Ummmm YES.

Did you just diss Helvetica? The generic-ness is kinda what makes it awesome. I mean, I myself prefer Akzidenz-Grotesk, but still... ;););)

It will be its own font even if it's similar. Companies pay thousands of dollars to have foundries create scalable fonts that are protected so nobody can copy their logos or what not 100%

+1 on the Akzidenz-Grotesk...

Helvetica is a completely neutral vessel, which doesn't necessarily work for a company trying to send a message through their logo.

Could not agree more with your view here. For other examples of truly hideous corporate skyscraper signage that has desecrated a skyline, see: Pittsburgh. UPMC on the brilliant US Steel building may be Exhibit A, but there are probably a good handful of additional high-profile examples above the golden triangle that form a collective, completely unnecessary and self-inflicted design travesty........

One thing about the sign though (although I agree with those that find it tastefully designed): There's some reason to think it may not actually happen (at least in its currently rendered location on the building). This is mixed use - apartments + hotel. Apartments I'm almost positive on the top 2/3 or so of the tower. And, if not initially under separate ownership, rest assured it is likely to be in the not-distant future. So how does it make sense for the hotel sign to be on the exterior of the top of the apartment component (unless something hotel-related is planned at the very top....possible, though I tend to doubt it)? I don't think that does make sense. Actually, come to think of it, we have a recent, somewhat smaller version of a project that is quite similar to this one: The Hotel Palomar (bottom is the hotel, I think with an extended wing (or maybe the tower is just wider at the bottom?), and the top half, or maybe a bit more is apartments (could be corporate marketed apts, like the 200 W. Lake tower)....

Signage is mounted on a mechanical floor.

Also, they can write the agreements for the sale of the apartments however they want. Typically that type of subdivision functions very similarly to how condos work and, as we all know, the condo owners have absolutely no control over the facade and mechanicals of their building. The same would be the case here, the developer, if he chooses to sell the apartments to another investor, would simply retain responsibility and control of the exterior portions of the building thereby giving the apartment investor absolutely no say over whether or not there is a sign on the top.

^^ ^ Good points no doubt. One thing I'd highlight however is that it's perhaps more than a little different when you're talking about what individual condo owners may be comfortable with vs. a large institutional apartment investor (in fact, I might not have even thought to question the likelihood of the sign actually appearing in the finished building were the residential component condos). I wonder if there are examples downtown of large apartment components in a mixed-use tower, individually owned by an institutional investor, in which they have no control over the exterior of their component? At Aqua for instance, wonder how that works? And, the Palomar tower for that matter?? And others....

No, that's exactly what I am talking about. I am only using condos as an analogy that most people will understand. No reasonable developer would sell control of the infrastructure or exterior to one entity or another should they choose to subdivide their project and sell off one component. Condos are very similar legally to the subdivision of large projects like this. One of the oldest and most notable examples of this is the Hancock building. The property is legally divided into many segments, but no single entity has control over the exterior. It more or less is managed as a "condo board" of condo boards. The Hancock condo board must cooperate with the antenna owners, the observatory owners, the office owners, the garage owners, and the retail owners under a common management for common elements.

Had there been a sign added at the top of the building by an anchor tenant during construction, the rights to that sign would have simply been written into the bylaws of the common management such that the condo owners would have absolutely no say over it. The same would happen if they condo'd the apartments or sold them to a different investor. They would simply write into the bylaws of the building management that signage rights are out of the control of the new owners. It is actually fairly straightforward from a legal perspective.

It's a good thing this is looking somewhat decent in person because that ^^^ is horrendous. I'm starting to think architecture is getting worse and worse. :uhh:

...what ever happened to simplicity, and when did it become a four letter word, and why does it seem like only three or four firms are putting out anything decent nowadays? Ugh. So frustrating not being able to control everything, everywhere!

January 12 - glass looks good
http://i39.tinypic.com/xljzte.jpg

^. Thanks for the pics! Looks like they are going with a 2 toned glass theme after all. I'm happy to see that. Hope it turns out well

Looks big and about 8 more floors to go!

that is good news, but it's silver, not gold (i think we thoughts gold due to the rendering reflecting a sunset)... which probably makes most people happy, but I was kinda looking forward to a tasteful trump (i know, a contradiction of terms)

^ Regardless, two toned glass is pretty rare in the Chicago skyline. There probably are very few if any examples of this.

I think that as well as the Loews sign will really make this tower stand out

Today
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/t...C3FDE9A2A2.jpg

Jan 13


Jan 14


Jan 15


Jan 17

Today
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/t...8B843DB205.jpg

Wow, I hadn't thought about the impact this building would have from NLSD... its downright imposing.

It's pretty dramatic. Should be really awesome when completed!