daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 25th, 2005, 04:46 PM   #1
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

CHICAGO | Beitler Telecom Tower | 610m | 2000ft | Canceled

Well, I figured we might as well give this thing its own thread. Here are some renderings:





Articles in the Tribune:

2,000-foot TV tower may pierce skyline

By Thomas A. Corfman and Blair Kamin
Tribune staff reporters
Published October 25, 2005

Imagine this addition to Chicago's fabled skyline: a futuristic, tweezer-shaped broadcast tower looming 2,000 feet over the lakefront as one of the world's tallest structures.

The digital age may soon bring this sleek, scissors-like conversation piece to the city, within clear view of the tourists at Navy Pier who will either ooh with awe or laugh with disbelief.

To be designed by prominent architect Cesar Pelli, the tower would help redefine Chicago's horizon. Rising above the skyline between the John Hancock Center and the Sears Tower, it would usher in a new era of daring, ultramodern architecture for the city. Another sensation would be a proposed Santiago Calatrava-designed skyscraper shaped like a drill bit.

The $300 million Pelli tower would function as a platform for local television stations to mount their new high-definition broadcasting antennas.

Instead of building a conventional building that reserves roof space for antennas, the developers--J. Paul Beitler and LR Development Co.--are proposing the lower-cost option of a needle-thin, triple-spired tripod. At the top would be several floors for restaurants and an observation deck, and at the base would be a 400-car garage. The tapered space in between would be largely open, except for six large beams connecting the spires.

"It is a very intelligent structure," said Pelli, in a telephone interview from his office in New Haven, Conn. He compared the structure to a ship's mast, saying it will be "a very handsome form next to the water."

The proposed broadcast tower, which would be located along Lake Shore Drive between Illinois Street and Grand Avenue, would jump past the CN Tower in Toronto, which at 1,815 feet holds the title as the world's tallest free-standing broadcast tower.

But comparing tall structures is complicated, so much so that it can seem the height of absurdity.

Not a building

For one, the structure could not lay claim to becoming one of the world's tallest buildings because it isn't technically a building--its structure would not be filled with floors as in a conventional skyscraper.

Currently, the world's tallest building is the 1,671-foot Taipei 101 in Taiwan, but other superstructures are under development.

Among broadcast antennas, the proposed lakefront structure is taller than the CN Tower but would fall short of a guywire-supported radio mast antenna in North Dakota, as well as an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, according to reports.

Beitler, president and chief executive of the Chicago-based real estate firm that bears his name, confirmed the broad outlines of the project, which does not yet have city approval.

"We are not out to have the tallest building in the world, or the tallest anything," Beitler said. "That's simply silly because somebody will come along and build something taller. There have been a lot of tombstones put up for people who proposed the `tallest.' The problem has always been financeability, and we have financing."

The project would be driven by agreements, not yet signed, with local television stations, which are preparing for a shift to exclusively high-definition broadcasting, expected to be required in 2009.

Beitler declined to comment on the status of any talks with broadcasters. Local television stations currently broadcast HDTV and traditional analog broadcast signals from the 1,451-foot Sears Tower in the West Loop and the 1,127-foot John Hancock Center on North Michigan Avenue, where they lease space.

But television executives have long wanted a third option that they would control, and in the late 1990s even floated a proposal for a free-standing antenna mast that would have been located either in the suburbs or on the West Side.

The selling point of the new tower is that high-definition signals need to emanate from the highest, least obstructed point.

Still, the new tower is not a done deal.

Neighbors overwhelmed

In addition to tough negotiations with broadcasters, the latest proposal will likely be an even tougher sell to Streeterville residents, many of whom already feel overwhelmed by new high-rise construction and suffocated by traffic generated by Navy Pier.

The proposed site, which is zoned for a 610-foot structure, is just a few blocks north of a riverfront parcel where another developer has proposed a 115-story condominium/hotel to be designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava that would also soar to 2,000 feet.

As originally proposed in July, the Calatrava tower did not include broadcast facilities. But developer Christopher Carley said he may eventually add broadcast transmission facilities to his project, called Fordham Spire.

"As the time goes on, there is going to be more and more demand for these high antennas, not only high definition," said Carley, chairman of Chicago-based Fordham Co.

He said he has not had any discussions with local broadcasters, and didn't think the newly proposed broadcast tower would affect his project.

Whether the lakefront could accommodate two tall towers so close by would depend on neighborhood residents, who Carley expected would raise several concerns to the broadcast tower.

"It's not the height per se," he said. "It's more traffic, density, blocked views and shadows."

Beitler said the Planning Department has been briefed on the plans.

"I think it would be very dynamic to have two great architects like this put up buildings so close to each other," said Beitler. "I think they are so completely different from each other it would be interesting."

The proposed broadcast tower would be on a 41,000-square-foot site owned by a joint venture that includes LR Development, a Chicago luxury residential firm, and JER Partners, a Virginia investment firm.

Thomas Weeks, president of LR Development, declined comment.

Beitler is a veteran office developer whose projects include the Pelli-designed 181 W. Madison St. and 131 S. Dearborn St. In the late 1980s Beitler and Lee Miglin proposed a "world's tallest" tower for a Loop site, but the deal ended in foreclosure.

Beitler's partner, LR Development, also is co-owner of the site that developer Carley would buy for the Calatrava tower.

----------

[email protected]

[email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------------

ANALYSIS
Name should be the Why Tower
Loony, daffy, thin and chunky: Not a pretty sight as viewed from pier or anywhere

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published October 25, 2005


There have been lots of loony ideas floated for the Chicago skyline, but the proposed 2,000-foot-tall broadcast tower that two Chicago developers want to build along the lakefront, at least in its present form, appears to be among the looniest.

Despite its futuristic curves, this isn't Buck Rogers architecture. It's Duck Dodgers design, utterly daffy, a cartoonish version of tomorrow. As is, the plan would inflict upon the skyline a scaleless hybrid that would be half-building, half-broadcast tower, but nowhere near a satisfying whole.

The plan is far less poetic than Santiago Calatrava's proposed twisting tower, which could rise as high as 2,000 feet a few blocks to the south, and far less powerful than the X-braced John Hancock Center, which offers an unsurpassed synthesis of blue-collar might and black-tie elegance.

One has to wonder why on earth would Mayor Richard M. Daley and his city planners ever take seriously this "Tall Tower"? (Now there's a scintillating name.) Perhaps because there's a towering amount of clout behind it.

Among the developers are J. Paul Beitler, who joined with partner Lee Miglin to unveil the 1,914-foot Miglin-Beitler Tower, a project killed by the early 1990s building bust. This time, Beitler is partnering with LR Development Co., which has built in silk-stocking districts around town.

The developers signed up New Haven, Conn., architect Cesar Pelli and New York City structural engineer Charles Thornton. They designed the Miglin-Beitler Tower as well as the Petronas Towers in Malaysia, which in 1996 stripped Sears Tower of its world's tallest building title.

The proposed broadcast tower, on the west side of Lake Shore Drive between Illinois Street and Grand Avenue, is, at least, conceptually intriguing.

Traditionally, a broadcast tower like Toronto's CN Tower has been the equivalent of an olive on a toothpick--a giant post with a bulge near the top where restaurants and observation decks went.

But this tower would be more like a tripod, with three sets of paired legs and a giant void between them. The legs, whose concrete would be exposed or covered in metal, would taper as they rose. Big concrete beams every 10 to 15 stories would stabilize them. Somewhere around 1,600 feet or 1,700 feet, the legs would form a platform for the "candelabra" of three tapering broadcast antennas, as Gregg Jones, an associate principal at Pelli's firm and a design leader on the project, explained.

The three-legged format is considered ideal for transmitting high-definition television signals. Three antennas. Three legs. It's simple, pragmatic and efficient. Very Chicago. The void between the legs would do more than reduce the wind's force on the tower. It might allow the owner to someday create a plug-in city in the sky, filling parts of the void with offices, condominiums or a hotel, though Beitler said such a plan is not under consideration.

But the design, which places a 400-space parking garage at the tower's base and three restaurants and an observation deck near the top, works neither as a stand-alone object nor as a part of the cityscape.

The tower simultaneously manages to be thin, which is good, and chunky, which isn't. Whatever benefits the concrete legs offer in structural efficiency--a supertall tower of three sides, not the typical four--they look dreadfully bulky. The problem, on a fundamental level, has to do with scale.

One of the reasons the Hancock is such a triumph is that its X-braces break down the monolithic form of its tapering obelisk. But here, there is nothing to mediate between the enormous legs and the teeny, curvy, glass-sheathed forms of the garage and observation deck. Even if the tower is sheathed in concrete, Pelli and crew will have to labor mightily to give it a human scale at ground level. If it is done in exposed concrete, it may look like a rocket launchpad, far too crude for its showcase lakefront site.

Oh, yes, the lakefront.

Is it just me or is anybody else terrified by the prospect of two 2,000-foot towers rising within a few blocks of each other along Lake Michigan? In all likelihood, only one will be built, or maybe neither. But if we have to choose, Calatrava's would be far superior, its dazzling piece of skyline sculpture easily besting this clunky sculptural wannabe.

Why must this tower go here? Simply because the developers have the land?

A prospective synergy with Navy Pier hardly justifies the placement. Yes, tourists might head from the pier to the tower's restaurant and observation deck. But there's one problem: They'd have to look at this rocket launch pad from the pier. And so would the rest of us.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 25th, 2005, 05:15 PM   #2
Chi_Coruscant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 0

Can anyone put 2000ft TV Tower near Fordham Spire together in a pix? I want to see how it impact Chicago skyline.

I think it is much better to put TV Tower by McCormick Place? The Museum Campus and Chinatown and the Washington Park would be benefited better.
Chi_Coruscant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 05:15 PM   #3
RockfordSoxFan
Rockford, IL
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 90 miles, so close, yet so far away
Posts: 55
Likes (Received): 0

UGH, this thing belongs in Dubai not Chicago. It needs a lot of work to be Chicago-worthy, especially on the lakefront.... Thats all I have to say about that piece of crap.
__________________
Please dont mistake me for "Rockford"
RockfordSoxFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 05:58 PM   #4
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2762

I agree, all though for a "tv tower" it looks pretty ok I don't want that thing in this city. I hate the CN Tower in Toronto and the TV Tower in Shanghi. I dont want it for Chicago either. Man that would be hard for me to get used to.

Are they talking about this if the Fordham doesn't go up or if it goes up anyway? Either way I don't want this thing going up.

If Beitler wants to build something here I wish they would just try to bring back the idea of the Miglin-Beitler Tower.
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 06:15 PM   #5
Chicago3rd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 721
Likes (Received): 1

Wolf Point would be a great place. You would beable to see the 2000 ft Axis between the start of the River and where the River Branches north and south.
Chicago3rd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 06:28 PM   #6
Dale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,180
Likes (Received): 5505

Well, it does look a good deal more poetic than CN Tower (how can a 1,815 ft tower look so clunky ?). Still, I'd like to see a more detailed rendering. I think the 'tuning fork' is awkward.
Dale no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 07:47 PM   #7
vid
Registered User
 
vid's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 13,367
Likes (Received): 921

It looks really good. Worthy of taking the title from CN. Nice and modern looking. It'll fit in great with Fordham, too.


Poor Toronto. (I don't mean that.)
__________________
winnipeg (06/12 - 09/12) + other photos / random things
So many thorns. Not enough sides.
vid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 08:39 PM   #8
UrbanSophist
Registered User
 
UrbanSophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,850
Likes (Received): 44

It could be a nice tower... but why not built it somewhere else? Why do all tall structures have to be in the city centre?

I don't think it would benefit the city's downtown skyline.
UrbanSophist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 10:42 PM   #9
lazar22b
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 262
Likes (Received): 0

Hmm... I don't know how i feel about this one yet. I'm really excited about the fordham spire, so its not that height that bothers me. I think this may not be the best location for it. Would this location take away from the fordham spire, especially since they would be the same height?? The design is interesting, but would it fit into our skyline??

Give me a couple days, to make up my mind about it. I'm also a lot more skeptical of this project then any other current proposal. I would almost prefere these antennas go on a tall building. I don't know. This just seems a little weird to me.
lazar22b no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 10:45 PM   #10
lazar22b
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 262
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago3rd
Wolf Point would be a great place. You would beable to see the 2000 ft Axis between the start of the River and where the River Branches north and south.

I agree with that. Wolf Point would a significantly better location for this thing. I think I would be a lot more thrilled about this proposal if it were in Wolf Point.
lazar22b no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 11:03 PM   #11
yoyoniner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 294
Likes (Received): 0

]
yoyoniner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 11:23 PM   #12
Ed007Toronto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 834
Likes (Received): 71

Why not have the Fordham Spire do double duty?
Ed007Toronto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2005, 11:43 PM   #13
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Well I remember when Shawn gave an update on the Fordham they said they were looking at the possibility of broadcasting HDTV from the top. Wonder what'll happen to that now.

But I agree. Even though that quick night photoshop makes the tower look better, for the sake of both towers being built it needs to be moved, possibly to Wolf Point to cover the hideous Apparel Center. The northern views of Fordham would be killed and possibly lead to a decrease in sales and the end of a beautiful design.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2005, 12:05 AM   #14
Adam186
Work harder, work faster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyoniner
]
I don't know, that kinda kicks ass. What an awesome gateway to the city.
Adam186 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2005, 12:08 AM   #15
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

This was on archidose:

spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2005, 12:12 AM   #16
Chicago103
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 271
Likes (Received): 4

A tall freestanding tower is just not right for Chicago, this is a skyscraper town, we build height here with actual buildings. Also just a few blocks from the Fordham Spire? Thats just crazy and makes no sense. I say they should just put broadcasting equipment at the top of Fordham Spire, its logical since afterall it will be the highest point in Chicago. Also if they really want another observation deck and restaurant they should just put it in Fordham Spire as well.
Chicago103 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2005, 12:20 AM   #17
Chi_Coruscant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 0

Thanks for the rendering, spy and yoyoniner! It looks nice but I prefer the TV Tower be placed in either Wolf Point or South Loop for the sake of balance in the skyline.
Chi_Coruscant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2005, 12:30 AM   #18
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2762

I dunno, I think Wolf Point should have something a little more "dignified" I guess you could day. That is not something I would want to "showcase" per se'. If it does go somewhere have it in a place where doesn't scream for attention from the whole skyline.
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2005, 12:39 AM   #19
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2762

If you must have it put it in the South Loop I have decided. The farther south the better. If they put a glass sheeth around it at least somewhat would greatly imporove it.
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2005, 12:42 AM   #20
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

We should reserve judgement for later. Hopefully tonight Tom will scan the previous renderings of this tower.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu