a few weeks ago and there was nothing to be seen as of yet. Hopefully, for you, things will be different by the time you make it out there.

I think hardly any of his buildings and structures blend in with the existing skylines.. but then, neither does CN Tower, Sydney opera house or the Eiffel Tower. Look at the Turning Torso in Malmoe.. what on earth is it doing there? Still most people love it, and I would love to see his little landmark tower in Manhattan, although it won't dominate the view in the same way.

Blending in is hardly a prerequisite to good design. The most radical departures and sore-thumbs usually create the most memorable views. Oh, and I would hardly call 80 South "little." It's a tall son of a bitch!

That's my point.. imo it doesn't matter much if it blends in with other buildings in NYC or Chicago, which is the reason why many people are against his tower in NY.

And size is relative.. compare trning torso with other buildings in Malmoe for example. Calatrava's New York tower, while tall, would be surrounded by other tall buildings. Many of which have a lot more mass.

Yes, obviously Turning Torso is completely out of scale with the rest of Malmo, and most of Sweden for that matter; but, 80 South, while narrow and feathery-light, will still rise well above its immediate surroundings.

Yes, obviously Turning Torso is completely out of scale with the rest of Malmo, and most of Sweden for that matter; but, 80 South, while narrow and feathery-light, will still rise well above its immediate surroundings.

The fact that it doesn't fit in with its surroundings is what makes it so interesting. IF you have yhe same thing over and over again, it gets boaring, unless it's a stack of Banjamins. You sometimes in a bit of variety and uniqueness.

I hear you BVictor, but Chicago buildings do stand our in their individuality, in contrast to NYC whose buildings provide a great skyline with individuality mostly swallowed up. This observation was first made by Ida Huxteble, the NY Times architecture critic. A great building can accomplish both feats at once, it can express its own individuality while referencing the local "community" of structures and their architectural elements. We are truly fortunate here in Chicago.

There was a chatter at SSP that the height of proposed Calatrava tower will be taller than Fordham which currently stands at 574 ft tall. The rendering will be shown at the press release by the end of July.

Calatrava's work does have a World's Fair quality to it, because of its often audacious structural engineering. I'm not at all sure that this is a bad thing. World's Fairs have offered up some impressive, forward-looking structures in addition to all of the kitsch: London's Crystal Palace; the Mies Pavillion at Barcelona, Fuller's geodesic US Pavillion in Montreal; etc. People enjoy the bravura of such buildings, while marveling at what we as humans have accomplished to date and at where we are heading in the future. I say, bring on the fun!

Calatrava's zoomorphic imagery somehow manages not to veer into preciousness (he is the first architect I can think of since Saarinen to sucessfully reference birds and flight without seeming trite). I only wish he'd evolve his palate beyond bone white.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Calatrava limiting the materiality of his buildings. I think they always manage to appear refined and austere - I'm all about playfulness in architecture, but, I just think Santiago does well to stick to his guns. White, in particular, is the obvious choice to maintain the serenity of his forms.

From Crain's:

Carley Aims to Usurp Sears Tower ‘Tallest’ Title
By Mark Ruda
Last updated: July 25, 2005 11:00am

CHICAGO-Christopher T. Carley plans to build a luxury condominium tower that he says would be the tallest skyscraper in the US. Carley’s Fordham Co. has commissioned a design by Santiago Calatrava, whose projects include the World Trade Center Transportation Hub in New York City and Milwaukee Art Museum expansion.

The design of the lakefront Fordham Spire, as well as details concerning location, cost and financing, will be unveiled Wednesday morning, says a spokesperson for the developer. However, the unveiling is set for the Museum of Contemporary Art at 220 E. Chicago Ave., and Carley’s condominium developments include Fordham Tower, the Pinnacle and 65 E. Goethe, all in the city’s Gold Coast neighborhood. Carley is said to have spent three years working on bringing a Calatrava design to Chicago.

At 110 stories and 1,454 feet, the title of the US’ tallest building belongs to Sears Tower. Would-be developers have pitched plans for record-breaking buildings Downtown. That includes Donald Trump, who ultimately scaled back his condominium and hotel building under construction at 401 N. Wabash Ave. following the destruction of the World Trade Center. Taipei 101 in Taiwan is currently considered the world’s tallest building.

If it's the tallest in the US,

:cheers: :) :cheers: :) :cheers: :)
:dance:

Now we have to see the design portion.

Hancock Center
Aon Center
Trump Tower
Sears Tower
Fordham Spire?

The name is "meh" and I'm worried about the spire part of the name, but oh well. Wednesday will still be the highlight of my week. Here's hoping for 2,000ft :cheers: .

Don't forget our "little" friend Waterview. I hope the other projects aren't completely overshadowed by this.

But I have to give them credit, they really know how to hype a project. First saying that the tower would be something never seen before, then saying that it would be taller than what the current zoning allows, and now saying it's taller than the Sears- all without revealing the design!

I just called the sales center, and every thing that was reported in the article is true.

It's going to be one tower.

So far, a lot of people have expressed interest in the building.

She said that they would probably start to take reservations within the next several months.

I'm going to try and get my ass over to the MCA wednesday afternoon. Going to

Excellent work as always.

Jiminy Christmas!

I hope this project actually becomes a reality, height and all!

Group hug, everyone! :grouphug: Yay!




Wouldn't Miami forummers be pissed about it? :cheers:

Man, atleast I have something to look forward to this Wednesday! I just hope this project gets the funding it needs to begin construction. I'm not worried at all about getting city council approval.

Its been a long time since I looked forward to Wednesday this much.

Group hug, everyone! :grouphug: Yay!




Wouldn't Miami forummers be pissed about it? :cheers:

:wtf: ,why would we be pissed. i'm happy ass hell for you guys,can't wait for wednesday....anyone know around whattime

Yes! We finally get to see a rendering.

:wtf: ,why would we be pissed. i'm happy ass hell for you guys,can't wait for wednesday....anyone know around whattime

BVictor said he would post any information he gets about the timing. And this is good news not only for Chicago but for the entire country.

Yeah, this is the home of the sksycraper, but in reality, a supertall here gives all of America something to be proud of. Asia can't be the only place where supertalls are still being built!

Since it's a couple days until unveiling, anyone else want to speculate on the design?

I'm thinking very thin, very glassy (similar to 2IFC's facade). Roof will be somwhat higher than Sears with a spire/crown reaching to ~1,800ft.

Well, this could be the most exciting thing to happen in my lifetime :)

Butler - make sure you keep us posted if you learn anything about the acual time of the unveiling - I don't wanna sit at the MCA all day :)

Since it's a couple days until unveiling, anyone else want to speculate on the design?

I'm thinking very thin, very glassy (similar to 2IFC's facade). Roof will be somwhat higher than Sears with a spire/crown reaching to ~1,800ft.


i really hope it looks nice,since its going to be towering over my favorite skyscraper SEARS,.. one thing i didn't like about calatavas 80 south street was the unecessary use of a spire,it would of been nicer if he would of used some other type of roof ornamentation or nothing at all.

now as to this one since fordham named it"fordham spire" i just hope they don't ruin the architectural quality of the building by putting a huge spire on top.

Anyone have any background info on Carley Fordham Co.?
I'm starting to get all worked up about this!

That's just an incredibly classy thing to do, to announce the design for a tower at the MCA. This should set a precedent! Buildings are art objects writ large, and should be treated as such by the developers. A building design like the Elysian should be unveiled at the Art Institute!

This news blows my mind. This project will (in the future) surely mark the peak of this era's highrise boom in Chicago.

But the bigger they are, the harder they fall. If this project fails to come to fruition, I may have a heart attack!

Thank God I wasn't really into skyscrapers when 7 S. Dearborn was announced

Developer's website:
http://www.fordhamco.com/default.html

Thank God I wasn't really into skyscrapers when 7 S. Dearborn was announced

well, some of us chicago scraper-fans have been into this shit long enough to still feel the painful loss of skyneedle, let alone 7SD. no other failed proposal will ever hurt as much as skyneedle. i was aboiut 13 when it was proposed and at the time i couldn't have been any more of a wide-eyed, naive, scraper-nerd if i had tried. when i first learned of skyneedle, it was like living high on some wonderful drug. "finally", i thought to myself, "they're gonna build something taller than sears. it's about damn time!" i really and truly did have my whole heart set on it. to say i was excited would have been a gross understatement.

when it was cancelled, i was beyond crushed. since then, i've learned to temper all my skyscraper propsal excitement with a healthy dose of "yeah, that's cool, but it probably won't happen, just like fucking skyneedle!"

*imagines Dan as a child*

We need an image header of a young boy holding onto the model of 7 S. Dearborn or Skyneedle. But yeah, Skyneedle would've been great.

I said this at SSP, but I'm really attached to Sears, to me it's the quintessential symbol of Chicago, and to have something taller than it, I'd like it to be at the very least a WTB, but just a hundred or so feet would bother me... I was totally against trump going taller than sears as well, hopefully calatrava will try and one up those spoiled brats in dubai.

My purely speculative guess is a central mast to surpass Sears roof, with units/roofline suspended to a lower height. But what the heck do I know? Nuttin. GREAT hype with MCA, like an art opening.

115 Stories:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/national/26tower.html?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/25/national/tower.184.1.583.jpg

In Chicago, Plans for a High-Rise Raise Interest and Post-9/11 Security Concerns
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
CHICAGO, July 25 - In a city known for its skyscrapers, in an era when tall buildings have become targets, can the skyline handle one more that stretches the limit? In Chicago, it seems, the answer may be yes - if the architect is a "starchitect" like Santiago Calatrava.

Mr. Calatrava, a Spaniard who lives in Zurich, has designed what would be the country's tallest building for Chicago. The developer, Christopher T. Carley, plans to announce the $500 million project on Tuesday.

The structure would be called the Fordham Spire and is proposed to be built at North Water Street and Lake Shore Drive, near where the Chicago River meets Lake Michigan. It would be 115 stories, topping out at 1,458 feet to its roof. A spire on top would reach about 2,000 feet, making the building the country's tallest.

The Sears Tower, at 1,729 feet, is now the tallest when antennas are included. The Burj Tower in Dubai, under construction, is said to be planned at 2,300 feet, which would make it the world's tallest.

Developers in Chicago have tried in recent years to erect another large skyscraper to add to the Sears Tower, John Hancock Center and Aon Center, 3 of the 15 tallest buildings in the world. A soft commercial real estate market doomed those efforts. But Mr. Carley, a local developer of expensive residential properties, said the Fordham Spire - named after his development firm, the Fordham Company - would be a mixed-use tower with 200 to 250 condominiums atop a 20-story hotel. He said that its unique design, which resembles a drill bit, a blade of grass or a tall, twisting tree, depending on whom you ask, would attract high-end buyers eager to live in a Calatrava structure.

Both developer and architect said they were mindful of security concerns in designing the tower. Mr. Calatrava, in an interview, said he never set out to design the tallest building but instead was drawn to the project by the chance to do something special for the "heroic Chicago skyline."

"Nobody is saying it has to be the highest building in the country," Mr. Calatrava said Monday from Zurich. "The idea was to build a very slender, elegant building in this skyline."

Mr. Calatrava, an engineer by training who has in recent years moved from designing bridges and airports to tall buildings in New York and Malmo, Sweden, said the Chicago structure would be concrete and have two sets of emergency stairways.

In New York, where Mr. Calatrava is the architect of the new transportation hub being built at the former World Trade Center site, the designers of the Freedom Tower acceded to security concerns by the New York Police Department and redesigned the structure this spring, adding a 200-foot reinforced base that will be virtually windowless. The Freedom Tower, if built to its current designed height, would be 1,362 feet to its roof, and 1,776 feet to the top of its antenna.

Mr. Calatrava said he was not concerned the Chicago tower could be seen as a terrorist target. It will be residential, not commercial, he said, and have a slender profile that would be less attractive to potential attackers. "Those things that were done in the Freedom Tower were for very particular reasons," he said. "This is a completely different situation."

Mr. Carley said he was preparing for a tough fight in Chicago to get his tower approved but did not expect its height to be a chief concern - even though he currently has approval only to build two structures of 300 feet and 500 feet. Donald J. Trump had plans for a 150-story building in Chicago but cut it back to 90 stories shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Mr. Carley dismissed Mr. Trump's decision as a reaction to the soft commercial market, but Mr. Trump said the reason was security. "Nobody in his right mind would build a building of that height in today's horrible world," he said in a telephone interview on Monday.

"I don't think this is a real project," Mr. Trump said of the Fordham Spire. "It's a total charade."

But so far, Chicago politicians are bubbling over the tower's design, and Mr. Carley and his sales team say that movie stars and at least one former chief executive of a Fortune 500 company are calling to inquire about buying units.

Living in the Calatrava tower would not come cheap, by Chicago standards. Mr. Carley said he expected one-bedroom units to sell initially for at least $600,000, with full-floor units of some 7,200-square-feet topping out at $5 million.

So far, Mr. Carley said, he has lined up loose financing commitments from a company that represents a pension trust and from Corus Bank, which has backed other Fordham projects.

Alderman Burt Natarus, whose ward includes the tower's proposed site, said he was "amazed" when he saw a model of Mr. Calatrava's design. "It's like a needlepoint," Mr. Natarus said. "We have to sit down and we'll have to talk about security, that's all."

A spokesman for the Chicago Police Department said he had not heard of the project, and Monique Bond, the spokeswoman for the Office of Emergency Management and Communications, which handles Homeland Security concerns here, said she had not heard of it, either.

Mr. Calatrava initially passed on at least two sites before Mr. Carley's son Brian, a vice president with Fordham, proposed buying 2.2 acres near Navy Pier, a top tourist attraction. Mr. Calatrava said the location would practically bisect the skyline's two most notable towers, the Sears and Hancock.

The twisting design, which was recently tested in a wind tunnel in Canada, would disperse Chicago's gusting winds, Mr. Carley said. And Mr. Calatrava designed the interior so that posts and columns would be toward the structure's center, to allow balconies on some floors and maximize the floor-to-ceiling views.

Lynn Osmond, president of the Chicago Architecture Foundation, said, "Every city that wants to be a significant city needs to have works of some of the significant architects." Mr. Calatrava, Ms. Osmond said, designs great buildings.

The Carleys were aware of Mr. Calatrava's celebrity but did not shy away from using him, as some developers have. "We are not afraid of the starchitect," Brian Carley said.

Still, while on a trip to visit the architect in Zurich, Brian Carley said, Mr. Calatrava's wife, Robertina, turned to him and said, "You know, Brian, whatever you call the building, it will be still be known as the Calatrava."

Gretchen Ruethling contributed reporting for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/national/26tower.html

Holy Shit! I'm truly amazed....

From the NYTime article

Mr. Carley dismissed Mr. Trump's decision as a reaction to the soft commercial market, but Mr. Trump said the reason was security. "Nobody in his right mind would build a building of that height in today's horrible world," he said in a telephone interview on Monday.

"I don't think this is a real project," Mr. Trump said of the Fordham Spire. "It's a total charade."

F*ck Trump. After he turned the World Trade Center into a publicity stunt, he can go straight to hell.

The above image blown-up and enhanced:
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7671/fordhamspire8do.jpg

I think I liked 7SD and the Skyneedle better.

Yes. His damn problem that he scaled back after 9/11. Now he's probably afraid of losing high-end customers to Fordham and other developments. The ball is in your court Trump!

IDK about the design but from that pic, but it looks similar to the Freedom Tower's first design except the spire is in the center.

Yes. His damn problem that he scaled back after 9/11. Now he's probably afraid of losing high-end customers to Fordham and other developments. The ball is in your court Trump!
So true.

Now will this be taller than CN Tower ? ;)

Haha.. The Donald hates being upstaged.

With the media attention, design, spectacular location, and reputable developer(unlike 7sd) is this tower an almost certainty that it will sell like hot cakes? And if it is, then what are it's major obstacles.... SOAR anyone?

And it doesn't hurt to have a dictatorial mayor in these kinds of situations. :)

Steely Dan at SSC felt that he is getting vibes from ancient lighthouse at Alexandria. I propose to rename the tower: Calatrava's Lighthouse at Chicago.

Everytime the lighthouse lit, the world hears the message from USA:
"We're baaaaaaack!"

Well I'm not sure what powers SOAR will have over this tower if any. This is where Mayor Daley shines in crushing the opposition.

Anyone interested in a new avatar?
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8007/fordham8pf.jpg

You know, I'll wait a bit. After the presentation and confirmation of this design I might put it up. It'll be more iconic than Trump I believe.

nm: got it.

Now if we would get a rendering w/ Fordham, TTC, and Waterview in skyline that would be truly awesome....anyone good w/ photoshop? A nice project for someone motivated

I think we all need to remain VERY cautiously optimistic... this baby's got a LONG way to go before it's a reality.

:tiasd:



sorry i had to! :)

The above image blown-up and enhanced:
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7671/fordhamspire8do.jpg

I think I liked 7SD and the Skyneedle better.
That's like . . . a wet dream.

is it just me or does it look short for 115 stories? shouldnt it dominate the aon center even with the perspective??? but either way holy crap :rofl:

I'm still trying to process all of this...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/25/national/26tower_graphic.gif
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Images/NearNorthSide/FordhamSpire-001.jpg
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Images/NearNorthSide/FordhamSpire-002.jpg

once again woa!!! :eek2:

I tried to change my avatar, but the file type wasn't recognized. It'd be cool if we all changed our avs for a little while.

^ Ditto...

Wow! this is probablly the most wonderful skyscraper news I have ever seen. From what I can see of the design I love it...incredably slender, dwisting and glassy! I may have the change my screen name to FordhamSpireRocks!

^ The Avatar worked for me, I just copied it into my photos as a JPG and then set the browse to that location for customized avatars.

Thanks for the cool avatar STR!

It does look short in those renders...




btw, I updated the thread's title to the only way I could think of saying what needs said and still having it fit... the character limit for a thread title is set very short for some reason.

Steely, if you have a better way, have at it.

I'll agree. This is exciting. But still highly speculative. We have no idea if it will get off the ground....either for internal issues for the company or external concerns of the city.

But let's imagine it is a solid project and the belief in the business community was that it could take off? How would this affect Trump?

Nobody has an ego like the Donald. Trump Tower is barely off the ground and there is no doubt that its foundation could carry a heavier load than the current plan. Skyscrapers have been tweaked when under construction in the past. If Trump views the Fordham as a "go", will he try to trump Fordham by submitting a plan to the city to make his own tower taller? Could a city that not so far in the past experienced Council Wars now be on the verge of Sky Wars?

^ edsg24 - Is this quote any indication of how Trump feels?

"I don't think this is a real project," Mr. Trump said of the Fordham Spire. "It's a total charade."

TTC could be tweaked, but I don't see it being tweaked by over 300 feet. I think the Donald is stuck with this one.

Proposed building would be nation’s tallest

July 26, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER AND KEVIN NANCE Staff Reporters


Chicago's lakefront would get a contender for the title of tallest building in the United States under a developer's plan devised in partnership with Santiago Calatrava, one of the world's foremost architects.

Christopher Carley, chairman of Fordham Co., has shown city officials Calatrava's plan for the Fordham Spire, a hotel/condo tower at 346 E. North Water, where the Chicago River meets Lake Michigan and across Lake Shore Drive from Navy Pier.

At 115 stories, the tower would be 1,458 feet to its roof, taller by eight feet than the roof of Sears Tower. But the Calatrava building would include a spire that, depending on structural details, would bring the building to around 2,000 feet.

'Financiers are in awe of this man'

Renderings of the Fordham Spire show a tall, slender, ethereal building whose glass-and-steel surface cascades down a central concrete core. The floor slabs are cantilevered out from the core, with each rotated about two degrees from the one below. As they rise, the floors turn 270 degrees around the core, creating an undulating effect like a gown or cloak.

"I know that Chicago is an Indian name, and I can imagine in the oldest time the Native Americans arriving at the lake and making a fire, with a tiny column of smoke going up in the air," Calatrava said. "With this simple gesture of turning one floor a little past another, you achieve this form."

Carley said the task of lining up money for the possibly $500 million building "has been the easiest in my career'' because of Calatrava, best known in the U.S. for his 2001 addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum and his planned transit hub at New York's Ground Zero. "Financiers are in awe of this man."

So are many architects. "He's a fabulous architect and structural engineer," says Chicago's Adrian Smith, a partner at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "I love the sculptural quality of his work, how he relates the shape of his buildings to the structural forces in them. His work is very beautiful -- not often steely or tough, but usually highly refined and soft and sensual. He's one of a kind."

http://images.suntimes.com/popups/spire/images/spire_only.jpg
FORDHAM SPIRE
Location: 346 E. North Water
Height: 1,458 feet to the roof, about 2,000 feet counting spire
Stories: 115
Square footage: 920,000
Projected cost: more than $500 million
Building use: 200-250 condos, 200-250 hotel rooms, retail and parking at the base
Possible construction start: May 2006
Possible completion: 2009
Developer: Fordham Co.
Architect: Santiago Calatrava

Political, financial hurdles

The main questions for the Carley-Calatrava team are whether the structure, planned as a mix of condominiums and hotel units, can be financed and whether it is politically realistic. It falls within the Streeterville neighborhood, a concentration of well-to-do residents increasingly irritable over new high-rises in their midst.

For Carley, meanwhile, the building would be a step up in the development game. After years of putting up multifamily housing around the Midwest, he entered the downtown market in the late 1990s and completed three major condo buildings, a low-rise at 65 E. Goethe and high-rises at 21 E. Huron and 25 E. Superior.

All catered to wealthy buyers. Sales were slower than expected and Carley had to refinance his loans. He said all his lenders have been repaid and that his relationships with them are good.

His company has a contract to buy the 2.2-acre site from affiliates of Chicago-based LR Development Co. LLC.

Carley said his confidence in completing the building "is more than [for] any project I've ever done because the city administration appreciates great architecture.'' He said he courted Calatrava for three years before finding a site suitable for the architect's artistic and engineering gifts.

Will neighbors support plan?

But in the end, the partnership was forged by "personal chemistry,'' Carley said. "I think he was impressed by my dedication to the city and my desire to do something for the city.''

While his plan could stir controversy, it plays into Mayor Daley's pronounced desire to have top-flight architects leave an imprint in Chicago. Also, Carley employs the law firm of Daley & George, whose name partner is mayoral brother Michael Daley. The firm has one of the busiest zoning practices in the city.

Carley said city planners saw the project's details in May and were impressed by the curved, flowing profile of the building. A spokeswoman for the city's Planning Department said the agency would not comment on the design until developers submit a formal zoning plan.

Carley said his plan needs a zoning variance to change the height limitation on the site. And therein lies an argument he'll use against any critics.

Current zoning, he said, lets him put up two buildings on the site in the range of 35 and 50 stories. Going taller and skinnier will minimize blockage of sunlight and views, Carley said.

In addition, he said a Calatrava building will raise property values for the neighbors.

It's not known if the residents will buy that argument. Rosalie Harris, executive director of the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents, said the group has been shown only a few details of the project and not enough on which to form an opinion.

The group orchestrated a campaign against a proposed 64-story tower near the landmark Fourth Presbyterian Church at Michigan and Delaware, causing the local alderman to come out against it.

Height of PR: Altitude brings bragging rights

July 26, 2005

BY KEVIN NANCE ARCHITECTURE CRITIC


The height of the proposed Fordham Spire -- which at 1,458 feet would be the tallest building in Chicago and the nation, not counting the spire that would top it out at about 2,000 feet -- is the least important thing about it, its architect and developer say.

"There is nothing special about being the highest, and that has never been our goal," architect Santiago Calatrava insists. "The important thing was to find the right shape. To create the slender, ethereal effect we want, it was necessary for it to be very tall. But if it were 10 feet shorter than the Sears Tower [which is 1,450 feet], it would make no difference."

Fordham Co. chairman Chris Carley adds that the attention given to the Fordham Spire's height is mostly "a distraction from the fact that it's a great building by a great architect."

'A major selling point'

But that hasn't stopped the Fordham Spire's public relations campaign from trumpeting the phrase "nation's tallest building" prominently in its press materials -- for which there's a good reason.

"There's a tremendous amount of PR value to developers and architects in going after the title of 'nation's tallest building' or 'world's tallest building,' " says Chicago architect Adrian Smith, the designer of what will be the world's new tallest building -- a mixed-use tower of "substantially more than 2,000 feet," that is scheduled for completion in 2008 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

"It heightens the visibility of the project and becomes a major selling point," says Smith, a partner at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "In the case of Dubai, for example, they're trying to become a tourist destination in the Middle East and build the city into an economic center."

Besides, consumers are simply drawn by the "tallest" moniker, as evidenced by the fact that the Dubai building's apartments and condominiums were sold out within three days of the project's announcement.

Spaniard is newest 'starchitect'

July 26, 2005

BY KEVIN NANCE Architecture Critic


Santiago Calatrava, the architect of the proposed hotel/condo tower that would be the tallest in the nation, is the world architecture scene's newest superstar -- part of a small group of "starchitects" that includes Frank Gehry, Renzo Piano and Rem Koolhaas.

A Spaniard with offices in Zurich, New York and his hometown of Valencia, Calatrava, 53, is best known in the Midwest for his striking addition to the Milwaukee Museum of Art, which Time magazine recognized as one of the best buildings of 2001.

He leapt even further into the limelight with a new transportation hub at New York's Ground Zero and several structures for the Athens Olympics sports complex. Last year, Calatrava won the American Institute of Architects' Gold Medal for his contributions to the field.

'You're adding a master'

"We sponsored a speech that Calatrava gave in Chicago a couple of years ago and it was a complete sellout," said Tom Kerwin, president of the AIA's Chicago chapter and a partner at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "He's a wonderful architect who creates beautifully built forms that combine the two disciplines of architecture and structural engineering."

Also trained as a sculptor, Calatrava produces imaginative, sensual works of an artistic ambition and sculptural freedom perhaps matched only by Gehry. Often, Calatrava's work seems "organic" -- inspired by natural shapes such as birds or fish -- or anthropomorphic, related to the human form. This fall, New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art will present an exhibition of his sculptures, drawings and models.

"I think it's exciting that there's a Calatrava building in the city," said Lynn Osmond, president and CEO of the Chicago Architecture Foundation. "We say that our city's a museum, and anytime you add a new building like this one, you're adding to our collection. And you're adding a master, at that."

Tower would get city in touch with its feminine side

July 26, 2005

BY KEVIN NANCE ARCHITECTURE CRITIC


The tradition of Chicago architecture is a manly one, and not only because virtually all of its best-known architects (notwithstanding current rising stars Carol Ross Barney and Jeanne Gang) have been men. From Jenney to Sullivan to Mies, the signal qualities of great buildings in the City of Big Shoulders have had masculine connotations: a pumped-up muscularity, a solidity, a broadness. We're particularly defined by our tall buildings, and can anything be more phallic than a skyscraper? Symbolically speaking, we're a metropolis of satyrs.

But if his proposed Fordham Spire manages to clear the regulatory, political and financial briar patch that now lies before it, Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava will bring something startlingly new to the Chicago skyline: a feminine mystique.

Although he tends to distance himself from interpretations of his designs as "organic" or anthropomorphic -- the evocative nature of his work, he claims, is usually a byproduct of structural considerations -- Calatrava has designed a building that looks for all the world like a tall, stately woman in a flowing, gauzy gown that swirls around her legs. It's exactly the manner of Ginger Rogers on a dance floor with Fred Astaire: the ethereal lightness, the illusion of movement. You're ready to fly down to Rio whenever she is.

You find this sensuous, even sexy quality in the unlikeliest corners of Calatrava's output. It's there in his bridges and transit stations, which are often topped with curving, undulant structures that hint at a feminine languor, of which I think the architect is at least partly aware.

The evidence is in his preparatory doodlings for projects like the Liege Railway station in Belgium, which include a watercolor sketch of a voluptuously reclining female nude; the station roof's curves echo hers. There's more of this kind of thing in his Fordham Spire sketchbook, which is full of lithe dancers straight out of Matisse.

Joining the boys club

Then there are Calatrava's interior spaces, many of which are as genital as anything in the famously humid flower paintings of Georgia O'Keefe. (The artist always denied that she intended any such imagery, and maybe she didn't, but failing to see it requires an act of willful blindness.) The exterior of Calatrava's addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum is often compared to a bird spreading its wings, but look inside at the main hall and you'll see, in its bisected ceiling and related ornaments, wings of a different sort.

It's a tricky business, politically and otherwise, to impute gender characteristics to inanimate objects, but of course we do it all the time. In our Anglo-Saxon lexicon, ships are female; so are certain countries and, in fact, the Earth. In the Romance languages, including Calatrava's native tongue, every noun is assigned a feminine or masculine article. If he thinks of bridges, airport terminals, train stations and even skyscrapers in terms of the female, why not?

And if this produces a building that adds a fresh element to the boys club of Chicago architecture, cherchez la femme.

http://images.suntimes.com/popups/spire/images/tallbldgs_graphic.jpg

I think the spire looks awful.

http://images.suntimes.com/popups/spire/images/spire1_700.jpg

http://images.suntimes.com/popups/spire/images/spire2_700.jpg

http://images.suntimes.com/popups/spire/images/spire3_700.jpg

http://images.suntimes.com/popups/spire/images/spire4_700.jpg

http://images.suntimes.com/popups/spire/images/spire5_700.jpg

Can someone put in trump tower and waterview with this? I think the tower looks amazing. It literally shoots up the sky.

Tallest tower to twist rivals
Trump blasts iffy edifice that would put his in shadow

By Blair Kamin and Thomas A. Corfman
Tribune staff reporters
Published July 26, 2005

It would twist into the sky over Chicago's lakefront like an oversized birthday candle, surpassing Sears Tower and the planned Freedom Tower in New York as the nation's tallest building.

It might, or might not, be built. But it already is drawing fire from Donald Trump, who scaled back his plans for a record-shattering Chicago tower of comparable height after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

A far less well known developer, Chicago's Christopher Carley, will unveil his proposal Wednesday for a slender, 115-story tower with a steel spire that could soar higher than 2,000 feet.

Designed by superstar Spanish-born architect and engineer Santiago Calatrava, the skyscraper would rise next to Lake Shore Drive and near the entrance to Navy Pier. Its tapering glass facade would ripple like folds of drapery.

For Carley, the chairman of Fordham Co., the planned hotel and condo tower would be taller than the combined height of his last three previous projects: two towers of roughly 50 stories and an eight-story structure.

Financing for his latest project has not yet been arranged, and will largely depend on achieving prices rarely seen in a downtown market. "Is this going to get done?" Carley said. "It'll be market-driven."

But the ambitious proposal, to be called Fordham Spire, would dramatically shift the focus of Chicago's skyline, and it likely faces community opposition and the challenge of obtaining financing in what some are calling an overheated real estate market.

In addition, some contend, it must confront the specter of terrorism.

"In this climate," said Trump, whose tower might compete with the new skyscraper for luxury condominium buyers, "I would not want to build that building. Nor would I want to live in that building.

"Any bank that would put up money to build a building like that would be insane," he said.

Carley shot back that Trump's Chicago tower is playing in the same supertall league because it will be 1,360 feet tall, just 90 feet less than Sears.

"I wonder where the insanity limit is. It must be just over 1,360 feet," he said.

The verbal jousting suggests that Fordham Spire offers a test of whether the nation's post-Sept. 11 fear of heights is easing, nearly four years after hijacked jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center. Some experts say they see less fear on the skyline.

"I remember after 9/11 a lot of people announcing the end of the skyscraper," said Ron Klemencic, chairman of the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which monitors skyscraper construction worldwide. Now, he said, "the aversion to building tall . . . has diminished."

The Tribune revealed in May that Carley was working with Calatrava--the architect of the bird-like Milwaukee Art Museum addition, the Athens Olympics sports complex and the planned transportation center at Ground Zero--to design a tower on at least one of two sites along the west side of Lake Shore Drive and the north bank of the Chicago River.

Under Carley's plan, those sites would be combined into a single 2.2-acre parcel at 346 E. North Water St. The area is now an unruly patch, filled with overgrown grass, gravel, trees and a construction trailer.

From it would sprout a tower utterly different from the boxy forms found elsewhere on the Chicago skyline: A skyscraper with gently curving, concave outer walls attached to a massive reinforced concrete core.

Each floor would rotate a little more than 2 degrees from the one below. The floors would turn 270 degrees around the core as they rise, making the building appear to twist.

A spire above would soar to roughly 2,000 feet, making Fordham Spire taller than the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, scheduled for completion in 2010, but not as tall as a tower now being built in the United Arab Emirates.

Called the Burj Dubai and designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill of Chicago, that behemoth is expected to reach to about 2,300 feet--the actual height is a closely guarded secret--and become the world's tallest building when it is finished in late 2008.

Currently, the world's tallest building is the Taipei 101 in Taiwan, a 101-story structure that rises about 1,670 feet.

Calatrava denied that topping the 1,450-foot Sears Tower was his, or the developer's, objective. He contended the Fordham Spire's height reflected his search for ideal proportions.

The goal "is not the highest, or the widest, but a building that wants to be special, a step beyond," he said in an interview from his Zurich office.

Carley added: "If I had my druthers, I'd like to have Sears retain the title. If Santiago thinks it's essential, fine."

Still, because of its height, the tower can be expected to become a lightning rod for opposition in the affluent, highly organized Streeterville neighborhood.

"Some people will be excited to have a landmark in their neighborhood, and some people are going to be horrified that they're going to have such a tall building so close to them," said Jim Houston, president of the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents.

The influential neighborhood group has not yet taken a position on the project.

After protests from neighbors about blocked views and increased traffic congestion, the area's alderman, Burton Natarus (42nd), recently announced he would oppose the Fourth Presbyterian Church's plan to erect a 64-story residential tower on a portion of its historic Michigan Avenue property.

But the usually cautious Natarus said Monday that he supports the Calatrava tower.

"It's going to put Chicago on the map," he said. "I'm not concerned about height. And I'm not concerned about density, because it's a sliver."

Carley and Calatrava noted that the skyscraper's thin profile--it would have just 920,000 total square feet, compared with 4.5 million for Sears Tower--would make it a benign, not overbearing, presence along the city's lakefront.

That is far better, they maintain, than two towers of roughly 50 and 35 stories, which current zoning allows. Towers of that size would be far more bulky and cast greater shadows, the developer and architect argue.

"The tower is without any doubt tall, but it is not big. It is very slender. It is extremely slender," Calatrava said.

At City Hall, reaction to the project was guarded.

"We saw the plan and we'll consider it," said Connie Buscemi, a spokeswoman for the city's Department of Planning and Development.

Besides the political hurdles, Carley must confront history, which shows that it is easy to unveil plans for a supertall tower but far harder to get one built.

Since the 110-story Sears Tower was built in 1974, several developers have floated plans for supertall towers in Chicago, including the 125-story Miglin-Beitler Tower in 1989 and the 112-story 7 S. Dearborn project in 1999.

Yet only Trump actually has gotten such a project under way. His 92-story hotel and condo tower is now under construction along the Chicago River.

Still, Carley has less product to sell than Trump. Even though it would be taller than the Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago, the Fordham Spire would have far fewer units--about 200 hotel rooms compared with 286 for Trump, and between 200 and 250 condos compared with 472 for Trump.

Carley said formal marketing will not begin until September, and construction will not start until there are sales agreements for about 40 percent of the units. He wants to break ground in March and finish in 2009.

Prices at the Fordham Spire must average $650 a square foot just for Carley to break even, sources said, making the project one of the most expensive in the city and approaching Trump's, where the prices are said to average $750 a square foot since marketing began. That translates, roughly, to condos valued at between $6.5 million and $7.5 million.

And local developers were skeptical of Carley's plan, citing escalating construction costs.

- - -

How it stacks up

- 2,000 feet to top of spire, taller than the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower

- 920,000 total square feet, compared with 4.5 million for Sears Tower

- Up to 250 condos, compared with 472 for Trump's Chicago tower

- Condos would likely be valued between $6.5 million and $7.5 million

- - -

Tallest building in North America proposed

A proposed hotel and condominium building on the lakefront would tower over other Chicago landmarks.

CHICAGO

Fordham Spire / Proposed

2,000 ft.

115 floors

Sears Tower

1,450 ft.

110 floors

Trump Tower / Under construction

1,136 ft.

83 floors

Aon Center

1,360 ft.

92 floors

John Hancock Center

1,127 ft.

100 floors

NEW YORK

Freedom Tower / Planned

1,776 ft.

82 floors

Note: Antennae are not included in a building's height. A spire may be considered an architectural component of the building and be included in the height. Renderings are not in proportionate scale. Ceiling heights may differ, accounting for numbers of floors.

Sources: The Fordham Co., Emporis

Chicago Tribune

- See microfilm for complete graphic.

----------

bkamin@tribune.com

tcorfman@tribune.com




Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

OFF THE GROUND
Developer stands tall in defense of work

Thomas A. Corfman
Published July 26, 2005

Christopher Carley is an unlikely candidate to develop North America's tallest building. He has a recent track record of projects that--despite their quality--have struggled to reach the financial finish line.

The chairman of Chicago-based Fordham Co. rejects such criticism, saying his projects are as profitable as those of his rivals.

"We've made money on all of our buildings," he said.

Like many developers, Carley, 62, is a relentless promoter who rarely acknowledges a project's downside. Yet unlike most of his rivals, he lacks an outsized ego.

That perspective may be due to a bout he had with intestinal cancer in 1995, seven years after starting Fordham. Since then, he has been an active fundraiser for cancer research.

Before Fordham, the Chicago native and Marquette University graduate was an executive with Dallas real estate firm Trammell Crow Co.

But his projects haven't been without challenges, including the Pinnacle, a 48-story condo tower at 21 E. Huron St., which he calls a "home run."

"Unfunded costs" to complete the high-rise forced his lenders, Chicago-based Corus Bank and pension fund National Electrical Benefit Fund, to fork over an additional $17 million as part of a June 23 refinancing, a loan document shows.

Yet other lenders competed for the refinancing, a sign of the project's ultimate success.

Slow sales have marked another project, 65 E. Goethe St., a 24-unit, eight-story building that still has one unit to sell after five years of marketing.

And in September, a lender obtained title to 18 unsold condo units, a 188-car garage and retail space in the Fordham, a 50-story tower at 25 E. Superior St. Sales of those assets will offset the balance on the loan and give the lender "a healthy, competitive return," Carley said

I have never seen a building that has exploded on the scene with the degree of details that seem to be coming out on this one....both verbal and picture form.

Does anyone else share my observation?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/blurb/2005-07/18655641.jpg

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2005-07/18655767.gif

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/graphic/2005-07/18655831.gif

Graphic from the Tribune article BVictor put up

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/i_am_hydrogen/Fordham1.gif

That is one awesome tower!!

Step aside Sears...it's been a good 32 years :)

Heh, I wouldn't say that quite yet. Sears is very tall, thick, and imposing - something hard to miss or forget. This new building is quite slender and elegant, so it minimizes its immediate visibility. But yeah, Sears is the psychological barrier and once we get past it with this project (after so many failed attempts) we'll be better off for it.

ALSO, on a weird, unrelated but true (I swear) note:
Last Fri/Sat I was browsing through the NYC forum and looking at the UN renovations thread, reading about how Trump wanted to do the job for free. And I was thinking to myself, if the UN ever left NY and went to Chicago (fantasy of course) where would the HQ be located? And immediately I thought of the location near the lake and Lake Point Tower. And yesterday, BAM- Fordham Spire comes in and fills that gap.

^Yeah compare 4.5 mil sq. feet to .9 mil sq. feet, Sears is HUGE.

I'm still a bit annoyed that Sears has to lose by 8 feet, if you're going to win, win by a mile, not inches.

Either way, I'm not opposed to it at all, I hope it goes through, it's just that in my ideal world the roof would go to 1800 or something and then I'd be able to come to terms with Sears going down.

I wish calatrava would tweak the design a bit so the whole thing keeps twisting up into a spire rather than have a roof with a fancy pole on top, now that would be cool.

Hi Geoff. Recalling our earlier exchange about Calatrava's Manhattan design, I now see that the Fordham Spire realizes all you said about his architectural and engineering brilliance, as well his sense of the organic. That said, comparing to the Fordham Spire, his Manhattan tower appears even more "klunky" to me with its cubed stacking. As I said back then, I'll hold off final judgment until I can experience it in person. BTW both in height and site, this beautiful structure will serve as the center pole to the "tent" of Chicago's skyline, pulling together all the other proposed supertalls. Now all I can do is sit back and nail bite for the next year or so.

Chicago 2010
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/8166/chi20108zs.jpg

COol job STR you do rule us all, lets hope they all come to fruition......I am a little concerned over all the resistance to Presbyterian Condo in the article about calatrava's sculpture / masterpiece / tower.....

AWESOME STR. I've been waiting for this for so long. Too bad we don't have a rendering for the Mandarin Oriental building yet...

STR thank you, you are heavenly. The layout works PERFECTLY. I would even say that the tower balances the shapes of all the tower it surrounds.

I also have to agree that this is THE BEST PLACE to put this tower. It would not look right anywhere else except for the place its in. Just WOW.

And now, the waiting begins for Jeanne Gangs tower. Oh shit, just imagine the massing of buildings across the river and how it will relate to the Fordham Spire. Imagine the Canyon effect of these buildings, just imagine.

I don't mind the design but why is the architect building another 'turning torso'?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2005-07/18655767.gif




Wondering whats different between "Proposed" and "Planned".

Well, glad you finally see my point Frumie - the man is, quite possibly, the most gifted architect and structural engineer alive today. At any rate... there is one thing that is really bothering me about this project:

Either the address is wrong or the renderings are inaccurate. 346 E. North Water isn't as far east as everyone is depicting it to be. McClurg Court marks the beginning of the 400 E. block and all of these renderings show the building at what would be a 450-500 address. I have created a map (thanks Google Earth) below, that shows where 350 E. North Water really is. So, hopefully, we'll find out tomorrow whether it's the address or the renderings that are wrong.

The parking lot highlighted in red shows the actual location of the 300 block of E. North Water.
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/8461/map6ce.jpg

Planned means that all approvals are in place and construction is all but a sure thing. Proposed means it's all speculative and may, or may not, ever happen.

the donald doesnt like it only because he got.... "Trumped" anyway i dont recall the pritzker pavillion matching the cities architecture neither did the new soldier field. i think chicago is developing a very nice modern architecture with mill park, soldier field, the legacy @ mill park, waterview, trump , and of course fordham

So it will be right here?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/chady/London/DSC02689.jpg

Well, if the address is accurate, then yes, it will be just south of River East Tower I and just north of the Sheraton.

why not world's tallest? still great news.

-

I think it looks great!
Now all we need is da mayer's blessing, and hope those preservationist fucks don't get in the way.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot one small little detail. We need this project to get the funding necessary for it to begin.:)

Think he'll try and get some big bucks for an antenna?

It's a striking design, and would probably be known the world over as one the world's most unique skyscrapers.

Let's hope it happens.

it looks like a turning torso-with a huge spire...sorry but i hate the 500ft spire.

Not sure which rendering to pick as your avatar? Have ALL of them!
http://img343.imageshack.us/img343/4971/fordham3it.gif

I like how the Spire turns as well, have any of you noticed this?

Chad, I think you're a little off on the location. Your arrow is pointing to the Ohio Street Beach/Illinois Street area along the lakefront.

The site is really off the photograph, to the left of the photo....that would put it behind both River East Center and Ogden Slip.

STR, you rock!! WHAT A FREEKIN UNBELIEVABLE PIC. I have a new desktop background. Unbelievable.......

I think that might be one of the most elegant designs I've seen. That thing will look like a jewel on the lakefront. I'm not really big on spires, but that is beautiful. Nothing like anything else in the skyline, but not too outrageous. Perfect.

Let's hope they can make it happen, and that the market supports all of these proposed projects.

Seems like the tower's a little short in the pics. Based on the fact that it's taller than Sears, and much, much closer to the foreground, it should appear as towering over Sears and John Hancock.

regarding the idea that the architecture doesn't fit into chicago's skyline, why should it? The fact that chicago has distinguishing architecture from just about every decade and movement of skyscraper design gives it claim to being the best skyline in the world. Chicago deserves any cool-ass skyscraper it can get, after all, they invented the thing!

ALSO, on a weird, unrelated but true (I swear) note:
Last Fri/Sat I was browsing through the NYC forum and looking at the UN renovations thread, reading about how Trump wanted to do the job for free. And I was thinking to myself, if the UN ever left NY and went to Chicago (fantasy of course) where would the HQ be located? And immediately I thought of the location near the lake and Lake Point Tower. And yesterday, BAM- Fordham Spire comes in and fills that gap.

As fantastic as it seems today, Chicago was in the running for the original UN complex. It was proposed to be built at the Northerly Island/Meigs Field site.

On a completely related subject, I hope the Fordahm Spire gets built but with an adjusted top so that the spire blends in a bit better with the building, perhaps bringing the structural top to about 1750 ft. (A 250 ft. spire seems more reasonable. Either way the name has to go. It doesn't exactly roll off of the tongue.

Anyone else hoping for a restaurant on top? I'm pretty sure an obs. deck is out of the question, but maybe a fancy 5-star joint.

Ok let's see here...
Trump Tower will stand at 1360', and is well on it's way
Waterview 1030' or something, and probably will break ground this fall.
Then we hear about the 90 story Manderin proposal, and now the 2000' Fordham Spire, Wow!

I'm confident that Waterview will be built.
I'm cautiously optimistic that Manderin will be built.
I just hope that this project doesn't end up like 7 South Dearborn or the Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle. A building of this size rarely gets the financing needed to make it passed the design stage. Especially with the memory of 9-11 still fresh in our minds, investors will probably be cautious. Not to mention that Trump has already started trash talking it for obvious reasons. At this point the only thing this building has going for it is it's architect, who is world renoun.

This is all wonderful news... Now if we all have a tall building new mcormick place, that would be great...

This thread and STR just made my day.

If there was only one more thing would happen, Chicago will be great. Surpassing 3 million once again...

Back on Topic:

but... isnt Chicago kinda becoming like Dubai?

The next person who suggests Chicago is becoming Dubai will get their ass kicked by me.

A building of this size rarely gets the financing needed to make it passed the design stage. Especially with the memory of 9-11 still fresh in our minds, investors will probably be cautious.
Look for Arab Emerite oil riches; they have very deep pockets these days and have already discovered the Chicago investment scene.

Sell to Middle Eastern, Asian, and South American investors.

who plans on going to the unveiling?? i hope to get there with my friends.

Look for Arab Emerite oil riches; they have very deep pockets these days and have already discovered the Chicago investment scene.

I would bet that much of the investment into this project will come from overseas. The question is will it be enough? I sure hope so.

Dubai doesn't have shit on Chicago. No offense to people from Dubai.

:eek2: I'm jealous!

What a fine, delicate building.

Truly does take Chicago in a different direction, architecturally..

Whoever said that Chicago has a manly tradition in its architecture is being silly. Whoever said that this will take away from Chicago's "traditional" streetscape is also being silly.

Since when did the Hancock building ever fit in with the buildings around it? Chicago must start sharpening its edge and getting back into the forefront of architecture--and I"m sorry, but the Spertus Institute, Skybridge, or the Contemporaine just aren't enough. The current skyscraper boom in Chicago has had no parallel for at least 50 years--so why settle for letting a highrise built in 1972 still be our tallest? Bah to that! BAH!

What a fine, delicate building.

Truly does take Chicago in a different direction, architecturally..

Whoever said that Chicago has a manly tradition in its architecture is being silly. Whoever said that this will take away from Chicago's "traditional" streetscape is also being silly.

Since when did the Hancock building ever fit in with the buildings around it? Chicago must start sharpening its edge and getting back into the forefront of architecture--and I"m sorry, but the Spertus Institute, Skybridge, or the Contemporaine just aren't enough. The current skyscraper boom in Chicago has had no parallel for at least 50 years--so why settle for letting a highrise built in 1972 still be our tallest? Bah to that! BAH!

I'm in 100% agreement. This building will add a new flavor to the skyline.

I do not see this current highrise boom ending anytime soon, and I see many more interesting projects in the near future (granted, not of this magnitude). Chicago is a magnet for highrise construction. Believe me, I want to see this along with the Waterveiw and Manderin break ground. Still, a building of this size will have many obstacles, from financing, to city council approval, to Streeterville residents who don't want their lake view blocked, to those bitch-ass preservationists opposing it.

IMO, if this project secures the financing, the rest will fall into place rather quickly.

^Preservationists? It's just a gravelly lot next to LSD.

If Chicago was turning into Dubai, we would need to knock down 10 blocks of building in between each of our tallest - otherwise, we'll never acheive that oh-so-urban building-in-the-middle-of-nowhere feel that they have so successfull implemented.

Sell to Middle Eastern, Asian, and South American investors.

You can't have the South Americans. We need them down here. :)

Adrian Smith was on "Chicago Tonight" just now discussing Fordham Spire. He gave it a 10% chance of being built.

Hey did anyone catch Chicago tonight? They just had a 10 minute roundtable discussion of the whole project. The panelists gave high remarks to the design of the structure (even the guy who designed the Trump). Overall, some were optimistic about it being built, while others were reserved. The good thing was that no one was completely pessemistic about the project.

The rerun Chicago Tonight later on, right?

^Yes.

It's re-played at midnight, 1:30am, and 4:30am, according to their website.

In all the excitement over the Fordham spire, and it deserves it, I noticed Natarus is going to resist Fourth Presbyterian, I have been looking for a thread about it but haven't been able to find much about Fourth Presbysterian...anyone point me toward a relevant thread, or have any info....

oh by the way since I am a newbie who / what is SOAR??

I really hope this gets built

http://www.soarchicago.org/

For 4th Presbyterian, I'm not sure if there is a specific thread on SSC. Check SSP, at least the Chicago Boom thread will mention it.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050726/050726_fordhamspire_vmed_1p.widec.jpg

In all the excitement over the Fordham spire, and it deserves it, I noticed Natarus is going to resist Fourth Presbyterian, I have been looking for a thread about it but haven't been able to find much about Fourth Presbysterian...anyone point me toward a relevant thread, or have any info....

oh by the way since I am a newbie who / what is SOAR??

I really hope this gets built

I think Natarus wants a height reduction (not scraping the entire project) for 4th Presbyterian, given it's immediate location to other properties in Streetervile. With the Fordham, it is really out in front of the lake. It's slender design won't be so intrusive to other buildings. Also, considering the architect, I really think they won't put up to much of a fight. IMO.

I wonder how SOAR will respond to the Fordham proposal.

^Hopefully by committing ritual suicide. *fingers crossed*

I'm so excited about this project already. Just add a few more floors and smooth out the spire and it will be perfection.

Anyone notice Fordham's site changed a little?

http://www.fordhamco.com/

Anyone notice Fordham's site changed a little?

http://www.fordhamco.com/

"The Birth of a Landmark"

I know it's just a render, but that view from the bottom of Fordham Spire...wow—that's gorgeous.

A couple of observations I'd like to make....and see if anyone agrees:

First, I have never seen any super tower explode on the Chicago scene the way this one did. It was a literal blitz from the start. When have you ever seen the detail, the number of perspectives for a building that is just be proposed for the first time? The impression given is the devloper has given this a lot of thought on every level (including financial) and held back until he had all his ducks lined up in a row to present this to the public.

Does anyone else have the same reaction to the detail, the hype, the sheer amount of early information on Fordham Spire?

Second, if the first premise is right, why was this strategy pursued? This is pure conjecture on my part, but i'll give it a try:

Fordham has quality residential construction in downtown Chicago for years. It is ready to take it up a notch. This building, from a Fordham perspective, is less speculative and more a highly realistic proposal. By blitzing the media with spectacular pictures, with clear detail, and a sense of "WOW".....this is going to make the incredibly cool skyline even cooler, Fordham is stoking public opinion to make this a go. What I am suggesting is this: Fordham has nothing but confidence in its end of getting this thing off the ground, so its strategy is to influence the outside interests that control its fate by creating a groundswell of support for the project among Chicagoans.

Do you buy in, or not buy in, to the above?

Calatrava spire faces some tall obstacles

July 27, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


It would be Chicago's first metrosexual skyscraper, this Santiago Calatrava fantasia on the lakefront. One imagines the brawny Sears Tower and John Hancock Center staring with suspicion at the gaudy arrival for the skyline. Perhaps you saw the renderings in Tuesday's Sun-Times. Calatrava has done no small thing; he's provided a building that would be as bold and, OK, phallic as anything that's out there, yet given it silken grace.

The 115-story building looks like a drill bit adorned with the billowing movement of a Gypsy. All that's missing are giant earrings hanging from a couple of high balconies (and despite appearances, it has balconies) and ankle bracelets at the base.

It's a strange addition to the crowd, and for that reason I like it. But I doubt it will get built.

The obstacles to a building like this are always formidable. Financing that brings earth movers to the location depends on city approvals and pre-sales. The developer, Fordham Co. Chairman Christopher Carley, is working the market's most elite end, the wealthy buyers of second homes, and experts note that sales in the sector have flagged. The problems are apparent in Carley's other projects, such as the posh Fordham and Pinnacle buildings in Streeterville, where he resorted to fancy financial footwork to keep lenders happy.

For a developer, Carley is soft-spoken and unassuming. Yet the salesman in him kicks in when he's asked about the project and the alliance with Calatrava, a Spaniard renowned for such designs as the Athens Olympic Stadium and the Milwaukee Art Museum.

Starting with a site that enjoys rare prominence at the Chicago River and Lake Michigan, Carley figures the Calatrava name is his meal ticket. He believes people will pay a premium for the site "because it's a Calatrava,'' he said. And he notes that the relatively small volume of the building -- 920,000 square feet, only about 40 percent of what Donald Trump is building elsewhere on the river -- makes the financial hurdles smaller.

Its identity as the "nation's tallest building,'' Carley suggests, is almost an afterthought. He said his only marching orders to Calatrava were to make something "tall, slender, elegant and spectacular.'' The architect came back with a roofline about one Yao Ming higher than the Sears Tower roof, plus a spire that playfully soars heavenward. "I was taken aback,'' Carley said.

But the skepticism didn't last. Carley is enamored of his celebrity architect. He accepted Calatrava's argument that it needs to be that calculated height, that anything less destroys the aesthetics. He accepted it because, as Carley put it, he's "infatuated'' with Calatrava's work.

Plus, they have a financial bond. Carley hopes to charge buyers a premium. In return, he said he's paying Calatrava $30 a square foot, which would be about $27 million if the building is completed.

Carley might regret that he didn't rein him in. The site, on the 400 block of East Illinois, is near the center of everything, but is hard to access. This is part of the old Chicago Dock and Canal property that was fallow for years because the city soared over it along the elevated Michigan Avenue. Development didn't take off until the construction in the early 1980s of the Columbus Drive bridge.

Also, the surrounding neighbors can be powerful opposition. High-rise dwellers criticizing proposed high-rises are ripe for satire when their only concern is preserving their views. But it was just such political heat that so far has blocked a Streeterville condo tower near the Fourth Presbyterian Church at Michigan and Delaware.

Carley will discover that many Chicagoans won't care about the difference between Calatrava and calamari. In this project, the architect's ego outshines the developer's, and that can't be good for its prospects.

A couple of observations I'd like to make....and see if anyone agrees:

Second, if the first premise is right, why was this strategy pursued? This is pure conjecture on my part, but i'll give it a try:

Fordham has quality residential construction in downtown Chicago for years. It is ready to take it up a notch. This building, from a Fordham perspective, is less speculative and more a highly realistic proposal. By blitzing the media with spectacular pictures, with clear detail, and a sense of "WOW".....this is going to make the incredibly cool skyline even cooler, Fordham is stoking public opinion to make this a go. What I am suggesting is this: Fordham has nothing but confidence in its end of getting this thing off the ground, so its strategy is to influence the outside interests that control its fate by creating a groundswell of support for the project among Chicagoans.

Do you buy in, or not buy in, to the above?

It makes some sense. Conversely, most press articles include a small laundry list of pitfalls and conclude with a high level of skepticism that it will get built.
Are they daring him to build it? There own secret desire?

Let's wait and see. Fordham will start marketing Calatrava's sometimes in September to see if it surpasses standard 40% of units sold. If it is, groundbreaking starts in March.

Do I get them right?

I think selling the units will be the easiest part of his job. The Fordham is meant for the elite rich and is catering to much more powerful and internationally known crowd than, let's say, 340 on the Park. If Chicagoans/Americans are too afraid to live in this building then Carley could easily sell to the rich of other countries who aren't afraid of post-9/11 skyscrapers and love Calatrava.

^Not to mention, the lakefront views from fordham will be unrivaled and being next to LSD will guarantee that no other buiding is built east of it to ruin those views. Those two incentives alone should draw mucho buyers.

When today is the official unveiling? When do we get more renderings?

David Roeder's opinions mean nothing to me since he apparently thinks that all of Chicago is called Streeterville. The Fordham and the Pinnacle are not in the 'Ville, and neither is Fourth Pres. Tower. How hard is it to figure out the boundaries of a friggin' neighborhood?

And someone needs to seriously get to the bottom of the location for this thing. If it's really at 346, then all the conjecture about protected views is bull shit, if it's really as far east as they say it is, then they need to fix the damn address - how can you advertise one of the World's tallest buildings with an incorrect address?!

If Chicago was turning into Dubai, we would need to knock down 10 blocks of building in between each of our tallest - otherwise, we'll never acheive that oh-so-urban building-in-the-middle-of-nowhere feel that they have so successfull implemented.LOL!!! I don't see a bit of similarity. I still don't understand the point of the initial comparison of Chicago to Dubai.

Look at this cool flash video of it:
http://www.grafikdesigns.com/fordham/master.swf

That is one unbelievable design. I don't want to be overly dramatic and say it'll redefine the skyline, but it definitely adds a new flavor to it.

There's the windows, but I don't see any balconies, which have been mentioned in several articles.

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9788/fs0rb.png

The design is actually quite upsetting for me. How the hell am I going to model that?!

I don't think people would have balconies ... It's 115 stories high!

There's the windows, but I don't see any balconies, which have been mentioned in several articles.

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9788/fs0rb.png

The design is actually quite upsetting for me. How the hell am I going to model that?!

You do know that Calatrava's just trying to piss you off, don't you ? :)

Look at this cool flash video of it:
http://www.grafikdesigns.com/fordham/master.swf

They must build this without delay.

i got a ? ok say this building gets built (an assumption) aren't any of you afraid it will taint the skyline and when its done you'll be like geez i wish they never built that and chicagos skyline will get criticized for it. personally i like it and really hope it gets built but i just know a lot of people who do have that opinion.

the only i'm worried about is the base. from what parts i do see of it i don't like it at all. i think blair makes a statement about the base as well in his trib article.

The spire just looks too big. Its more than 1/4 of the total height of the building. Couldn't they build that actual structure taller and use a smaller spire to get to 2000 feet (if that height was the goal)? Its true that spire height is cheaper than actual floors, but actual floors bring revenue while a spire does not.

Question: Would the 542 foot tall spire be the tallest roof spire in the world? I think so.

Has anyone seen this article in today's Trib?


Residents, experts see high-rise's value
But some worry of impact on a downtown already choked with shadows and traffic

By Josh Noel, Tribune staff reporter. Tribune staff reporter Kelly Kennedy contributed to this report
Published July 27, 2005


Some day soon, the view from J.T. Stinnette's living room may include the tallest building in the nation. For now, all Stinnette sees are dollar signs.

"As a property owner who stands to benefit from the increased property value, I'm for it," Stinnette, 31, said in the kitchen of her four-level townhouse Tuesday, steps from where a proposed skyscraper would twist 2,000 feet into the Chicago skyline.

"The land is too valuable not to be built on," she said.

Mamon Gibson, who lives a half-block away and also stands to look at the tower every time he gets the morning paper, was less enthusiastic, envisioning traffic snarls, terrorism worries and aesthetic problems with the slender corkscrew design topped by a long spire.

"It'll look kind of goofy with that spire," he said. "It won't fit in."

A day after developers unveiled plans to drop 115 floors of high-rise into Streeterville--a building that would top the planned Freedom Tower in New York as the nation's tallest--local reaction was divided.

Some saw bold vision in a weedy lot at the far end of East North Water Street, at Lake Shore Drive and the Chicago River, which they always knew would be filled someday. Others saw more congestion and a pointless next step in a never-ending race to build ever taller.

Meanwhile, awaiting more information, watchdog groups monitoring downtown development reserved judgment Tuesday, while architects mostly applauded Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava's design and said they would welcome it to the Chicago skyline.

"It's a brilliant form, and it deserves to be alongside other brilliant forms in Chicago," said architect Stanley Tigerman of the Chicago firm Tigerman McCurry Architects.

A pair of non-profit groups, Streeterville Organization of Active Residents and Friends of the Parks, both said they would not weigh in on the design or its location until they had studied the building's impact.

Friends of the Parks President Erma Tranter said her concern is whether the building will cast shadows over DuSable Park, a 3.2-acre site to be built on the other side of Lake Shore Drive.

By e-mail, Phil Enquist, a planner at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, echoed concerns of several residents: accessibility, congestion and the impact of shadows that would be cast by the huge structure.

"Just because an internationally talented designer is doing this does not justify that it is the right thing to do," he said.

The spire just looks too big. Its more than 1/4 of the total height of the building. Couldn't they build that actual structure taller and use a smaller spire to get to 2000 feet (if that height was the goal)? Its true that spire height is cheaper than actual floors, but actual floors bring revenue while a spire does not.

Question: Would the 542 foot tall spire be the tallest roof spire in the world? I think so.

Yea, I agree with you. If they the plan is to top around 2000 ft. why not make its roof at the level of sear's spire. Then we have a new observatory from the completely different angle and of course the height. Just think about the renvnue that will bring for more new visitors wanting to check out the new view of chicago skyline from the new NA's tallest building! :)

Has anyone gone to the MCA unveiling?

All and all, I think it is a breathtaking design for the skyline.

My concern is also about the base: how will this appeal at ground level? Will the base just be an uninspired 3 level pedestal or what?

I'm also concerned about this being on a cul-de-sac. That could really cause some traffic problems. I wonder if the city will consider making a connection between South Water and LSD?

Has anyone seen this article in today's Trib?


Residents, experts see high-rise's value
But some worry of impact on a downtown already choked with shadows and traffic

By Josh Noel, Tribune staff reporter. Tribune staff reporter Kelly Kennedy contributed to this report
Published July 27, 2005


Some day soon, the view from J.T. Stinnette's living room may include the tallest building in the nation. For now, all Stinnette sees are dollar signs.

"As a property owner who stands to benefit from the increased property value, I'm for it," Stinnette, 31, said in the kitchen of her four-level townhouse Tuesday, steps from where a proposed skyscraper would twist 2,000 feet into the Chicago skyline.

"The land is too valuable not to be built on," she said.

Mamon Gibson, who lives a half-block away and also stands to look at the tower every time he gets the morning paper, was less enthusiastic, envisioning traffic snarls, terrorism worries and aesthetic problems with the slender corkscrew design topped by a long spire.

"It'll look kind of goofy with that spire," he said. "It won't fit in."

A day after developers unveiled plans to drop 115 floors of high-rise into Streeterville--a building that would top the planned Freedom Tower in New York as the nation's tallest--local reaction was divided.

Some saw bold vision in a weedy lot at the far end of East North Water Street, at Lake Shore Drive and the Chicago River, which they always knew would be filled someday. Others saw more congestion and a pointless next step in a never-ending race to build ever taller.

Meanwhile, awaiting more information, watchdog groups monitoring downtown development reserved judgment Tuesday, while architects mostly applauded Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava's design and said they would welcome it to the Chicago skyline.

"It's a brilliant form, and it deserves to be alongside other brilliant forms in Chicago," said architect Stanley Tigerman of the Chicago firm Tigerman McCurry Architects.

A pair of non-profit groups, Streeterville Organization of Active Residents and Friends of the Parks, both said they would not weigh in on the design or its location until they had studied the building's impact.

Friends of the Parks President Erma Tranter said her concern is whether the building will cast shadows over DuSable Park, a 3.2-acre site to be built on the other side of Lake Shore Drive.

By e-mail, Phil Enquist, a planner at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, echoed concerns of several residents: accessibility, congestion and the impact of shadows that would be cast by the huge structure.

"Just because an internationally talented designer is doing this does not justify that it is the right thing to do," he said.


Yea, the location of Fordham Spire is quite valuable indeed for the chicago. It is the entry to chicago river and next to the endless view of lake michigan where they meet. If anything ought to be build there, it should be a great sculpture like supertall or something like the new WTB. It doesn't just boost chicago's economy, it also the first step to bring chicago to the new century of post-modern world! :)
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/8461/map6ce.jpg

Fordham Spire both daring and conservative
An audacious architectural design; a modest real estate project


By Alby Gallun
The Chicago condominium developer who wants to build the nation’s tallest skyscraper is trying pull off something audacious and conservative at the same time.
Christopher T. Carley has hired star architect Santiago Calatrava to design the 115-story building overlooking Lake Michigan, perhaps the boldest architectural statement on the Chicago skyline since the construction of the Sears Tower more than three decades ago. Yet in a news conference Wednesday, Mr. Carley called it a “very conservative” development from a size standpoint, one reason he believes he’ll be able to sell enough condos to obtain financing.

Because the tower is so slender, the condo portion of the building will encompass about 750,000 square feet, not that much bigger than two of Mr. Carley’s recent projects in River North. The project will include about 250 condos.
“The size is not that ambitious beyond what we’ve already done,” he said.

Mr. Carley, chairman of Fordham Co., is aiming for the ultra wealthy, with units in the tower expected to sell for about $800 a square foot.

According to Chicago-based consulting firm Appraisal Research Counselors, only three condo projects in downtown Chicago are more expensive: a building Mr. Carley developed at 65 E. Goethe St. that averages $699 a square foot for raw space, and well over $1,000 for finished space; the Trump International Hotel and Tower, which sells for an average of about $963 a square foot; and the Elysian Hotel and Private Residences, $849 a square foot.

Developers generally don’t secure financing until they’ve sold units representing at least 40% of the building’s value, a threshold Mr. Carley expects to cross by next spring. Yet Mr. Carley’s building, called the Fordham Spire, also includes a luxury hotel, which will likely make financing more difficult.

Wow, this project has recieved much attention in two days as did so many other highrise projects recieve in 2 years! If it remains in the media spotlight (in a positive atmosphere), I see 40% of the units being sold by next June.

PLEASE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO CREATE A NEW THREAD. I've asked this before but no one responded, and I know there are people who know here...

...when is the official unveiling at the MCA? And will it be at this time we get new renderings? Tonight perhaps?

Thanks.

I'm sorry, but I think it has already happened.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050727/capt.cx10507271634.chicago_skyscraper_cx105.jpg?x=380&y=266&sig=PVBbQqWJkgWCz2yp6LsfMQ--
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050727/capt.cx10107271606.chicago_skyscraper_cx101.jpg?x=254&y=345&sig=nMr2QWj_Rm4NStePGiruIg--
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050727/capt.cx10207271605.chicago_skyscraper_cx102.jpg?x=215&y=345&sig=ZgtuPL2.vnmCmbck74vWgQ--

The building itself looks nice.

I still have a hard time visualizing the base. It looks like an afterthought, which is far from a good thing...

I'm sorry, but I think it has already happened.

Crap I must have missed it... Any idea what this official unveiling was all about? It seems like the past 24 hours have been the big unveiling... any new information to come out of the press conference?

BVictor? Would love to hear from you a full report! :)

Wow, this project has recieved much attention in two days as did so many other highrise projects recieve in 2 years! If it remains in the media spotlight (in a positive atmosphere), I see 40% of the units being sold by next June.

Yeah, nothin' like a free publicity blitz to jumpstart sales. :cheers:

The drawings are spectacular.

The media blitz, backed up with detail, was impressive.

The building is a winner.

That said, and not really wanting to rain on anybody's parade, based on this type of tower up donw through the years, I'd say realistically the changes of getting this done is slim to none.

I'd hold off on the excitement.

I was wondering if any of you guys have been to the developers website? They have updated it.

www.fordhamco.com

I have just come from the sales center, and the lady is going to send me some information in the mail.

I didn't got to anything this morning. It was a private event, and press release for the media. There was no information yet available at the sales center, because the materials, including the model had yet to return from the MCA.

The lady at the sales center told me that they have gotten phone calls from Tokyo, Spain, Mexico, London, Switzerland, New York and Los Angeles. She said that some people stated that they wanted to put their money down NOW!!!. I think that this proposal is more serious than people realize. She said the the website has gotten more than 200 hits within the past couple of hours.

I believe that there is going to be something else tonight on CHICAGO TONIGHT, so keep a look out for that, it comes on at 7pm, then it is repeated at 12am, 1:30am and about 4 or 4:30 am.

hmm kinda disappointing design.. i expected better from calatrava. of course, i never liked his taller buildings (though i LOVE his other buildings :) )
i guess the twisting-torso kinda thing is in trend these days??

Yeah, yesterday they made it seem like they were going to continue some sort of discussion on the Fordham. And your talk with the sales center confirms what a lot of us think - Calatrava is attracting the international elite. :) Also, what happened to the Elysian meeting?

That said, and not really wanting to rain on anybody's parade, based on this type of tower up donw through the years, I'd say realistically the changes of getting this done is slim to none.

I'd hold off on the excitement.

Wasn't that everyone was saying when the Trump Tower will be built, years ago?

Maybe they should lower the building to 1449 ft., thus giving us a basis for getting excited. :)

I was wondering if any of you guys have been to the developers website? They have updated it.

www.fordhamco.com

I have just come from the sales center, and the lady is going to send me some information in the mail.

I didn't got to anything this morning. It was a private event, and press release for the media. There was no information yet available at the sales center, because the materials, including the model had yet to return from the MCA.

The lady at the sales center told me that they have gotten phone calls from Tokyo, Spain, Mexico, London, Switzerland, New York and Los Angeles. She said that some people stated that they wanted to put their money down NOW!!!. I think that this proposal is more serious than people realize. She said the the website has gotten more than 200 hits within the past couple of hours.

I believe that there is going to be something else tonight on CHICAGO TONIGHT, so keep a look out for that, it comes on at 7pm, then it is repeated at 12am, 1:30am and about 4 or 4:30 am.


Good going BVictor. I have enjoyed your updates in the past and you are usually on the frontline. I hope you can do the same with this project. I think this is one of the most exciting proposals EVER for Chicago--far bigger than Trump, and I thought THAT was big.

Where, do tell, is the sales center? Are they sharing space with the Forham and Pinnacle in the small building on Huron?

Wasn't that everyone was saying when the Trump Tower will be built, years ago?

and Fordham isn't Donald Trump. How many of these tall, narrow towers (Migglin-Biettner, 7SD) have been proposed and gone no where.

Look, I think the plans are beautiful. And, as I said, they sure gave us enough eye candy with this one to get the juices flowing.

But getting this off the ground is something else. Streeterville is already planning to go to war on this. We have no reason to believe either the developer can pull this off or the city allow it.

I'm not trying to be negative. All I'm saying is it is pretty short sighted of us to look at the model and circle the date on the calendar when it will be completed, especially when the track record for such projects is anything but encouraging.

Azn_chi_boi, if you or an other forumer can get me a reason why you think this one is different, far more possible than the ones that failed, I'd love to know what it is.

Chicago Tonight- more on the Fordham (maybe an interview with Calatrava himself???) 7 pm right now + later reruns

I personally am happy that Chicago is seen by world renoun architects as a place where a project of this nature may be feasable. It's going to be tough, I think that one thing this project has that the other supertalls didn't was that Calatrava designed it. I think that carries some weight. Also, the current highries market has not buckled yet in Chicago. It's that people are buying as fast as they build them. Beyond this, it's a crap shoot if the city council approves this project, much less if financing will be secured. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

that spire has got to go,i'm sorry but they need to chop 200ft of that thing.

Where, do tell, is the sales center? Are they sharing space with the Forham and Pinnacle in the small building on Huron?

Yes, that is where I went. The sales center for Fordham Spire will be there temporarily, but I believe that they are renting space somewhere else for the Spire. I believe that they will start taking reservations mid-September. I don't know when the permanent sales center for the Spire will open.

and Fordham isn't Donald Trump. How many of these tall, narrow towers (Migglin-Biettner, 7SD) have been proposed and gone no where.

Uh...two: 7SD and Miglin-Bietler. Two buildings do not make a precident.

WHOA. I get back from a nice, quiet fishing trip in Ontario, and suddenly there's a 2000' birthday candle planned for downtown Chicago. Wow.

I wonder if this'll get Trump to up his building's height...

^I hope not because any added height would be in the spire and not the structure.

Uh...two: 7SD and Miglin-Bietler. Two buildings do not make a precident.

the precident may be that none of the extremely tall but narrow buildings got built.

You guys must be getting me wrong. I'd love to see something like this on the skyline. But don't you honestly believe that this one being so fall and in such an non-business location (far more so than any other such super tall proposed) will get shot down by the opposition.

That is a pretty issolated spot they'd like to build this building on, virtually the tip of a peninsula between the river and Ogden Slip and located in a neighborhood that, for the exception of two riverfront high rises, is loaded with town houses. Is this really the location for a structure of this magnitude?

Yes, next to the lake and in the center.

Edsg25: Although I share your skepticism about this thing getting built, I 'm not sure the location is that bad. Is it any worse than Lake Point Tower? And that was even farther out there in the late '60s when it was built, I imagine -- more amidst warehouses, etc. , no? I DO think its not the best site for a tower of this magnitude though. I agree with what Kamen implied; the highest towers are best reserved for farther inland, so that a 'stepping stone' effect can be achieved between them and the lake. This tower is not well-integrated into its surroundings AT ALL. I think it would be far better at Wolf Point, as I 've said before. As it is, and I know this is heresy, so I WISH someone would respond with a counter-argument... I wish they would CHOP THIS IN HALF. It would look gorgeous, and it wouldn't overwhelm the skyline. And it would be so much easier to sell. Trump and Waterview are well situated, nicely "tucked" into the skyline if you will. But this Screw is going to screw with my beloved Chicago skyline and I'm nervous about that.

As if my curmudgeon-act couldn't get any worse, I'd rather have a beautiful museum or auditorium or something lowrise from Calatrava than a tower, just because I absolutely adore the Milwaukee Art Museum and PATH station plans for the WTC site.
I guess you can't have it all.. and if I could pick this or nothing, I would certainly take this.

Wow, I saw this on the national news tonight (I don't remember if it was ABC or NBC). I'm soo glad that the US is regaining world's tallest, it just belongs here. If we could only get the FAA to lift the 2,000 foot limit.

Dubai will get the WTB in a heartbeat, but this is still no small project. And once again, the 2,000 limit can be surpassed except no one has tried yet.

Regaining the title of WTB doesn't really interest me anymore. It really used to, especially after Sears Tower had its title stolen away from it by those clearly shorter Petronas Towers. (grr)

But now I'd just be content to have the tallest building in the United States. That title, at the very least, should belong to Chicago.

And the Burj Dubai, as amazing as it is, just looks clunky and...well...I know it's just personal preference, but I think it's pretty ugly. At least the renders we've seen of it so far don't seem to do it justice.

No, I'd rather have a 2,000 ft. structure that was elegant and really brought something architecturally to the city and the nation, than an overgrown broken twig.

TOP TEN REASONS THIS BABY GETS BUILT

(10) Calatrava's a rock star.

(9) Unique twisting design resists waxy buildup.

(8) Unlike Trump, Carly knows when he's due for a haircut.

(7) The billions spent on rejigging skyline postcards should keep U.S. economy afloat for years to come.

(6) eHarmony.com proclaims Chicago and Fordham Spire a 'perfect match' based on 29 Love Dimensions.

(7) Tower untwists for an additional ten stories when cocky Dubaians come to town.

(8) But wait ! That's not all ! Adjustable drill-bit accomodates a variety of special tools, such as the 450-foot long egg-beater - ideal for those special occaisions when you need to whip up omelettes for 250,000 on short notice.

(9) Chicagoans can see Jesusland from upper floors on a clear day.

(10) Senora Calatrava ain't no hollaback girl !

spyguy-just finished watching his piece on chicago tonite. right now im pretty positive about the development (i know that there is still a looooooong way to go yet) seems like 40% will be realistic and also calatrava was verrrry positive that it will be built. also it seems to have had a pretty good track record with chicagoans. btw i was wondering if theres another date we should watch out for news on the fordham?

I hear tomorrow's Charlie Rose show will feature Calatrava. Might be worth checking out.

TOP TEN REASONS THIS BABY GETS BUILT

(10) Calatrava's a rock star.

(9) Unique twisting design resists waxy buildup.

(8) Unlike Trump, Carly knows when he's due for a haircut.

(7) The billions spent on rejigging skyline postcards should keep U.S. economy afloat for years to come.

(6) eHarmony.com proclaims Chicago and Fordham Spire a 'perfect match' based on 29 Love Dimensions.

(7) Tower untwists for an additional ten stories when cocky Dubaians come to town.

(8) But wait ! That's not all ! Adjustable drill-bit accomodates a variety of special tools, such as the 450-foot long egg-beater - ideal for those special occaisions when you need to whip up omelettes for 250,000 on short notice.

(9) Chicagoans can see Jesusland from upper floors on a clear day.

(10) Senora Calatrava ain't no hollaback girl !


:rofl: :hahaha:

LOL awesome.

Edsg25: Although I share your skepticism about this thing getting built, I 'm not sure the location is that bad. Is it any worse than Lake Point Tower? And that was even farther out there in the late '60s when it was built, I imagine -- more amidst warehouses, etc. , no? I DO think its not the best site for a tower of this magnitude though. I agree with what Kamen implied; the highest towers are best reserved for farther inland, so that a 'stepping stone' effect can be achieved between them and the lake. This tower is not well-integrated into its surroundings AT ALL. I think it would be far better at Wolf Point, as I 've said before. As it is, and I know this is heresy, so I WISH someone would respond with a counter-argument... I wish they would CHOP THIS IN HALF. It would look gorgeous, and it wouldn't overwhelm the skyline. And it would be so much easier to sell. Trump and Waterview are well situated, nicely "tucked" into the skyline if you will. But this Screw is going to screw with my beloved Chicago skyline and I'm nervous about that.

As if my curmudgeon-act couldn't get any worse, I'd rather have a beautiful museum or auditorium or something lowrise from Calatrava than a tower, just because I absolutely adore the Milwaukee Art Museum and PATH station plans for the WTC site.
I guess you can't have it all.. and if I could pick this or nothing, I would certainly take this.


I agree 1000%, cut it in half and then we have a work of art and something more feasible. I really hope that happens.

When words fail, architect Calatrava's pen saves the day

July 28, 2005

BY KEVIN NANCE Architecture Critic


Santiago Calatrava is bombing. Facing the Chicago media pack on Wednesday for the first time since the initial reports of his planned Fordham Spire -- set to be the nation's tallest building -- the Spanish architect seems stiffer and less charismatic than expected. In a packed press conference at Wolfgang Puck's at the Museum of Contemporary Art, he's trying to explain his design for the tower, but nothing's working.

He rambles at a lectern in fragments of heavily accented English, using technical terms like helicoidal (helicoidal?) and generally failing to demonstrate why he is one of the world architecture scene's few genuine superstars.

Then Calatrava picks up a felt-tip pen, walks to a nearby easel, and starts to draw.

In a few fluid, economical strokes, he draws a better-than-fair representation of the Spire, with its already-famous spiral swooshing down a vertical core like a wet washrag wrung out to dry.

This guy must kill at Pictionary.

He draws a tree, its gnarled trunk twisting like those of the apple-throwing orchard in "The Wizard of Oz." "The trees grow up, like so," he says, his pen gliding. "Like Sequoias, you see?"

He draws a woman -- not a man, definitely not a man -- with her shapely legs sloping down, her feet dainty and pointed like a dancer's. "The human body," he murmurs. "You look for the natural, you see. The sense of movement." The torque of her torso is like ...

And he draws the tower again.

Lightbulbs start flashing over the heads in the crowd.

Helicoidal!

The Calatrava talking at a podium had been nothing special. But this Calatrava, the one with a pen in his hand? It might as well be a magic wand.

"You have to go beyond," he keeps saying, and he does. "You see?" he keeps saying, and we do.

It is, of course, a snake-charmer's art, and a kind of salesmanship. Calatrava constantly doodles on a pad, the results of which he often bestows as gifts. During the first conversation he had years ago with Chris Carley, the Chicago developer of the Fordham Spire, he sketched away, and at the end of the chat, he handed Carley a drawing of a dove so beautiful that it left him stunned.

In May, Calatrava disarmed a group of Chicago pols and city planners with a similar display of draftsmanship akin to sorcery. Afterward, the resulting sketches further demonstrated their magical properties by disappearing, but not before he signed them.

While this drawing business has elements of showbiz -- what a Disney animator he would have been! -- it's also Calatrava's way of thinking: dreaming onto the sketchpad, trolling for inspiration, one seemingly unrelated image giving way to another and another until something clicks and a path opens up. Birds lead to human figures, which lead to eyes, which lead to something like a church monstrance.

More recently, Calatrava presented Carley with a bound copy of his first set of preparatory drawings for the Fordham Spire project, which is full of images that don't seem germane -- classical figures, a series of what look like Byzantine mosaics -- until they start to turn into twisting towers and floor plates that wouldn't be half-bad as a design for dinner plates.

At the press conference, he draws one of these plates, a wheel with spokes that represent living spaces hundreds of feet above Lake Michigan.

"You see?" he says.

We see.

Never got an answer on this one; so I'll try again:

Did the marketing department of the Fordham Corp come up with a brilliant strategy?

Here's how I see it: I've never seen the introduction of a new building literally explode into the market place as this one did. This was no low profile, cautious presentation. This one came full blown....with pictures and details and innumerable shots of building and skyline and the endless mentioning of the Calatrava name. The architecture itself was designed to capture a city as much as it was to capture tennants.

Was this all planned? Did these folks say to themselves: we know from our experiences we can get this one done. We can take care of our end of things. But there are variables beyond our control: the City and whatever oposiion there may be. Let's stiffle that oppositon with our confidence, with our pictures, with the Chicago skyline and our building, with high praise for Calatrava so that we win enough local support to overpower those in opposition?

Was this a marketing/PR coup??????????

Never got an answer on this one; so I'll try again:

Did the marketing department of the Fordham Corp come up with a brilliant strategy?

Here's how I see it: I've never seen the introduction of a new building literally explode into the market place as this one did. This was no low profile, cautious presentation. This one came full blown....with pictures and details and innumerable shots of building and skyline and the endless mentioning of the Calatrava name. The architecture itself was designed to capture a city as much as it was to capture tennants.

Was this all planned? Did these folks say to themselves: we know from our experiences we can get this one done. We can take care of our end of things. But there are variables beyond our control: the City and whatever oposiion there may be. Let's stiffle that oppositon with our confidence, with our pictures, with the Chicago skyline and our building, with high praise for Calatrava so that we win enough local support to overpower those in opposition?

Was this a marketing/PR coup??????????
As a coup it remains to be seen. I think your earlier characterization of a blitz hit the mark. I share your sense of unease about its forefront site near the Lake; Wolf Point would have been a sensational placement. When I arrived in Chicago in 1961, the millinion watt Lindberg light was rotating nightly above the Palmolive building. It's sweep across the city's night sky had an exciting feel about it. It was removed after the Hancock was built. Given the placement of the Fordham Spire, perhaps that feature could be incorporated; it would "blend" with the spiral (heliocordal) design and return a cool experience to Chicago's night scene. The original light was atop a dirigible mooring post.

When words fail, architect Calatrava's pen saves the day

July 28, 2005

BY KEVIN NANCE Architecture Critic


Santiago Calatrava is bombing. Facing the Chicago media pack on Wednesday for the first time since the initial reports of his planned Fordham Spire -- set to be the nation's tallest building -- the Spanish architect seems stiffer and less charismatic than expected. In a packed press conference at Wolfgang Puck's at the Museum of Contemporary Art, he's trying to explain his design for the tower, but nothing's working.

He rambles at a lectern in fragments of heavily accented English, using technical terms like helicoidal (helicoidal?) and generally failing to demonstrate why he is one of the world architecture scene's few genuine superstars.

Then Calatrava picks up a felt-tip pen, walks to a nearby easel, and starts to draw.

In a few fluid, economical strokes, he draws a better-than-fair representation of the Spire, with its already-famous spiral swooshing down a vertical core like a wet washrag wrung out to dry.

This guy must kill at Pictionary.

He draws a tree, its gnarled trunk twisting like those of the apple-throwing orchard in "The Wizard of Oz." "The trees grow up, like so," he says, his pen gliding. "Like Sequoias, you see?"

He draws a woman -- not a man, definitely not a man -- with her shapely legs sloping down, her feet dainty and pointed like a dancer's. "The human body," he murmurs. "You look for the natural, you see. The sense of movement." The torque of her torso is like ...

And he draws the tower again.

Lightbulbs start flashing over the heads in the crowd.

Helicoidal!

The Calatrava talking at a podium had been nothing special. But this Calatrava, the one with a pen in his hand? It might as well be a magic wand.

"You have to go beyond," he keeps saying, and he does. "You see?" he keeps saying, and we do.

It is, of course, a snake-charmer's art, and a kind of salesmanship. Calatrava constantly doodles on a pad, the results of which he often bestows as gifts. During the first conversation he had years ago with Chris Carley, the Chicago developer of the Fordham Spire, he sketched away, and at the end of the chat, he handed Carley a drawing of a dove so beautiful that it left him stunned.

In May, Calatrava disarmed a group of Chicago pols and city planners with a similar display of draftsmanship akin to sorcery. Afterward, the resulting sketches further demonstrated their magical properties by disappearing, but not before he signed them.

While this drawing business has elements of showbiz -- what a Disney animator he would have been! -- it's also Calatrava's way of thinking: dreaming onto the sketchpad, trolling for inspiration, one seemingly unrelated image giving way to another and another until something clicks and a path opens up. Birds lead to human figures, which lead to eyes, which lead to something like a church monstrance.

More recently, Calatrava presented Carley with a bound copy of his first set of preparatory drawings for the Fordham Spire project, which is full of images that don't seem germane -- classical figures, a series of what look like Byzantine mosaics -- until they start to turn into twisting towers and floor plates that wouldn't be half-bad as a design for dinner plates.

At the press conference, he draws one of these plates, a wheel with spokes that represent living spaces hundreds of feet above Lake Michigan.

"You see?" he says.

We see.