CHICAGO | 375 East Wacker (Arquitectonica Tower) | 840 FT / 256 M | 76 FLOORS | PRO - Page 29

left of center · #**561** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 9:47 PM**

Definatly liking that new rendering... it gives the tower a better proportion, a little thinner and a little taller. kudos for going over the 1000 ft. benchmark. and the two additional towers are always welcome. like someone said above, they look like a 500 and 600 footer, which would be welcome heights.

aaron38 · #**562** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Hold on a second everyone. Is this a new render, or an old render?

Remember, the original plan had 3 buildings, but that plan was condensed down into one larger building so that the Tides and Shoreham wouldn't have their views blocked.
I don't think we ever saw a render of the original plan.

Would they really just suddenly add the side towers back in, after getting rid of them? This kind of flies in the face of everything we've heard lately.

Not that I'm complaining, it just doesn't feel right.

bjorda1 · #**563** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

Hold on a second everyone. Is this a new render, or an old render?

Remember, the original plan had 3 buildings, but that plan was condensed down into one larger building so that the Tides and Shoreham wouldn't have their views blocked.
I don't think we ever saw a render of the original plan.

Would they really just suddenly add the side towers back in, after getting rid of them? This kind of flies in the face of everything we've heard lately.

Not that I'm complaining, it just doesn't feel right.

Yea, i'm not sure, but who cares about the Tides and Shoreham.. they're rental buildings.... block them on all sides for all i care..

Dr. Taco · #**564** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 10:15 PM**

^ yeah, like sentinel said, the rendering he saw didn't have the buildings on the side...

2PRUROCKS! · #**565** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 10:30 PM**

Also that eastern most tower (the one on the right in the rendering) would seem to have to overlap part of the Regatta footprint!?

Northwest · #**566** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 10:35 PM**

I love it! The three tower plan will look fantastic, any guess as to what the cladding material will be? It should be the same facade (including LED highlights?) on all three towers. I think having three towers rising out of that massive base really helps to reduce the hugeness of the parking podium. And I would love to see the central structure rise to >1000 feet!

SNT1 · #**567** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 10:38 PM**

I may have had a premature bananculation (again)

But, 1030' matters the most, hopefully that one sticks

Tom In Chicago · #**568** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 10:49 PM**

I am wondering the same thing everyone else is. . . that's why I asked Sentinel if it was the rendering he mentioned earlier. . .

sentinel · #**569** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 11:09 PM**

Yeah, the rendering I saw did not have the two, smaller towers on the sides; the base was wider, essentially extending to where the two towers would be and as far as I know that elevation was the most recent... Tom, is your rendering recently acquired or do you know if it is older? (Pvt me if desired)

cbotnyse · #**570** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 12:50 AM**

can we update the Chicago diagram?

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?32669476

Rocket1 · #**571** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 12:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjorda1

Yea, i'm not sure, but who cares about the Tides and Shoreham.. they're rental buildings....

Why the bias against rental buildings?

Apartment buildings are apartment buildings, whether you buy or rent.

Busy Bee · #**572** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 1:21 AM**

The 3 tower version looks fantastic—at this point if in fact this is the wrong rendering and the project is planned as one tower, I feel like conceptual wise it's gone in reverse. This clearly seems like the best layout, giving it the most intererest, and who could possibly be against 3 towers instead of one—especially when the main doesn't get stumped by adding them?

Lord let it be true! Don't let us down. Make it three towers to celebrate the birth of your son!

ardecila · #**573** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 1:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Lord let it be true! Don't let us down. Make it three towers to celebrate the birth of your son!

The "Holy Trinity" of Lakeshore East.

Alliance · #**574** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 1:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

can we update the Chicago diagram?

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?32669476

I did, but until I'm approved I can't upload it.

Besides, I'm hoping I have to make a new one anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Lord let it be true! Don't let us down. Make it three towers to celebrate the birth of your son!

It's March already?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

The "Holy Trinity" of Lakeshore East.

I'm hoping that thats actually Aqua-Arqui-LSD&Wacker.

the urban politician · #**575** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 2:43 AM**

Is that view from Wacker?

If so, I'm not a huge fan of the setback. I like the streetwall they're building on east Wacker. Why are they tampering with it?

spyguy · #**576** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 3:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Why are they tampering with it?

Preserve some views of the two side towers?

the urban politician · #**577** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Arqui was always setback form Wacker.

^ Here's the rendering on page one, where it looks like the base (which is essentially what I'm talking about) is flush with what appears to be the Regatta at the left:

But in this rendering, it clearly looks setback from the buildings around it:

As a sucker for kick ass streetwalls, I prefer the original (page 1) version

honte · #**578** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 4:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

By 'real one', you mean the one on Page 1 that we've been looking at this whole time? All the details we've heard - the limestone and glass facade, the design - point to anything but a dud. What do they need to save face for?

Yeah, I'm just screwing around with this new proposal, trying not to get too excited until I know it's real....

I don't think the earlier version will be a dud, unless Loewenberg beats it into the earth, which I still consider a huge possibility. I am not convinced that Aqua has survived the Loewenberg treatment altogether, unfortunately, so until proven otherwise... I still don't think they've produced anything that ranks beyond "acceptable," with much of it a lot worse. But yeah, I think the earlier version could be a B- or B building if it's built as we first saw it.

But comparing the two side-by-side as TUP posted, the new one looks fresher, more modern, taller, more confident, more dynamic, better proportioned, and so forth. And it looks a lot taller than 1000' now that I look more closely at it.

Tom In Chicago · #**579** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 4:58 AM**

Removed a bunch of mis-leading posts in this thread. . . I didn't mean to start any conspiracy theories, so please refrain from any specualtion, rumors, etc. . . noone leaked this rendering but myself. . . I simply asked Sentinel if this was the one shown at the Aqua meeting. . .

honte · #**580** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 5:52 AM**

^ Tom, are you at any liberty to tell us the provenance?