Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Review: Paramount Room
The Sears Tower will receive a $350 million face lift over the next five years to reduce its energy consumption by 80 percent. The building will also receive a new neighbor--an environmentally friendly 50-story luxury hotel, located at Jackson and Wacker. The initiative could create 3,600 new jobs and Sears Tower could become the tallest building to receive LEED certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.
The plans include replacement of 16,000 window panes and possibly the installation of wind turbines and solar panels on the set-back roofs. The roofs might also go green with grass or trees, too. The heating and cooling systems will be overhauled, and by revamping the water systems, the building will conserve 24 million gallons of water a year. The concrete plaza at Wacker and Adams streets will be landscaped into a park.
The hotel will be designed by architect Adrian Smith, designer of the Trump Tower, on the same block as the Sears Tower. The original Skidmore Owings & Merrill plans for the tower allowed space for it, but current zoning needs to change before the hotel could be built.
Sad news, though: They still intend to call it Willis Tower.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Love the idea of green roofs on the setbacks...as long as they don't paint it silver or whatever the hell was proposed at one point.
A random thought ... anything planted on the highest setbacks will sit somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500 feet above sea level, a thousand or so feet above the surrounding terrain. I wonder if that will affect what they can plant.
Related thoughts ... The environment of the setbacks will also be subject to much higher and more constant wind speeds, higher levels of moisture(they're frequently below the cloud deck), and an average temperature about 10 degrees colder than the city.
I could ponder this all day. Yeah ... I'm a nerd.
I believe the highest setbacks are at the 67th floor. That would be 800 feet maximum!
That would make them a shade under 1400 feet above sea level. (The base if the tower sits at around 590.) At the same latitude, the terrain hits that altitude in eastern Nebraska, about 50 miles past the Missouri River. The vegetation has already started changing by that point, and that's not even taking into account the effect of radiational cooling that comes with distance from the ground.
*$350 million*?! That's a staggering figure. Based off the recent Willis deal of $14.50/sq. ft. and assuming a 100% occupancy rate (which is way higher than reality) that would be approx. $65 million yearly in rental income. There's really going to be that much of an energy savings to make up that expenditure? If true, that's great, but I'm pessimistic on them coming up with the initial scratch in this economic environment.
The article says, "A number of private and public financing and funding options are being explored." It's the "public" part of that statement that has me intrigued...
TIFs, most likely. The city has already said it will give TIF money to the insurance group.
If so, this is likely as much PR as sound policy.
Sweet! I'll be tarted up good in no time. And at long last they are building me a 50 story hotel girlfriend. I got dumped for the Petronas Towers, then Taipei 101, and now Burj Dubai so I am in need of good news.
Seriously though, I think it looks nice. And 3600 extra jobs will be beneficial in this economy. The updates are needed, lest the building become outdated and a huge vacant eyesore.
While you do have more authority on the matter, I have to disagree with you on the notion of the building becoming an outdated eyesore. I've always thought that at least from an aesthetic standpoint, the Sears Tower's bold, modernist simplicity was classically elegant, something that would never turn ugly the way most recent, fad architecture structures do. I think it's only become more attractive with time. Most of the changes discussed in this and other instances just seem tacky to me.
From a practical standpoint, though, the green changes are a great idea, if they work as promised. Moving and controlling the temperature of the huge volume of air in the building is enormously difficult as it is, and this has been supported by people I know who work in the building. They tell me it's always either way too hot or way too cold.
I think this is a great idea. They are modernizing what after 9/11 became an instant dionsaur.
Hopefully this adds to the desireability of the building to potential tenants.
It seems like the developers wanted to purchase the Sears Tower, just to get permission to build the hotel. In exchange and in order to receive incentives from the city, the developers remodel Sears Tower. So here we are looking at the propaganda push.
Reduce its energy consumption by 80 percent? In the Architect's website it mentions "up to 80% less base building electricity" It seems like the two statements mean different things.