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 June 30th, 2009, 10:06 AM   #41
AJphx
Registered User
 
AJphx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 481
Likes (Received): 9

Wonderful looking tower. And its location is fine, it adds some great tower density. Enough with super talls having ridiculously large plazas and open space around them. Its an urban environment, not a suburb with supertalls.
AJphx no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 30th, 2009, 12:32 PM   #42
Littlemob
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 172
Likes (Received): 7

I don't think it's the right design for the place. I think something more futuristic like the cctv building from Rem Koolhaas would fit better. Something stealthy and black with sharp edges.
Littlemob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2009, 01:16 PM   #43
Jim856796
Registered User
 
Jim856796's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 8,944
Likes (Received): 844

I still do not want any skyscraper constructed on the current site of the plaza of the Sears Tower. Perhaps if we redesigned the plaza, it would help benefit the renovated sears Tower. I mean there's a small building that contains an entrance to the skydeck. How do you even get to the Skydeck from that little building? The Skydeck is at the 103rd floor.
__________________
I honestly think all development projects must be sustainable and futureproof.

You support the good projects... and oppose the bad.
Jim856796 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2009, 08:58 PM   #44
EnDleSsWaLtZ
Registered User
 
EnDleSsWaLtZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago, La Grange IL
Posts: 457
Likes (Received): 22

Has anyone heard any updates on the proposed project?

Last edited by EnDleSsWaLtZ; September 3rd, 2009 at 05:31 AM.
EnDleSsWaLtZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2009, 02:50 AM   #45
helghast
Registered User
 
helghast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,374
Likes (Received): 147

here's some more info on the project, scroll down and there's a floor plan showing how the tower is situated at the base
http://*************************/chicago...ernization.htm
__________________
"If you put the empire state building on top of the Sears Tower then it's reasonable to say you'll be in the neighbourhood," Mr Baker says.
helghast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2009, 06:18 AM   #46
Reinsdorf Sucks
Seven Costanza
 
Reinsdorf Sucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 4

"The majority of the energy savings will be realized in approximately five years and work will start immediately."

Has this really been the case?

Edit: I guess if it's still proposed - that was a dumb question.
Reinsdorf Sucks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2009, 11:28 AM   #47
helghast
Registered User
 
helghast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,374
Likes (Received): 147

it might not be a dumb question. where did you get that info from ? is it a reliable source ?
__________________
"If you put the empire state building on top of the Sears Tower then it's reasonable to say you'll be in the neighbourhood," Mr Baker says.
helghast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2009, 09:14 PM   #48
bjkeys321
Registered User
 
bjkeys321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manhattan and Milwaukee
Posts: 157
Likes (Received): 20

I like the tower, but i'm not really a fan of its location. I feel like it's impeding on the greatness that is the Sears/Willis tower.
bjkeys321 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2009, 10:52 AM   #49
Metalus
Registered User
 
Metalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 102
Likes (Received): 1

Lol, I agree on the downside of the location. The hotel will be a hidden gem if built in my opinion. Although compared to Willis at 50 stories I would hardly consider it "impeding"
Metalus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2009, 01:56 AM   #50
paytonc
Pragmatist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 433
Likes (Received): 0

What bothers me about this proposal is that the plaza next to Sears was "payment" to the city for Sears being so massive -- the site is zoned for 16 FAR, and since Sears included such a giant plaza it got zoning bonuses to go to something like 30 FAR. (NYC has a strict limit of 18 FAR even with bonuses.) And now they want to take away the legally encumbered plaza to add even more FAR. I mean, you already have a 110-story building -- do you really need more floor area on one block, especially since there are surface parking lots just 200' away? If the city wants to, it can seize those parking lots from their speculator owners now that we have the LaSalle Central TIF.

The Sears plaza is almost useless, so it's not a giant loss -- but just on principle, a deal is a deal, and the city should be compensated. The tower's owners need to "pay" the city for use of that land, since it's not theirs to build upon.
__________________
http://westnorth.com
paytonc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2009, 02:07 AM   #51
Jim856796
Registered User
 
Jim856796's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 8,944
Likes (Received): 844

Does that hotel have to ebe built in order to make 233 South Wacker a LEED-certified building? I'd much rather have a major redesigning of the plazainstead of a hotel. I do not want that hotel built at all.
__________________
I honestly think all development projects must be sustainable and futureproof.

You support the good projects... and oppose the bad.
Jim856796 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2009, 07:56 PM   #52
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by paytonc View Post
What bothers me about this proposal is that the plaza next to Sears was "payment" to the city for Sears being so massive -- the site is zoned for 16 FAR, and since Sears included such a giant plaza it got zoning bonuses to go to something like 30 FAR. (NYC has a strict limit of 18 FAR even with bonuses.) And now they want to take away the legally encumbered plaza to add even more FAR. I mean, you already have a 110-story building -- do you really need more floor area on one block, especially since there are surface parking lots just 200' away? If the city wants to, it can seize those parking lots from their speculator owners now that we have the LaSalle Central TIF.

The Sears plaza is almost useless, so it's not a giant loss -- but just on principle, a deal is a deal, and the city should be compensated. The tower's owners need to "pay" the city for use of that land, since it's not theirs to build upon.
Wait wait wait... NY's FAR is not capped at 18. The original WTC was like 27, and Libeskind's plan is like 30, if you can believe that. You can't tell me that other buildings, such as 7WTC, aren't blowing the roof off a FAR of 30 without some shenanigans going on with lot measurements. That tower absolutely fills its lot and is just shy of 2M SQFT if memory serves. Can you explain?
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2009, 05:35 AM   #53
paytonc
Pragmatist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 433
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_diamond View Post
Wait wait wait... NY's FAR is not capped at 18. The original WTC was like 27
The WTC complex as a whole was approved as a PUD with an FAR of 14. Remember that the site also included a lot of open plazas.
__________________
http://westnorth.com
paytonc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 25th, 2009, 05:52 PM   #54
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

I've read in several places, though, that the final tabulation was on the order of a FAR of 27. I'm not sure if they used different property lines to calculate it. I'm sure I'm underestimating the amount of open space that was part of the project, but, even still - two 100-story towers of substantial girth is nothing to scoff at.
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2009, 07:53 PM   #55
Reinsdorf Sucks
Seven Costanza
 
Reinsdorf Sucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by helghast View Post
it might not be a dumb question. where did you get that info from ? is it a reliable source ?
It's from the first post. The 4th paragraph from the bottom.


I don't really care about when the new building starts, I was more concerned about when the renovation would begin.
Reinsdorf Sucks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 05:58 AM   #56
ChitownCity
Registered User
 
ChitownCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: CGO, IL
Posts: 1,351
Likes (Received): 125

........... what's up??
ChitownCity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 06:14 AM   #57
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Why are you bumping this thread to say that?
__________________
flickrgallery
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 06:26 AM   #58
ChitownCity
Registered User
 
ChitownCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: CGO, IL
Posts: 1,351
Likes (Received): 125

curious if this was a rejected, a real proposal, concept, or what. I would like to hear something about this....
ChitownCity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2010, 06:47 AM   #59
Jim856796
Registered User
 
Jim856796's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 8,944
Likes (Received): 844

I hope this hotel did get rejected by the city council. The 233 South Wacker Renovation is still going ahead, but the hotel will not be constructed.
__________________
I honestly think all development projects must be sustainable and futureproof.

You support the good projects... and oppose the bad.
Jim856796 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2010, 01:08 AM   #60
Littlemob
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 172
Likes (Received): 7

Don't build this Chicago. Absolutely no respect for wonderful Sears Tower. What if i as a tourist or art student want to make a picture of the Sears Tower as a great example of it's era it gets ruined by some Eco friendly bull shit.
Littlemob 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 01:49 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