Chicago Tower (Com/Obs) - 2000' (Vision)

[Kngkyle]

Well.. no topic about this here yet. And some great renders were posted on SSP by Loopy who got them from the Goettsch Partners Monologue book.

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/448/towerrific001ef7.jpg
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/2833/002kp5.jpg
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5989/003or4.jpg

[Loopy]

I posted them in South Loop Development, as I'm not sure if the project is viable enough to have it's own thread.


We'll see. I'm sure the Principals in the deal will be getting a few calls this week!

[Kngkyle]

I posted them in South Loop Development, as I'm not sure if the project is viable enough to have it's own thread.


We'll see. I'm sure the Principals in the deal will be getting a few calls this week!

Ah sorry. Didn't see them posted there. Well the mods can do whatever they would like.

[dropdeaded209]

looks like a reworked version of that that comm tower that was proposed a year or so ago. the one peli designed?

[cheeps]

This thing is a hideous! It belongs hidden in the suburbs (Naperville???)

[Flubnut]

This tower is just a tacky tourist trap, similar to (today's) Navy Pier.

Chicago buildings have real purpose: people work and live in them. That's part of the awe of the Sears and Hancock observatories. The height and views aren't gimmicks, purposely-created for tourists. They're actually a true reflection of downtown life.

[Chicagophotoshop]

This thing is a hideous! It belongs hidden in the suburbs (Naperville???)

:wtf:

[Chicagophotoshop]

personally, I love it. I hope it happens

[Dale]

I like it better than the Pelli design.

[ChgoLvr83]

Lets not and say we did.

[cbotnyse]

interesting. I'll take another 2000 footer.

[cheeps]

:wtf:

Dude, give me a break. I hope the planning commision has more sense than to put this piece of crap on our beautiful lake front. Daley would never allow anythng like this to happen. The man since taking office has transformed this city from a blue collar shit hole into a gem. Remember the Mayor is in love with anything Paris. This will never ever ever ever happen!!!

[Dale]

The Eiffel Tower was generally considered to be a monstrosity in its time. Guy DeMaupassant said the best vista in Paris was at the foot of the Eiffel Tower ... where one did not have to actually look at the tower.

[Chicagophotoshop]

Dude, give me a break. I hope the planning commision has more sense than to put this piece of crap on our beautiful lake front. Daley would never allow anythng like this to happen. The man since taking office has transformed this city from a blue collar shit hole into a gem. Remember the Mayor is in love with anything Paris. This will never ever ever ever happen!!!

I see what you're saying but I kinda like it.

I was WTF'ing about your comment to "hide" it in naperville. I mean come on, thats funny.

[ElMañana]

This tower is just a tacky tourist trap, similar to (today's) Navy Pier.

Chicago buildings have real purpose: people work and live in them. That's part of the awe of the Sears and Hancock observatories. The height and views aren't gimmicks, purposely-created for tourists. They're actually a true reflection of downtown life.

I'd like to believe this, but in reality, I don't think those native to the city, besides us Skyscraper freaks regularly find the need to use these places, and I'd bet the huge majority of people that use the observatories are either from the suburbs or tourists. Not to mention that tourist money is not a bad thing that should be avoided.

And about the Eiffel Tower, I was watching something on the Travel channel, about an hour or so ago that mentioned a petition went around and was signed by many famous artists saying that the Tower would deface the beauty of Paris. The host responded with "What do they know?"

[geoff_diamond]

I rather like it. And let's not forget that there's more to it than just being an observation deck - the need for new communications towers is very real. That's not to say that these things couldn't be worked into more fully-functional building designs (like the spires on top of JHC or Sears), but, I think there is plenty of good to be found in this design.

[Flubnut]

I'd like to believe this, but in reality, I don't think those native to the city, besides us Skyscraper freaks regularly find the need to use these places, and I'd bet the huge majority of people that use the observatories are either from the suburbs or tourists. Not to mention that tourist money is not a bad thing that should be avoided.

I have no issue with tourists or suburbanites, or the money they bring in. And I agree that the observatories cater 99% to both these groups. I do, however, have an issue with someone building a skyline-altering lakefront-changing structure...with the sole purpose of sucking in tourists for $20 a pop. That strikes me as incredibly cheap for this town. (Personally, I don't really buy the antenna argument - they've been saying that for years.)

[Chicagophotoshop]

I have no issue with tourists or suburbanites, or the money they bring in. And I agree that the observatories cater 99% to both these groups. I do, however, have an issue with someone building a skyline-altering lakefront-changing structure...with the sole purpose of sucking in tourists for $20 a pop. That strikes me as incredibly cheap for this town. (Personally, I don't really buy the antenna argument - they've been saying that for years.)

I must be in the 1% cuz I would go up there. :)

[cbotnyse]

I have no issue with tourists or suburbanites, or the money they bring in. And I agree that the observatories cater 99% to both these groups. I do, however, have an issue with someone building a skyline-altering lakefront-changing structure...with the sole purpose of sucking in tourists for $20 a pop. That strikes me as incredibly cheap for this town. (Personally, I don't really buy the antenna argument - they've been saying that for years.)sole purpose? I can think of at least 3 more functions this building would have that are of far greater importance. Saying this is built solely for tourists is foolish.

[rgolch]

The Eiffel Tower was generally considered to be a monstrosity in its time. Guy DeMaupassant said the best vista in Paris was at the foot of the Eiffel Tower ... where one did not have to actually look at the tower.

LOL. This will never be an Eiffel Tower.

Personally, I don't think it's hideous, but it's also certainly not gorgeous. I haven't made up my mind if I think it would be a good addition, or not. It's certainly worlds above the CN Tower, which basically looks like a filthy pole in person.

[Danillo]

I don't mind it, but if they even move further along towards developing it, I'd hope they would find a more elegant way to do the antennae on top. But as observation/tranmission towers go... not too bad.

[chukchi]

It would be nice to do a render with Spire , Trump Tower, etc. It is interesting to see how it would look with those buildings.
And personally to me it is not that bad. Actually, I quite like it :yes:

[Dale]

LOL. This will never be an Eiffel Tower.

Personally, I don't think it's hideous, but it's also certainly not gorgeous. I haven't made up my mind if I think it would be a good addition, or not. It's certainly worlds above the CN Tower, which basically looks like a filthy pole in person.

The CN Tower looked dated 20 years ago. How can something 1,815' feet tall look so clunky ?

[Flubnut]

sole purpose? I can think of at least 3 more functions this building would have that are of far greater importance. Saying this is built solely for tourists is foolish.

It can be used for many things, I'm sure. But even based on those uses and it's location, it still leans towards 'tourist trap' to me. I guess I'm just spoiled with the Sears and JHB. They pull off much of the same stuff, while also remaining an integrated part of real city life. Just my opinion, of course.

As for the actual design: eh. I would hope for something a little more unique and striking, but it's not terrible either. For the sake of discussion, are there tower designs that people think are better? I happen to like buildings much more than obs/comm towers, but perhaps I just haven't seen any really good ones?

[cbotnyse]

It can be used for many things, I'm sure. But even based on those uses and it's location, it still leans towards 'tourist trap' to me. I guess I'm just spoiled with the Sears and JHB. They pull off much of the same stuff, while also remaining an integrated part of real city life. Just my opinion, of course.I understand what you're saying but it would have a much more important function than just an observation deck. And "tourist trap" is such a negative word. I encourage anything that promotes tourism to our city.

[vancouverite/to'er]

LOL. This will never be an Eiffel Tower.

Personally, I don't think it's hideous, but it's also certainly not gorgeous. I haven't made up my mind if I think it would be a good addition, or not. It's certainly worlds above the CN Tower, which basically looks like a filthy pole in person.


I know we're all entitled to our own opinions but I don't think yours is a well educated one... that mediocre observation tower looking better than the CN tower?, c'mon...have you seen the CN tower with the new LED lighting system....thats undoubtedly something you should take into consideration when making this judgment
IMO this tower will be good in providing a public observation deck to view the whole city however it looks revolting compared to other projects in Chicago and I believe if built it will cheapen the look of the (Fordham?) Spire.

[Luvin it in 60660]

This thing as currently "designed" looks like an air traffic control tower on steroids. For that matter, it looks like it was designed by a concrete salesman and certainly not by anyone who has a clue about design. The proportions are way off. These type of towers are tricky at best: all structure with very little habitable space. Since it was already mentioned, the Eiffel Tower does it best, the CN Tower at least has some grace to it. The ridiculously small base looks squashed as if by a giant cattle prod; in addition, the location is simply out of the question. I'm not sure this would look good anywhere but least of all on the lakefront.

[Azn_chi_boi]

We should get a giant Chicago Flag to be put on the pole!

Looks simplisitc (but a little too simplistic). Look like, not effort is put in for this design. And this thing will be on the Lakefront? At Least turn this into a tall wind mill and put it at Navy Pier.

[PrintersRowBoiler]

Is this even permitted along the lake (east of LSD)? I don't hate this, but it does not belong on the lakefront. After rejecting this, the city should also consider taking out the "original" McCormick Place.

[Dale]

I know we're all entitled to our own opinions but I don't think yours is a well educated one... that mediocre observation tower looking better than the CN tower?, c'mon...have you seen the CN tower with the new LED lighting system....thats undoubtedly something you should take into consideration when making this judgment
IMO this tower will be good in providing a public observation deck to view the whole city however it looks revolting compared to other projects in Chicago and I believe if built it will cheapen the look of the (Fordham?) Spire.

Consider me among the Great Unwashed. LED or no, CN Tower is mediocre and ungainly. It was even mildewed (the radome) last tiem I was in TO.

[rgolch]

I know we're all entitled to our own opinions but I don't think yours is a well educated one... that mediocre observation tower looking better than the CN tower?, c'mon...have you seen the CN tower with the new LED lighting system....thats undoubtedly something you should take into consideration when making this judgment
IMO this tower will be good in providing a public observation deck to view the whole city however it looks revolting compared to other projects in Chicago and I believe if built it will cheapen the look of the (Fordham?) Spire.

I don't know what you mean by uneducated. I was in TO in 2005, and personally thought the CN tower was an eyesore. Obviously, there are those who would disagree with me. It's a mater of personal taste.

I've been thinking about it, and have wondered why they wouldn't have tried to create a more interesting shape. Obviously, certain non-highrise towers can really make a wonderful impact. Notable examples do include the Space Needle, and obviously the Eiffel Tower. Even the stratosphere in Vegas is not terrible.

[edsg25]

Is this even permitted along the lake (east of LSD)? I don't hate this, but it does not belong on the lakefront. After rejecting this, the city should also consider taking out the "original" McCormick Place.

wouldn't that also warrant the destruction of the LSD-Stevenson interchange for similiar reasons???

[xXFallenXx]

hell, i think its ok. nothing wrong with another 2000 footer.
(although i dont live in chicago so i dont have to look at it everyday)

[GuitarAce]

A few things:

Necessity - Since this is the second "proposed" broadcast tower to pop up recently, it would lead me to believe that this is something that is going to happen eventually.

Design - I think this design looks pretty good, and I like the straight lines to contrast with the tapering appearance of CS. Since the heights are similar, I like seeing something with a different silhouette.

Location - At first I didn't like the location, because it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in that area. However, (being a skyscraper purist) after further thought I like the fact that it is detached from the "real" skyscrapers. It's as if the Chicago skyline is saying to the world - "There's a difference between skyscrapers, and skyscrapers with spires, and broadcast towers". Also, it will inevitably attract tourists; so it'll be good to have this down around the museum campus area, at a vantage point where they can get a full view of the most magnificent skyline in the world.

Certainty - If the developer can crunch its numbers and end up making a profit, it WILL happen (in some form, at some location); so this one looks like a pretty good option to me. :okay:

[Loopy]

From what info we have gathered so far, it appears that this proposal is semi-serious. However, the lakefront location is an absolute political non starter. It won't happen there, period.

It seems that these sorts of towers tend to appear in cities that are hosting Olympics and Worlds Fairs so it makes some sense that this is happening here and now. But still, Chicago is a tall building town, and these towers tend to pop up in less skyscraper-populated cities.

In other words, were not really a comm-tower town. And for that reason alone, I can't picture this actually getting built.

[Chicagophotoshop]

A few things:

Necessity - Since this is the second "proposed" broadcast tower to pop up recently, it would lead me to believe that this is something that is going to happen eventually.

Design - I think this design looks pretty good, and I like the straight lines to contrast with the tapering appearance of CS. Since the heights are similar, I like seeing something with a different silhouette.

Location - At first I didn't like the location, because it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in that area. However, (being a skyscraper purist) after further thought I like the fact that it is detached from the "real" skyscrapers. It's as if the Chicago skyline is saying to the world - "There's a difference between skyscrapers, and skyscrapers with spires, and broadcast towers". Also, it will inevitably attract tourists; so it'll be good to have this down around the museum campus area, at a vantage point where they can get a full view of the most magnificent skyline in the world.

Certainty - If the developer can crunch its numbers and end up making a profit, it WILL happen (in some form, at some location); so this one looks like a pretty good option to me. :okay:

what he said

[wierdo_and_me]

wait this building is way too ugly to be built here in Chicago. Don't build it!

[PrintersRowBoiler]

wouldn't that also warrant the destruction of the LSD-Stevenson interchange for similiar reasons???

Plus Lake Shore Drive going through Jackson Park, The Water Reclamation Plant, and Soldier Field.

I don't mind any of these in the area that should be preserved for parkland because they all serve a purpose for the people, just like the parks. It was unfeasible to relocate any of these away from the lakefront. There is no good reason why a private firm should get to build a tower for profit in the people's land when it could be shifted west onto a surface parking lot.

I just never have liked McCormick because it leaves such a narrow strip of land between it and the lake for such a long distance and the building is so boring and dark from the lake side. Now, if they were to develop Northerly Island to a nice park and built a nice pedestrian bridge to it, that would help, but still wouldnt make me satisfied. I think Daley has always expressed his desire to take it out. In fact (correct me if I am wrong) it is considered in the Central Area Plan.

[harvesterofsorrows]

Oh man...

[cheeps]

If and that's a big IF this thing needs to be built on the lake front, then why not make it an artistic beauty??? Why not have a noted architect/artist design it, such Gehry or Calatrava and many more.

[Loopy]

Plus Lake Shore Drive going through Jackson Park, The Water Reclamation Plant, and Soldier Field.

I don't mind any of these in the area that should be preserved for parkland because they all serve a purpose for the people, just like the parks. It was unfeasible to relocate any of these away from the lakefront. There is no good reason why a private firm should get to build a tower for profit in the people's land when it could be shifted west onto a surface parking lot.

I just never have liked McCormick because it leaves such a narrow strip of land between it and the lake for such a long distance and the building is so boring and dark from the lake side. Now, if they were to develop Northerly Island to a nice park and built a nice pedestrian bridge to it, that would help, but still wouldnt make me satisfied. I think Daley has always expressed his desire to take it out. In fact (correct me if I am wrong) it is considered in the Central Area Plan.
The building is unlikely to be considered for demolition until after the Olympic decision on October 2nd 2009.

But, otherwise, your right, nothing else should be built near it.

[ilovechicago91]

get rid of the "tile" look, and i love it!

[i_am_hydrogen]

This design has some compelling touches, but overall I don't like it and hope it's never built. It'll throw the entire skyline off. I hope it goes the way of the Beitler Communication Tower--swift death.

[Azn_chi_boi]

Plus, it may be too south for actual skyline view except for the southern end of the skyline. You may only barely see the JHC, but can't see JHC up close.

I mean the west view will just consist of Chinatown, Bridgeport, 26th St, and industrial areas.

In the east view, just the lake

In the south view, maybe future olympic housing, McCormick place, surface lots, random buildings, maybe M of Sci and Ind, and railroads

[cbotnyse]

Doesn't a law exist prohibiting construction east of LSD?

[Loopy]

^Yes, that is why the pictured proposal is not serious.

Somewhere else, maybe; not there.

[Chicagophotoshop]

I cant decide if I really want this to go up. I love 2000ft'ers but I dont know. I really doubt this would ever happen anyway, especially in the spot proposed on the pic.

[ChicagoNight]

i dont like this. other cities need "structures" to artificially enhance their skyline, but not Chicago.

[Reinsdorf Sucks]

Yea I'm definately against this tower. Especially when it's by itself like that.

[Chitowner245]

I hate it, it's awful. It's everything that chicago is not. We don't need some stupid tourist attraction like this that forever changes the skyline in a completely unbalanced fashion. The location sucks, the design sucks, and it won't ever happen anyways, so who cares?

[simulcra]

jeez, why is everyone hating on this building so much?

First, there is way too much of a focus on this having an observation deck. He main point of this building is its broadcast abilities, because it's going to be its superb broadcast capabilities that will fetch it the kind of lease money to make it worth building. And what the heck is wrong with tourism anyhow? Especially since it's one of the largest (if not the largest) industry in the world, and certainly one of chicago's top five (and I'm pretty sure it's like third at least). And considering the whole "City Beautiful" concept is about attracing tourism anyway...

Second, i honestly have no idea why this building is being so universally decried as ugly. I like the design alot, and unless i'm misremembering structures, i liked both of the com tower proposals that have gone up.

I don't also understand the potential unbalancing of the skyline. The sears tower and jhc also unbalanced the skylines, and considering I want higher and denser developments to go up in the southerly end of the loop, I see this as a good flag bearer for the area.

I would of course, make an analogy here to the Eiffel tower, but people who tend to use that argument use it as a bad catch-all (a "history will justify us" style argument that is fairly arbitrary) and people who wouldn't use it wouldn't understand the implied historical contextualism anyway. So I'll just say that at least I think it looks great and you guys all must be smoking something amazing :)

[cbotnyse]

^^ I agree with you on all accounts. The only problem I have is the location east of LSD, that cannot and should not happen.

[robituss]

I wouldnt have such a problem with this if it wasn't so dang oogly. The fact that it is proposed east of LSD doesnt do a whole lot for me either. All in all, I would actually prefer a thicker base and thicker top, something more along the lines of Pelli's version even, and maybe a better location in the south loop. But I guess Im not a fan of broadcast antennaes either, although I do like centerpoint tower in sydney and the one in Seattle is ok too.

Better yet, why dont they get in partnership with a developer who wants to build a tall building and just stick their antennea on top?

[Beware]

" Why are so many cities marring Their, beautiful, skylines with dreadful observation towers? "

[Sandeman]

This is seriously a good idea, seriously. It’s a shame that it fell through the cracks…here are my opinions:

• The tower follows the spire-theme as other towers in Chicago, the location is great (even though it’s east of LSD) because views from the southeast are by far the best.
• This is an extension of the museum campus that will draw tourists further south (where the lakeshore is more of a sanctuary).
• Additional benefits are to view the adjacent boat harbor and Northerly Island (and hopefully, its further progression into a nature reserve).
• There will be plenty of business drawing from the adjacent McCormick Place Convention Center.

Put a high end restaurant and a cafe in there (as Eiffel did), add a rooftop helipad, some platforms for bungee & BASE jumping enthusiasts include the Chicago Children’s Museum and you have a 5 star attraction.

[StevenW]

^^ i'm all for it being built. :yes:

[simulcra]

While I was in favor it when it first got proposed, I have to say now, looking back, it's a ghastly project and I hope it never goes up.

[cmj2k2]

I'd lose tons of respect for chicago if they built this joke of a tower

[ChicagoIllinoisUSA]

That thing is disgusting!