#095 l Bank One Plaza l CHICAGO l 259m l 60fl

[RafflesCity]

Bank One Plaza
Chicago, USA

HEIGHT: 259m/850 feet
FLOORS: 60 floors
COMPLETION: 1969
ARCHITECT:C.F. Murphy Associates

This building triggered the development boom in Chicago's inner city. The design team developed an office skyscraper consisting of a single, 60 storey tapering curve. This design was born out of the need for large, unimpeded circulation areas providing public access on the lower floors, and, on the upper floors, smaller areas for offices with natural lighting. The building, which stands perpendicular to the main streets, has a 2 storey atrium hall at street level. It is entered on the narrow ends through revolving doors located at both sides of the circulation core. A sunken courtyard at the front of one of the long sides provides a focus for activities around Dearborn Street. attracting office workers, tourists and shoppers throughout the day. Fountains and landscaping, and a major work by Marc Chagall - a massive rectangular mosaic - enhance this pleasant, public plaza in the Loop district.

http://tinypic.com/bzoxy

http://tinypic.com/bzotx

http://tinypic.com/bzosy

http://tinypic.com/bzotc

http://tinypic.com/bzoye

http://tinypic.com/bzouf

[cgrassham]

I like the way it slopes and gets wider at the bottom, so 8/10, but if it didn't slope it would get a 6 because it would be a bit dull without it.

[Ersh]

I like the way the facade slopes as it goes down. A nice thing on an otherwise dull building...7.5/10

[NickT]

7.5/10 I like the sloping bottom and the facade

[SUNNI]

a boring box! 7

[NickT]

its a rectangle with a sloping bottom

[Sunflower]

fairly boxy and boring.

6/10

[Caledon1981]

i remember this tower . . it was one of my favorite Chicago towers when i was little. .. but not as much now ;). . .6.5/10

[ryanr]

I like the slope, but it needs a better facade. 7.5/10

[AG]

The shape and sloping sides are good, just that the facade isn't very bright, so it doesn't really stand out.

5.5/10

[luis4083]

6/10

[RafflesCity]

7.5/10

It is old, but I like the chipped pattern on the top and the sloping sides on the base.

[Jasonhouse]

I know more about this building than I would ever care to. One of my professors at school actually worked on this building, so he talks about it all of the time.


I like the building, and I like the sweeping facade, even though that has been done numerous times now. I think that it makes the building seem taller when viewed head on. Like alot of the concrete wonders of this era, I think the building is quite bland, and too cold and impersonal looking... But I still like it...


7.0/10

[Subdude]

Credit given where credit due. It's hard to pull off the proportions of a widening base without looking dumpy, but this building does. If not for that it would look like any of hundreds of similarly styled buildings of that period (down to the universal tripartite facade division). I suspect the shape was considered innovative at the time it was built.
So, not bad, a period piece but at least a good period piece from a period when most pieces were terrible.
6

[SteelCity32]

pretty cruddy look. But all skyscrapers are good though. 5/10

[DrumCorpsAlum]

7.5/10. The curve on the bottom keeps it from being a 6.

[De Snor]

only the curved bottom looks nice

[skyway]

boring thing
5/10

[Liz L]

6.5/10 - It's OK, and soars fairly well, but the slope is the only really interesting feature of the design.

[CTroyMathis]

7.

If it weren't built in the days it was built in, this could've been quite something else! Don't mind it so much due to it's sheer vertical sloping appearance, but, yes - it's bland.

[Steven]

I like the fact that it slopes but overall the building is kinda dull.

7/10

[Bobdreamz]

I love the slope but the building is a little brutal looking & they could have done more with the sides however the slopes heads into a sunken plaza with a fountain which is kind of unique..

http://www.skyscrapers.com/files/transfer/6/2002/06/152215.jpg

http://www.clr.utoronto.ca/VIRTUALLIB/CLIP/IMAGES/fir.photo4.JPG

the slope & the sunken plaza really make it for this building...7.5/10

[TYW]

7.5/10

not bad;)

[arnold]

that slope really forces the perspective of this building when you're standing at the bottom and makes it look REALLY tall. but the design is pretty plain... 5/10.

[Wu-Gambino]

8/10

[SeeMacau]

The shape is alright
6/10

[The Messiah]

Well looks kinda ugly too me.Only the sloping sides are nice.That's just it for me..
5.5/10

[renell]

the sloping bottom looks quite good, other than that its not that interesting 6

[Rabotnik]

A seven......it's a box.But high!!

[MiCH]

I like W.R. Grace building (New York) better. That one is more sleek & shiny.

[tayser]

*shakes head* it's amazing as soon as someone says "boring box" others automatically say the same thing lol!

it's a box ? errrrrrr.................. more of a slab methinks!

an interesting slab at that too.

8

tays

[ganjavih]

Kinda cool in its own way... 7.5.

[Evergrey]

Another ugly Chicago scraper. This vomit-inducing box is extremely depressing.

[airsickpenthousedweller]

The two horizontals break off the effect that the slopes created. But I don't know if I'd like the building without them.

[TropicalSQ744]

A box in disguise! The sloping sides tries to hide the fact that it's an ugly box! :rant: Not impressive..

6/10

[rj2uman]

7/10 Due to the sloping effect without that I would have given it a 4/10.

[james2390]

i get this confused with water tower place,8

[AtlanticaC5]

The facade is quite ugly, but it gets pluspoints for the slope and its height. 7/10

[Wisma]

6/10

Not my kind of scraper. Looks like a dam

[SFtoBoise]

7/10

Crisp and clean. I like the slope.

[Wu-Gambino]

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/3054/2251chi123.jpg
^Pic I took of the slope. Much better in person.

[Patrick]

8

[TPX]

8

The slope is awesome! http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/3054/2251chi123.jpg

[luis]

8/10

[Kommentare]

4.5/10 ! :)

[SkyHawk]

interesting building

8/10

[ONE HUMAN]

Originally posted by MiCH
I like W.R. Grace building (New York) better. That one is more sleek & shiny.

It's true that the W.R. Grace Building also slopes up from the base. So does another similar New York skyscraper -- the Solow Building.

[FloTownballer]

6/10 I think it's another 60's mistake

[UrbanDesigner]

:puke:

[MCC]

8/10 I like the slope.

[Fabio]

6.5/10


it's ok.

[manx_bkk]

6.5/10
Don't like it very much. The shape is nice but the rest is not so good.

[sjambler]

I like the panelled look, the slope and the symmetry.

8.5/10

[matthew_p2004]

its a quite boring building, but i like how it gets wider at the bottom

7

[hongkiu]

8.5/10

look at the slope, quite sexy~!

[Necker]

6/10

[Schroedinger's Cat]

6
Nothing special, but because of shape I give 6/10

[7 World Trade]

this one's so dull and crude compared to wr grace and solow in nyc, but at least the curve prevents this thing from being architectually ho-hum.

and it killed the 160m 1925 morrison hotel too! that is not cool at all.

7/10

[Mr.Skyscraper]

9.5/10
Dull, but the slope is awesome!

[yoyo22]

6.5/10

The slope is nice, and the facade is ok, if not aging too well. I think it does a decent job of relating to the buildings around it at the base, but I dotn like the enterances where they are, it detracts from the openness of the building. Still, the plaza and the slope are architecturally interesting, if nothing else is. (But for a much better version of this, see Fermilab on the outskirts of Chicago)

[Jules]

I really like it, the slope is pretty cool. 9.

[Justadude]

Pretty neat building for the time period, but sadly I don't think it has that "timeless" feel of, say, a Chrysler building. Some innovative designs look good decades later. This is one of those scrapers whose time is simply past. 5/10.

[DamienK]

The fan shaped is pretty progressive for something built in 1969. 7/10

[David3820]

I like it because of it's slope at the bottom. 7.5/10

[Chibcha2k]

9.5

I love all chicagoland buildings :)

[Jheef]

5/10

[Dubai-Lover]

they built it tall, but totally forgot about design! 3

[Monkey]

6.5/10

[Imperial]

4/10

[Zuelas]

7.5

Not every bldg design is intended to induce goosebumps. This is a very respectable tower and is different w/out trying hard to be distinctive. Not bad for being 30-40 years old either and it is well-suited to its surroundings. Great location in the best city in the world!

[andysimo123]

5/10

[Winus]

6/10

[MattSal]

This building is almost too great. I love it to death. I give it a 9.5/10. :yes:

[Imperfect Ending]

8/10

Kinda ugly from the ground level

[Leedsfella]

Nice hieght.. Looks ok, abit plain though. 6

[Azn_chi_boi]

7, the slope is alright, but its need more color/designs..

[Wssps]

I like the design, altough it looks a bit outdated, it reminds me of a building in Tokyo
the 'Sompo Japan Head Office Building', a modern version of the bank one plaza

you can find it at emporis

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=104940

[Medo]

Average, 8

[get13]

I like the way it curves at the base but unfortunatly the rest is a boring concrete slab. 6.5/10

[Pengui]

Haha, the Japanese built something much better than that, following the same design (I have it referenced as the Yasuda Kasai Kaijo building). For this one, the horizontal design of the facade completely ruins the way it soars.
As a result, it's a slightly enhanced ugly-box-of-the-60s design.
So it's getting a slightly enhanced mark...
3.5

[PornStar]

I never liked this one, especially for the slopes... :puke:
5/10

[Latoso]

9/10 Great building, great plaza!

[Phobos]

5/10

I don't like brutalist buildings.

[DRAKKO]

7/10

[empersouf]

Looks like that Seoul one, 7,5. The facade needs something more I think.

[ROYAL BLUE]

7/10

[CborG]

7.5/10

[B@dGuYoM]

5.5/10

[EarlyBird]

Boxy and boring so it gets a 6 from me.

[Henk]

7/10.

[Accura4Matalan]

6/10

[MIKI]

6.5

[jimm]

3/10

[clarky]

7/10

[SoboleuS]

It looks brutal but it's impressive. I really like its shape. 8/10

[El_Greco]

7.5/10

[FJP]

8.5/10

[Djoez]

I like the sloping bottom the rest is rather dull 6.5/10

[divi0013]

i feel as if this building could crush me if it watned to 7

[london-b]

I like the way it gets wider at the bottom, but overall it's so average it hurts, 6/10

[Dancer]

The design is a little dated but it’s not bad. 7.5

[Ullgive]

Don't like it!

[jesarm]

6/10

[jesarm]

nothing special fo me Í find no unique and innovative in its designe

[www.sercan.de]

5/10

[Effer]

7.5/10.

[Skylandman]

5/10

[Sinjin P.]

7/10 ;) ;)

[forvine]

6/10

[mr_storms]

6/10

[anakin]

7/10

[Reflex]

8/10.

[Principes]

7/10.

[FROM LOS ANGELES]

Futuristic buildings from the early 70's. 7/10

[warnings]

3/10

[Scruffy88]

Ive always considered this Chicago's tribute to the NYC's GE tower. Both are long and thin and the exact same height. The tapering on the bottom is a good touch.

8/10

[Cabman]

5+1 for the taper 6/10

[Zaqattaq]

My aunt and uncle worked in this building for many years, it is now owned by Chase.

[spyguy]

^^Speaking of which, a mod should change the title of this thread to "Chase Tower."

[JV_325i]

Too bad about the the overall surface of the building, encompassing both the window treatment and the materials used and subsequent texture created. The thin sides of the building simply do not have enough windows or details to break up the huge expanse of boring concrete.

However, the proportions of this building are absolutely right on. The ratio of the thin side to the the wide side is perfect, and when additionally adding in the height and that perfectly done curve, the proportions are brilliant.

Overall, the dulling effect of the drab concrete unfortunately ends up over-powering an otherwise excellent design, so this gets a 7/10 from me. Part of me wants to give a few points back due to the fact that there may have been limitations with the materials used given that it was buillt in the late 60s, but then who can forget that unbelievable structure built around the same time that defies all generational limitations? I am of course referring to none other than the John Hancock Center, one of the best if not the best design out of that decade and all of time for that matter.

[marpa]

3/10

[i_am_hydrogen]

A very dramatic building in person. The developers had a quid pro quo with the city under which they would get to build a very tall building in exchange for a drastically decreased FAR. That's why there's such a large, open plaza around what is now known as the "Chase Tower"--Chase bought out Bank One.

7.5/10

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/553/chaseandotherfacade3np.jpg

[Skyman]

I don't like it 2/10

[forvine]

Reminds me of KLI 63 Building in seoul.. only that this facade is in concrete and glass :)

[skipperBill]

6/10.

[Taller, Better]

Nice for the time it was built. 7

[LAYZIEDOGG]

the curve at the bottom is fantastic but the rest is dissapointing 7/10

[Woko]

I don't like any 60's or 70's buiildings, and this one isn't an exception. 0/10

[ZZ-II]

Simply Design but i like it 8/10

[mtt16]

7.5/10 quite ok

[virarch]

4.5/10

[gutooo]

5/10

[Mosaic]

7/10

[Dreamlıneя]

4/10

[delmaule]

6.5/10

[vincent young]

Looks like a Commie block.

3.5/10

[FloridaFuture]

Nice base
6.5/10

[festiboi]

Gave it a "5"
It's a very bland box from the 60's. The curvature of the sides adds some uniqueness and gave it a couple of points; otherwise it'd be as exciting as oatmeal. The colour is somewhat generic and depressing and very corporate. The curved edges actually remind me a lot of the Holiday Inn in San Francisco.

[spyguy]

Lovely building. Definitely one of my favorites, and the plaza is spectacular. I always thought of it as very futuristic.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/1646/11110519328f5fb3abdbmd6.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4545/15828912163e6a179bdbds8.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3496/285938709ebaa75cb5cbnf2.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9879/26541032958936dc45eoux3.jpg

[Facial]

Forget the facade... the taper is just incredible. 10.

[(((myx)))]

6.5 quite ugly/.

[sharpie20]

5/10 70's ish architecture not very good at all

[[Jmlr]]

i like it
7/10

[doria]

5, but just because it´s tall

[MelboyPete]

This building is very 'bland' and doesn't 'excite' me that much.
Good candidate for demolish and use its site to put up something more intriguing.:puke:

[MelboyPete]

Forgot to say I gave it a 3.

[krull]

I like the street level presence of this tower. 7.5/10

[hans gruber]

1 /10

[imani]

2 / 10

yack!

[jodie mitchell]

0 / 10

[Alibaba]

not me... 4 - that is being nice.

[W!CKED]

5/10

[shctaw]

Not good looking.

6/10

[zerokarma]

3/10

[kurakura]

looks old...but bet it was awesome 6/10

[Ralphkke]

I do not like this thing, i will give it a 4 out of 10.

[EloyBr]

5/10

[Kelsen]

7.0/10

[poshbakerloo]

6/10 interesting shape...but a bit drab looking...

[VaastuShastra]

7

And yeh, if it was built today - 3.

[Slodi]

i don't like it much 7/10

[Krzyżak]

poor 5/10

[LMCA1990]

7/10

[kon133]

7/10

[Sound.]

uhmmm 7/10

[Astralis]

Two boxy and commie style looking building for me... 6/10

[MasonicStage™]

7/10

[newyorkrunaway1]

8/10

[RON-E]

7/10

[sevens]

this building IMO looks alot like Wilson Hall at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, IL a Chicago suburb. Of course Wilson Hall is much much shorter. :doh:

http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/events/detpic/WilsonHall.jpg

this is the view of Chicago from Wilson Hall
http://wgntv.trb.com/news/weather/weblog/wgnweather/archives/CHICA092005MOND.jpg

[BauIng]

6,5/10

[great184]

Somehow the Index will be Dubai's version of this one, having a very wide facade. 7.5/10

[DragonAnime]

Don't care for it. 7/10

[skyscraperboy]

I luv this building. 8/10!

[Nikkodemo]

Big box!

8/10

[sn1101]

7.5/10

[incognito_rn]

8, ok

[Halabalooza]

yawn. 5

[Machone]

great! 9/10

[44p]

4.5/10
I hate it

[Gregor]

6/10

[davee08]

boring 5/10

[LAZO]

4/10

[EnDleSsWaLtZ]

A Chicago classic 10/10

[Camaway]

Dated but interesting.

7

[Fundador]

Great shot! 7

[Aleho]

8/10

[WAuzzie]

6/10

[xever_7]

7/10

[Infrarojo]

7/10

[Miguel_Prat]

6/10

[UNDECEIVED]

9/10

[Kawasaki_Kragujevac]

5.5/10

[stasiua]

8/10

[Rutger1991]

6/10