Grant Park Tower 3
Height:
Floor count:
Location: East Roosevelt and South Indiana
Neighborhood: South Loop
Construction end:
Architect:
Developer:

Grant Park Tower 4
Height:
Floor count:
Location: East Roosevelt and South Michigan
Neighborhood: South Loop
Construction end:
Architect:
Developer:

OLD DESIGNS:
Below are several photos of the renderings of Grant Park 3 that I took last night.
https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563932.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563933.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/564220.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/563935.jpg

awesome. I cant wait for Tower 4 to be officially released. Thanks for posting BV.

Wow, elegant and tall! Just the way I like my towers :yes:

I'm speechless

Yes yes yes! :banana:

would somebody be able to take this rendering and widen it out to include the entire skyline? to see its real impact? thatd be great.

wow, I didn't even know there were plans for 2 more buildings in this area.

how accurate is tower 4 in this picture? or is it an all out guess for now?

how accurate is tower 4 in this picture? or is it an all out guess for now?

Just a placeholder for now.

They all look nice (in a Miami sort of way), but to me they collectively seem a little soulless.

Maybe my view is skewed by a deep-rooted belief that I've stated before on these boards. I just don't think any one architectural firm or developer should hold the responsibility of designing the entire south wall of Grant Park, something that the city of chicago planning department has allegedly been hoping would happen for decades.

Urban design should not be for the taking by the highest bidder, or the cheapest firm. Why didn't the city mandate that someone else design towers 3 and 4, like they did at Aqua when they insisted Jeanne Gang design the skin for Jim Lowenberg?

What makes north Lakeshore Drive work so well is its diversity.

Y-E-S!

What a beautiful southern curtain for Grant Park.

This will be my last post on these boards.

It was nice getting to know some of you.

This will be my last post on these boards.

It was nice getting to know some of you.

why?

why?

That was his last post, so we'll never know.

With GP3 & 4, the South wall of Grant Park will rival the heft of the North wall...and will also underscore the paucity of residential highrises South of Roosevelt on the West face...though I suspect the "imbalance" will right itself within the next decade ;)

Another rendering shot

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/564220.jpg

Absolute Cutting edge!!!

There's something about the design of GP3 that somehow doesn't seem fully resolved to me. I feel like the bottom 20 floors of the eastern façade should perhaps be cantilevered out over the sidewalk to balance the "full sail" above. Or alternately, give the east façade a full reverse curve like the north façade. The little setback/reveal floor in the middle seems too small and yet still too prominent, revealing columns/pilotis that are too slender. Same for the vertical white fin, which seems like it should be a little deeper.

So I feel like this is probably going to be the weakest of the three towers shown so far; the one we'll be vaguely ashamed of in 30 years. Unlike Aqua, the Spire, Waldorf-Astoria or Sofitel, unlike One Museum Park (which I like very much), this seems like novelty for novelty's sake.

There's something about the design of GP3 that somehow doesn't seem fully resolved to me. I feel like the bottom 20 floors of the eastern façade should perhaps be cantilevered out over the sidewalk to balance the "full sail" above. Or alternately, give the east façade a full reverse curve like the north façade. The little setback/reveal floor in the middle seems too small and yet still too prominent, revealing columns/pilotis that are too slender. Same for the vertical white fin, which seems like it should be a little deeper.

You might have a point about tweaking things a bit. Here's one thought. It seems that they could use the balconies or windows to continue the curve in the lower left quadrant of the building that is shown in the last rendering above.

Overall, though, I think it's fantastic!

looks a little dubai-ish. with the sail and all. but lets face it, chicago's harbors are home to a pooload of sailboats. it'll be just fine. what a curatin wall, wow.

When the construction of GP3&GP4 will start?

what are some of your opinions on what you'd like #4 to look like?

It`s less important how it will be looks like, I`d like to know when I see first crane on site:)

^^ KRZYCHO!!!!

Where've you been? We've missed you--your pictures ruled!

High resolution render of courtesy of NewcitySkyline:

Left to right: One Museum Park (734'/U/C), OMP West (620'/U/C), Grant Park 3 (790'/Pro), Grant Park 4 (900'/Pro)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/Marino33/CentralStation-GrantParkSouthWall.jpg

© Enterprise Companies

----------

Story from NewcitySkyline:

Will proposed Grant Park Towers be Central Station’s encore?

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Chicago, IL, US (NCS) - On Thursday evening, the 2nd floor Congress Lounge at Roosevelt University was overflowing with residents who wanted to learn more about Central Station Development Corporation’s planned towers for the southwest corner of Roosevelt Road and Indiana Avenue.

http://www.newcityskyline.com/NewGrantParkTowers.html

Wow, that really is a fantastic rendering. Thanks for posting that Hydrogen.

I really like GP3 and I think it is right for Chicago. Yes, this would look good in Dubai, but only because Chicago doesn't have many buildings of this type... yet. In another 20 years, people may be saying, "this looks Chicago-ish"!

The placement of the balconies looks well thought out, I like how some balconies are on the corner, others are in the little niche running up the middle (although only to a point). Very unique looking. This is thinking outside of the box, literally.

I wonder what that floor will be where the whole floor is recessed (about half way up)?

:drool:
damn it chicago!
give just one to us in LA!
We'll take Grant Park 3.
You can have the rest of 'em.

Is it just me, or do the heights of gp 3&4 in relation to omp & ompw seem odd? I'd like to see gp3&4 be taller than they are, b/c gp3 looks odd being just a tad taller than omp. Either that or make gp3 much shorter, and gp4 even shorter than gp3, so there is a descent from omp- that's just my take, and i'm sure few people if any would agree. I'm just not so enamored with pure height- there's not a lot of flow here for me, personally.

I wonder what that floor will be where the whole floor is recessed (about half way up)?

My guess: that will be a large open space attached to the "common area", similar to what 340 has.

Am I looking at that rendering correctly.. are they going to move the railroads underground??

does anybdy know the total number of units for all 4 buildings?

Am I looking at that rendering correctly.. are they going to move the railroads underground??

Good observation, Jr. That long stretch of trees currently is railroad.

All of Grant Park's RR's, for that matter, needs to be covered over by greenspace, in my opinion.

Also, isnt the park area directly across the street from OMP being considered for a Tavern on the Green-like establishment?

Does anyone have a good photo of the site how it looks today?

Does anyone have a good photo of the site how it looks today?have a gander through this thread... http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=166720

have a gander through this thread... http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=166720

Thanks, thats the one I was just looking at and found a good one on page 16.

^Also, Google maps just came out with "Streetview" for Chicago. You can basically go anywhere in the city and get a photographic, rotating perspective on the city.

Another article regarding the GP Towers. There are some interesting comments from various persons in it.

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=3524&TM=84096.12

does anybdy know the total number of units for all 4 buildings?

If you go by the Chicago Journal Article ^^ there are 2845 units in all four buildings. OPM is 95% sold and OMPW is 65% sold.

..

I asked someone on SSP if they could modify the tower using a different color glass, this is what they came up with...

From Alliance on SSP:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1014568/GP3-Edit-Final.jpg


http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/24/1014568/GP3-Gif.gif[/QUOTE]

I am interested in the reworked conception of South Grant Park in this rendering. I have to wonder if the wedge-shaped, cave-like cutout in the middle is a direct pedway to the new tower. It certainly isn't a Tavern-on the-Green

http://www.chicagojournal.com/SiteImages/Article/3524a.jpg


That IS pretty interesting.

Wow I really like how modern these look. I mean that they would look amazing by themselves but together they make an impressive 'wall'.:cheers: :cheers:

hope these towers will be build, the design is simply wonderful

I know this isn't the OMP thread, but I wanted to post this here because it's basically from the same perspective as the rendering:

Taken today:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4430/omp1012ai7.jpg

So are they going to tear down that one brownish red building on the right side to make room for the 3rd and 4th tower?

No. There's plenty of room between the red-brick building (Museum Park Lofts) and Roosevelt to build tall buildings - about half a block.

The perspective foreshortens the distance so it seems like Museum Park Lofts is right against Roosevelt.

I'm going to have to buck the trend here.

I like the design of GP3, but having GP3 and 4 taller than OMP really blows up the entire aesthetic of the wall. OMP should absolutely be the tallest along the wall. What the hell was all the fuss about making sure OMP was "iconic" and had the stainless crown if it's just going to be overshadowed by the wavy graviness of GP3? GP3 absolutely dominates the wall.

Weird.

No. There's plenty of room between the red-brick building (Museum Park Lofts) and Roosevelt to build tall buildings - about half a block.

The perspective foreshortens the distance so it seems like Museum Park Lofts is right against Roosevelt.

Ahh thanks. I guess I see it now.

I'm going to have to buck the trend here.

I like the design of GP3, but having GP3 and 4 taller than OMP really blows up the entire aesthetic of the wall. OMP should absolutely be the tallest along the wall. What the hell was all the fuss about making sure OMP was "iconic" and had the stainless crown if it's just going to be overshadowed by the wavy graviness of GP3? GP3 absolutely dominates the wall.

Weird.

It won't nor can it be overshadowed, seeind as it's the eastern most building. You see it from everywhere. There's no reaseon why the other towers couldn't and shouldn't be taller.

"Easternmost" and "see it from everywhere" don't seem to jive with me, seeing as how the entire city is to the north and south- but most especially west- of OMP. You can see it best from Adler and Soldier Field and your boat on the lake, yeah. I wouldn't call that everywhere.

^ Um yeah and you can see it from the north and northwest which is a large part the city. So how are buildings to the west of it going to block the building again?

Given the fact that these border Grant Park and the Lake, and the fact that they are so tall, you will be able to see it from everywhere. However from the south and west, I think GP3 will dominate, given its unique shape. But from the east and north they will all dominate.

So what was the point in making OMP-W so short and bland?

The simple fact of the matter is that, with the GP proposals, OMP is no longer the focal point of the wall. That strikes me as odd.

^ Um yeah and you can see it from the north and northwest which is a large part the city. So how are buildings to the west of it going to block the building again?

First, I didn't mean "see" literally, I meant it as what I assume CMillar meant- seeing it as a focal point. You can see the house where I grew up from the Skydeck, that doesn't mean it catches your eye.

And no, you can't really see the building from the north, unless you mean Grant Park. I don't think OMP is gonna make a huge impact on the skyline from Fullerton and Halsted, through the Sears, Hancock, Aon, Trump, Waterview, Spire, etc.

^ Yeah, and a short supertall wouldn't be visible from there either. It would have to be taller than sears to be seen from there probably, because it's so far south and blocked by many supertalls.

So what was the point in making OMP-W so short and bland?

The simple fact of the matter is that, with the GP proposals, OMP is no longer the focal point of the wall. That strikes me as odd.

Why is it odd? why should OMP be the focal point? Nothing was ever set in stone that the east building would be the tallest.

I suppose I see how someone might think that the "corner" of a street wall should be the highest, or that the height of the entire wall should be planned out in advance (to create a specific 'line' with the rooftops.) But that would be a bit intrusive if the city dictated the exact heights of any potential buildings, even along the park. And besides, the rest of the Grant Park streetwall is completely random, and it turned out just fine. The city already does a pretty good job preserving the general 'building ranges'. Giving them more power to dictate specific building attributes isn't necessary.

I simply recall quite a bit of fuss between the city and developers about the design of OMP. So much so that it appeared the desire was to make OMP the iconic building along that wall. I understand that things can and will change; it simply strikes me as odd that they would build such radically different, and dominating, buildings to finish off the wall.

I'll also admit to being a bit disappointed in the (apparently) final design of OMP. The top portion of the tower after the topmost setback really needs to be taller below the "crown". The proportions are screwed up. Of course, I have the same criticism of that odd little "caketop" with the stubby spire they tacked onto the Trump. Strange choices, those.

I like the current designs of the 3rd and 4th tower. It doesn't make that big of a difference if they are taller...

I like the current designs of the 3rd and 4th tower. It doesn't make that big of a difference if they are taller...

The 4th tower renderings wont be out for a few months. That is just a filler.

Ahhh...well then, this is awkward.:lol::lol:

Does anyone know if the bases of towers 3 and 4 will be done similarly to the bases for OMP and OMPW?

I like how the bases of OMP and OMPW come together to form a continuous face on Roosevelt between Indiana and Columbus. It's hard to say until renderings of tower 4 are available, but for now I'm hoping for a similar treatment for the bases of towers 3 and 4 between Indiana and Michigan.

any new information... good or bad... Hopefully GPT 4 will now be Boxy like the filler building in the sample picture.

I cant wait to see building 4

Something just irks me about all those towers. One Museum Park and MP West, sort of go together, but have a cheapified base. This one seems too top heavy with its implied sail-like curving top (which is too wide and massive). Also its undulating western section that is supposed to compliment the curving sail form just seems that it was applied to give a reason for the sail. Simplify the overall form to make it more elegant.

I am surprised if that opaque massing in the rendering is in any way represnting what could go next to it (tower 4). For one firm to design the entire wall and have little to no coherent theme or correlation between all of their buildings is a little comical and disturbing, like we are getting some discount knockoff's of the premier firms that are doing all their stuff abroad.

They should look to the eastern wall along grant park to get some idea of what to do, at least back in the day those architects recognized the importance of the relationship between adjacent buildings and how they can build upon a look or theme, but still be individualistic at the same time.

I think the buildings along the south wall will look too alike and similar in personality. People who know nothing about architecture will be able to point out that they all look alike ( not literally, but in a personality sense). The north wall of GP is more varied, and a building such as Aon brilliantly complements pru 1&2, bcbs, and 340 otp. I want more variety amongst the south wall, which will be literally all glass. The designs- no matter if you like or don't- can be labeled as tacky, and ironically belong closer to millenium park, which is also tacky imo. I like omp a lot, but I want something different for towers 3&4. Tower 3 is almost the same height as omp, and I don't like that. I would prefer for towers 3&4 to resemble aon & 2 pru in comparative scale (tower 3 should be around 1000ft, and tower 4 should be 100-150 shorter than tower 3). All my personal opinion.

Chi Bri and Chitowner245, you are 100% right.
though the real blame cannot be attributed to the single developer or his attached-at-the-hips architect. to them, it's all financial. the true blame should be placed upon the city of chicago's so-called 'planning department' for allowing this to happen based strictly on economics, not good , sound urbanism.

Chi Bri and Chitowner245, you are 100% right.
though the real blame cannot be attributed to the single developer or his attached-at-the-hips architect. to them, it's all financial. the true blame should be placed upon the city of chicago's so-called 'planning department' for allowing this to happen based strictly on economics, not good , sound urbanism.

Man, what a good thread we are putting together here. Awesome analysis and discussion really. You are pot on with it being for economic reasons and not urbanism. The plannning commission put together a lovely master plan outlook document about 3 years back or so and it was pretty sound and balanaced, but it doesn't seem as if they are following it very much.

Personally, I would love to see some commerical/office buildings go up where 3 & 4 are supposed to be planned for. I know, I know, there is already alot of commercial space fronting the park, but a view from the south would be killer grade A+ office space. Plus, a major plus, no blaconies. I am getting sick of all these new building forms getting bristled up with balconies. I would love to see a simplied, sleek contemporary commercial tower with angular qualities similar to what is used on the proposed "theWit."

Also adding office/commercial space would help balance out all of the developed and developing residential that is on the south, to make a more rich urban diversified neighborhood instead of all the condo towers everywhere.

^ If not Class A office space, it seems as if the south loop could use at least some office space, if in the form of a few levels of doctors' & attorneys' offices, a tax consultant or two, etc

There was a plan for such a thing in the original plans for Central Station (from their old website), but it appears that this has been scrapped to create an almost entirely residential community

The South Loop office market is pretty much nonexistent. No regional employer will go so far from the West Loop train stations. Little professional offices can't afford new construction, and have plenty of cheaper options in older buildings along Michigan Avenue, Wabash (Burnham Park Plaza), River City, and Printers Row. Condo buyers will pay a lot more for those views over Grant Park.

Hey ChiBri....here you go...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-wed_projectfeb06,1,7695483.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

Hey ChiBri....here you go...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-wed_projectfeb06,1,7695483.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

Sounds pretty soild if they can put it together. Would definitely be a plus for the neighborhood, but they didnt mention any additional park or open areas for the project. I know Grant Park is damn close, but it is about the same situtation that they had for the Lakeshore East development and they included a park/open green area in the middle of the development.

Would love to see this go up and the tracks to go away as long as they have some park area and also use a bunch of architects on the projects so they get away from doing more cheesy looking buildings that already exist in Central Station. Thanks for the link.

Hey I was downton this weekend and I noticed that what used to be a parking lot right next to one muesem park tower 2, is now dirt with a few what looks to be construction site trailors on it. Does anybody have any information on if they are getting ready to start the third grant park tower?? Because I was riding down roosevelt about 3 weeks before and that site was still an open parking lot and not just dirt.... (I would love to see this one start soon)

So no info on this?? I doubt it was site prep but I drove by at a slow enough pace to see some trailers and it looked like the ground was no longer a parking lot but just dirt (could be wrong)......

They haven't even started marketing/selling the third tower yet so I can't imagine they're getting ready to build.

I got a better look yesterday and I made a mistake, last time I drove past I couldn't see the entire ground so I mistaked the trailor thing thats sitting on the lot for a construction trailer and there weren't any cars in the lot so it looked like they cleared but this time I was at the light so I was able to get a better look and noticed the trailor didn't have any wheels and the parking lot was still there just with no cars... my mistake:|