Wow, interesting!

Maybe it's because we're all so hungry for a new supertall or maybe it's the reputation of the developer but i feel like a lot of you are being a little too diplomatic. This thing is flat out hideous.

I actually like the massing the way it is. Having the largest tower all the way to the east is just more unexpected. I don't think this design will block Aqua all that much from the river. That is probably why the largest tower is all the way to the east. Can't wait for more detailed renders.

The shape of the building is so different from anything else we've seen in the city. So exciting. It's almost the antithesis of Aqua.

or maybe it's because opinions about aesthetics are quite subjective?


no............ no............ that can't be right at all. what was i thinking?


if the great and powerful Kenmore deems something to be flat out hideous*, then it is an immutable fact! and any who might disagree simply must be clouded by by ulterior passions and associations.


(*) based entirely off of a single, small, early, and perhaps preliminary rendering, no less

I really like the concept. I don't like the render but I could see it working. I am wondering if the stripes on this thing will be anything like the stripes on One57.

It's amazing how there's these companies out there who you've never heard of and have all this money. I had no idea this company bought AMC Theatres for $2.6 Billion. The design is definitely interesting - I'm in the middle about it. I don't hate it but I don't absolutely love it either. Wish it was more curved in some places. I'd be interested to see other more HQ renders.

I wasn't sure how I felt about this design when I first saw it last night, but the more I think on it the more I like it. Honestly I think this just continues Studio Gang's recent trend of wandering more and more into the territory of brutalism. I almost hope that this building isn't entirely clad in glass, but rather had prominent concrete components. The massing of this project (and her recent U of C dorms) are very reminiscent of the monumentalist themes of brutalism. Screw the green washing, let's call a spade a spade, Gang's monolithic Aqua was a preview of a new wave of brutualism out of her, not some flowy green bullshit.

I can already tell this is going to be a good building because of the angsty, mixed, response to this design so far. It is evoking strong feelings from people which indicates that it is radical, unexpected, and, most importantly, original.

Edit: Also this:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...Wbf4Z4WvDmmUxv
angelfire.com

Wanda's own website gives a figure of US$900-million. Link.
That seems like a more realistic figure.

Agreed - I love designs that think outside of the box and that's one thing I like about this design. It's unique and pushes the boundaries of design IMO. Which is great

ok, now i get it

Yes, the primary goal of architecture should be Novelty.

^^^ No one said that, he said that thinking outside of the box is a good thing. I think you will have a hard time convincing most people that it's not a good thing. And, you know what, if the budget allows, then yes, novelty is great for architecture assuming it doesn't sacrifice function. I am personally a big time less is more modernist, but I would never want a city of only Miesian boxes. Hell, what do you think all prior styles of architecture to Modernism were? They were all novelty whether it is second empire mansard roofs, the ridiculous crown and cladding on the Carbide and Carbon Building, the impractically ornate design of the Jewlers Building, etc. That was back when budgets allowed architectural novelty and, frankly, if the Chinese are willing to come to Chicago and pay for 21st century architectural novelty, I'll take it. Again, I think it follows all the same strains as brutalism did: A playful rejection of the trap of rigid modernism. As long as this building is clad in quality materials, it will turn out great and contribute another layer of architectural intrigue to our skyline.

It should be black like that, preferably with no windows. Actually, it should just be clad in black precast panels like the Roosevelt Tower. The more oppressive and dystopian the better.

^^LVW, I think you hit the nail on the head: Gang is leading the way into a 21st century take on brutalism; an alternate path forward deviating from the modernist revival seen in so many new buildings. I agree this would look best dressed in black. Add some darth-vador bronze tinted windows and it would proudly scream 'I will eat your soul' as the best brutalist buildings do.

I think massing is excellent and tallest portion being further east is gesture of grand things to come at the mouth of the river.

Greatly looking forward to this breaking the Streetville/LSE height plateau; its going to look great rising above the crowd when viewing this from the north or south lakefront.

I had a chance to speak with the upper echelon of Magellan after the Gino's East community meeting. After I heard Chinese money was going in on this project I jokingly replied "that means the building will be 88 floors, right?" to which he just smiled. This news confirms what I have been anticipating for the last month.

They have no bearing on each other. The Spire is a long-shot under any circumstances. This has way more possibility of becoming reality. We've learned the hard way in Chicago that you can't pop the corks on the Champaign until the buildings are topped out (looking at you Waterview Tower and Spire). But given that this is a foreign investor ready to commit almost a billion dollars on their first foray into the US market, I'd say the possibility of this being built are very, very good.

Is that like a lucky number 8 thing? The number being claimed now is 89, but maybe that's so the alderman has something to chop off. Given that design, it seems like any significant height alteration would require lots of re engineering of the angles. I guess that's one advantage of elaborate designs, it makes it harder to arbitrarily shorten it, whereas modernist or tripartite design can be stretched or shortened without much math.

The hotel will only have about 250 rooms, which accounts for maybe 25 stories in one of the 3 towers. There'll probably be more residential or commercial than hotel. The Peninsula and Langham hotels in town are also 5 star hotels owned by Chinese companies.

Illustrated

http://i.imgur.com/YUZHgA2.jpg

Taipei 101 gone wrong

Nice to see an 1150' building in the works in Chicago but the design needs work, but if it is built like that I'd probably grow to like it.

maybe if the smallest tower on the right was removed it would look a lot better, more slender, and a bit more composed. but honestly i do like the design, It would contrast the tallest buildings from the 70's very well. this is a first for Chicago, probably the most contemporary skyscraper in Chicago if built

reminds me of a less interesting version of the Toronto proposal.

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-co...est_-wide-.jpg

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-co..._02_-wide-.jpg



http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-co..._01_-wide-.jpg

sorry but i honestly hate the new Toronto proposals. the facades are nice but the actual shape of the tower is too random. in this LSE proposal, there is at least a pattern to a building

i'm failing to see much of any similarities between the two.

yea whatever the Toronto designs are a pretentious mess. I do hope the Gang proposal is still in the works though. This reminds me too much of one57 in manhattan, the base of which is totally hideous.

I have a newfound respect for Chinese billionaires

Both are very tall undulating deconstructionist towers.

Given its location in LSE I don't mind the overall design. It's a 21st century neighborhood and will look fine in context. What I don't like is how it purposefully disrespects the existing street wall. Jutting out and sloping in, when a flush fit with the adjacent buildings would look better, before beginning the zigzag.

I do miss arquetectonica though. That would have been absolutely iconic going north on lake shore drive. I'd love to see a render of Gang's proposal looking north from say Monroe.

Funny you should mention the Roosevelt Tower, because if the the glass on here matches that, it should turn out ok.

^ I thought about it as well, but the Spertus Institute really doesn't take away from the Mich Avenue streetwall despite its design. In a way, it sort of adds 'punctuation' to it.

A good streetwall will have very little deviation from it, but a few odd buildings can sometimes stand out and become that much more distinct. The key is to not have too many buildings like this, where it turns into a cacaphony of "look at me" buildings.

WTF. Whats up with all of these supertall proposals in one day. This, Jersey City, Nordstrom tower massive height increase. My heart, ahahchchccccckckc

http://onsitefirstaid.files.wordpres...5/flatline.jpg

Good for Chicago. Finally, a supertall proposal. Looks pretty trippy in design. Something new architecturally. I like it. :cheers:

i guess, but Gang's design is so much more highly ordered and restrained. it's still deconstructivist if i had to place it anywhere, but without the arbitrary whimsy Gehry has become so famous for. Gang's design is still quite austere and serious in an appropriately chicago kinda way. two very different designs; i don't see one as being a less or more interesting version of the other.

Yeah, I think I already need a break! :haha: And to think I was just on vacation last week ...

Anyways, finally a solid supertall proposal for Chicago which seems legit. I won't judge the design till further, better renderings surface.

I'll certainly take that over banality.

FWIW (probably not much), I like the Gang (not a box) design alot and hope it gets built. Let's see if it does.

Who will buy or rent? The job market in Chicago is making progress, but the Midwest still lags behind other US areas in creating new jobs. http://www.globest.com/news/12_897/n...ts-348000.html

It's mostly been suburban employers heading Downtown or Downtown employers engaging in a game of musical chairs (Blair, MWE and DLK Piper). That's not really job growth (yet) that drives office construction.

^This is not an office building

. . .

i made a sloppy render of the tower on sketchup and i would like to show it but i don't know how to post a image saved to my computer, instead of the internet. any help?

Just post it on Flikr or a file sharing website, and post the link here from that site using the [IMG] on the left and [/IMG] on the right of the link.

the same old news, this time from the tribune:

full article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6735022.story

As Tom said it's not an office tower, but lackluster job growth really hasn't slowed down demand for downtown living in Chicago. Hotel occupancies and tourism are at all time highs, as are rents/sf. However, there has been talk about a glut of construction for a long time.

It would be nice to add a few ft to this to knock trump out of the 2 spot....and yes i know its more than "a few" ft

Still nobody has confirmed that this actually is the Gang tower. I mean, all of us here know it but there's not enough to report it as fact in a newspaper.

Yeah, people have been hinting at it, but frankly we are still nowhere near the breakneck pace we were at in the mid 2000's. We are going to see about 6,500 units delivered over the next 2 years, about a 3,250 annual rate which is pretty consistent with the average annual absorption since the 1990's. Once we start seeing 6,000+ units a year being delivered then I'll be concerned.

There is no relationship between job creation, office building demand and luxury residential building demand? Really? What drives construction if not demand based on a healthy and expanding jobs market? If you build luxury residential, jobs will come?

Anyway, I still like the (non-box) Gang design and hope it gets built.

So, along with LVDW, I'll accept some credit for accurately describing Jeanne's design. :D

The design has not really changed that much over the space of at least a year... which, I find a little troubling. I don't know if she is still giving the same "green-washing" justification for the frustums, (ridiculous), but if the plans are not executed skillfully for the apartments and hotel rooms, I think I will label this tower a total failure. (I have never seen any plans) For example, I can't wait to see how the extra SF get's configured in the hotel rooms.

Not unlike Aqua, it still appears to be a 'one-liner' without much justification except in this case, the result is not nearly as seductive.

Finally, a year ago, I thought the resolution from the relentless frustum massing to the adjacent buildings (bKL's phase II Gems and the adj condo) and the street/ground condition would have resolved itself better by now... I guess I was wrong.

Not necessarily. . .

Really. . .

Lots of things. . .

My point was not related to jobs, rather that this project is not an office building as your original post read. . .

. . .

^ Aqua is a "one liner"?

This will benefit Chicago greatly. at least the tower isnt in the loop, with all those traditional boxes, this tower would look like a a bear among rabbits

well, undulating balconies = 1 line

and, the other lines?

structural? entry sequence? public/private? materials? detailing? environmental? (granted, she does use reflective glass in the less shaded area, so, OK, 1 1/2 liner)

Not even Crain's can call it Gang. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-chicago-river

Seems like a really botched media rollout, which can be an issue with foreign investors. They tell their local media first and when the story hits here nobody is available for comment.

If this thing is built, LSE will be full of some massive buildings.

Seems strange because LSE is such an expensive place to live with the views and new condos, you would think they would have a good amount of nimbys. Maybe the neighborhood is too new and the HOA is too unorganized. Regardless, its become a very good looking area, quiet and dead but good looking nonetheless.

I'm jumping on the Paint It Black bandwagon, but adding some super dark green window columns too.

I'd say the LSE area itself attracts a kind of anti-nimby mindset, a type willing to adventure the prospect of living in an underdeveloped but very expensive section of the heart of downtown in exchange for the location and views and (in the case of Aqua) the emotional allure of living in or near a famous building. Those types are probably excited by the prospect of new development in their area, and can deal with a bit of their view altering.

A colleague lives in Aqua, and when I shared this building with him he seemed excited at the prospect of another Gang building so close by. But his view is to the north, and so is probably safe.