HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive


    375 East Wacker Drive in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted May 23, 2007, 10:50 PM
woodrow woodrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianXSands View Post
modernist heart? muscular mid-century Chicago (and New York) style? no offense but are you serious?
Actually, yes. I certainly don't think this building is a Modern building, but I do think there are elements of Modernism, at least some Internationalism, in the design. I realize that the massing is not Miesian or his disciples. lt does harken back to, say Park Avenue in the 50's and 60's?? No?

Maybe what I like is the rectilinear design. Boxes. Would like it more if they shaved off a couple of the floors from the symetrically balanced wings at the base.
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted May 23, 2007, 10:52 PM
Dr. Taco Dr. Taco is offline
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 92626
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow View Post
Couple things.

1. I just don't see how 340 is "a big failure." I am with Steely on this.

2. Why the hating on the Arquitectonica building. I have held off on commenting on this tower until I could see sharper, color renderings. Maybe it's my unrepentant modernist heart, but I am grooving on the design. Unlike many others, I really like the base, with the different glazing. I think the massing is pretty cool. IF they use quality materials (please oh please let it be limestone) than I think this will be a handsome building. Clearly they are working toward a contemporary vision of a muscular mid-century Chicago ( and New York) style.
in the article marvel linked to, it says something like "the facade will be mostly glass and accentuated with limestone. And there will be LED's that change color with the season. And from the south the building will be shaped like Lassie"

or something like that
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted May 23, 2007, 11:54 PM
Crazy Ivan Crazy Ivan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 175
I like the design of this building, less the proposed LED's. Its beyond me why some owners feel the need light up their building like a cheap motel. I think it started with those Christmas tree lights that they were too lazy to take down after the holiday season. Then they started outlining the buildings' geometry with neon lights so from afar they look like a giant 3D box. And then they started splashing the facades with colored lights, now LED. At least when LV and NY do it, there's a point - the advertising - but, for these building owners, its like there's some altruistic motive, like they're trying to bestow upon us a gift of art or a splash of color to lift our spirits in what would otherwise be a dull and boring world.
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 12:22 AM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,092
I think this new render makes it look much better. You can see the building has a exo-skeleton structure to support the balconies. The LED lights could look nice if done properly. The design is decent, but it could have been better. It seems that this won't likely be the final design though, so the potential for something even better is still there. I'm looking forward to hearing what the actual height will be, or at least get a idea of what it will be.

You sort of have to wonder if Magellan reads what we have to say about the design. It would be nice to know if our input actually does play a role.
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 12:47 AM
HK Chicago HK Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
The LEDs are questionable but in line with Arquitectonica's "force the design" approach. Hopefully the lighting ideas are used but improved for subtlety. Thanks for the renderings.
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 3:51 AM
djvandrake's Avatar
djvandrake djvandrake is offline
I'm going slightly mad.
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvel 33 View Post
We had been trying to get the rendering for quite a while now but they were very reluctant due to the fact that more than likely the skin and colors of the building are going to change as well. According to the person we’ve been talking to, the design of the building as a whole could also change.

So before we make any real judgments, it would be wise to wait a little bit longer. She said it’s going to take a few months for them to revise the current design and make any appropriate changes.
Sound advice. I like it a little better having seen the color rendering and more detail around the crown. But, I'll definitly hold out for more definitive details.

And seriously, 340 on the park is fracking beautiful. I love that building. (Not to get too divergent here.) If this were a 1,000 foot big brother to 340 then I'd be very pleased.
__________________
My Chicago Pics, July 2009
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 4:35 AM
APPRAISER APPRAISER is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 258
I like it!!
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 4:40 AM
simcityaustin's Avatar
simcityaustin simcityaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta/Chicago
Posts: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan View Post
I like the design of this building, less the proposed LED's. Its beyond me why some owners feel the need light up their building like a cheap motel. I think it started with those Christmas tree lights that they were too lazy to take down after the holiday season. Then they started outlining the buildings' geometry with neon lights so from afar they look like a giant 3D box. And then they started splashing the facades with colored lights, now LED. At least when LV and NY do it, there's a point - the advertising - but, for these building owners, its like there's some altruistic motive, like they're trying to bestow upon us a gift of art or a splash of color to lift our spirits in what would otherwise be a dull and boring world.
I don't think this is always bad. Somewhat reminds me of Hong Kongs skyline. Every night for about an hour every building lights up, giving a show for tourists. I wouldn't ever expect Chicago to become so glitzy, but some buildings give a nice mix to the skyline.
__________________
University of Iowa! Go Hawkeyes!
No, I think I'll just go down and have some pudding and wait for it all to turn up.... It always does in the end. ~ Luna Lovegood
Chi-town fan!
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 5:48 AM
forumly_chgoman's Avatar
forumly_chgoman forumly_chgoman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago --- RP
Posts: 407
^^^^^I don't know about this still


I could be pretty novel & maybe even awesone if the broad faces where limestone / or whatever they are intending....and the thin sides where glass


sort of an amalgam of old an new chicago....a keyhole to past / current
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 5:51 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow View Post
Actually, yes. I certainly don't think this building is a Modern building, but I do think there are elements of Modernism, at least some Internationalism, in the design. I realize that the massing is not Miesian or his disciples. lt does harken back to, say Park Avenue in the 50's and 60's?? No?
This is a very interesting observation. The more I think about it, the more this building reminds me of the earilest Modern towers, which had a pre-Mies, pre-steel and glass aesthetic. I am thinking of the breed that usually were limestone-clad, such as the first Prudential building.

The new rendering looks fine to me - pretty much what I imagined it would, with the exception of the recessed balconies that become "fluted" accents at the top of the building. Mr. Marvel, thanks for that. The idea of the LEDs scares the living daylights out of me, but if it's handled well, it might be OK. The LED lighting at the top of the Heritage turned out quite well, for example.
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 8:35 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saber925 View Post
From the rendering it looks like the Arquitectonica building is right up against the Regatta. I don't understand the reasoning for this. Since they are combining the lots for three buildings, it would seem to me that they could allow space all around.
It butts us against the blank wall of the west face of the 10-story mid-rise portion of the Regatta. It's not crowding it. Would you rather see that blank painted concrete wall exposed?
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 11:26 AM
jrickw jrickw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow View Post
...I do think there are elements of Modernism, at least some Internationalism, in the design.
I think we would call this neo-internationalism. That works for me.
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 11:57 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
This is a very interesting observation. The more I think about it, the more this building reminds me of the earilest Modern towers, which had a pre-Mies, pre-steel and glass aesthetic. I am thinking of the breed that usually were limestone-clad, such as the first Prudential building.

The new rendering looks fine to me - pretty much what I imagined it would, with the exception of the recessed balconies that become "fluted" accents at the top of the building. Mr. Marvel, thanks for that. The idea of the LEDs scares the living daylights out of me, but if it's handled well, it might be OK. The LED lighting at the top of the Heritage turned out quite well, for example.
Are you sure you don't mean to say it scares the "living night-lights" out of you? Heh Heh, sorry, pun intended...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrickw View Post
I think we would call this neo-internationalism. That works for me.
I don't know about that, I think this is something different that can't really be classified as anything that exists. I know people will shout me down for this, but it really is more along the lines of CS than it is early modernism. I mean look at what Arqi is throwing out with the massing and weird lines. For being a huge square it certainly has a somewhat organic feel to it. That's why I mean by similar to CS, they are both somewhat organic and would be what I would call Ultra-modernism or futurism or something like that. The Burj Dubai and Aqua would also fit into that aesthetic for example.

Did anyone else notice that the horizontal lines on the side parts are wider spaced at the bottom and closer at the top while the lines in the middle part before it turns into a huge hole are closer at the bottom and wider at the top? I seriously think there is some intentional eye-clashing being done here. This will certainly be a very interesting building no matter what.
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 12:04 PM
Stephenapolis's Avatar
Stephenapolis Stephenapolis is offline
The True Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,573
When I first saw this design, I hated it. But now it has grown on me. It looks like a Chicago type building, if that makes any sense.
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 1:13 PM
trvlr70 trvlr70 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 2,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianXSands View Post

...two things: i don't think this will be 1000 feet. and the center and the base are really weak. overall, the design isn't too offensive. and the top looks like it'll look pretty cool at night. but for such a high profile location, i have to say that this imo is gonna turn out to be a big failure just like its neighboor, 340 On The Park.
my 2 cents
I find it incredulous that you could even associate the word "failure" with 340 On The Park. 340 is a real stunner, and if built in any other city besides NYC or Chicago, would likely be the most revered and photographed tower in the city.

To each his own, I guess. There is no accounting for good taste.
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 1:59 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,127
Well since the whole thing's in flux there's not much point in discussing details.

However, I have a fundamental question regarding the base. Since it's a hotel, is it going to incorporate public access from all the levels of Wacker down to the LSE park?
That's still my greatest concern, that the design be pedestrian friendly, so that one can move quickly and easily from the LSE park to the Columbus Street bridge to Streeterville.
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 2:27 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480

So is that a whole ton of recessed balconies I see? 8 per side, per upper floor, 6 per side per floor in the midsection? Or do my eyes deceive me? That would have to be some sort of record for more recessed balconies in a single building
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 5:08 PM
BayRidgeFever BayRidgeFever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SI
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
So is that a whole ton of recessed balconies I see? 8 per side, per upper floor, 6 per side per floor in the midsection? Or do my eyes deceive me? That would have to be some sort of record for more recessed balconies in a single building
I was going to post the same thing.....but I've noticed that most of Chicago's new buildings have balconies, even the tall ones like Aqua and Waterview. Overall I think this is building is great.
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 5:36 PM
archytype archytype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28
lse park rendering

     
     
  #240  
Old Posted May 24, 2007, 5:42 PM
tm30's Avatar
tm30 tm30 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93
I think it's a strong opening design. I don't had a problem with the base at all, but believe it loses some steam on the way up. The keyhole is a great feature, but as a whole, it reminds me of something I used to construct as a kid with Lock-and-Girder. This could be an exceptional building once design refinements are made.



(Don't shoot the opinionated)
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:30 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.