CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by CHI -21c

1. Was the checker pattern intentional, and does Gang like it?
2. Is it supposed to look so flat, looking down LSD?
These characteristics dominate the design yet Gang's complacent towards them.

And how's this going to look juxtaposed with the Hancock? Does Gang know? 2 Prudential complements the city's seriousness. Wanda does not.

I bet, instead of looking at her work with criticism, she'll just say “cool” and “it’s better than an empty lot.” I still think it was a doodle.

1. Yes, that's he whole shtick here, the "weaving" facade.
2. I don't really think it looks flat, if you look at the footprint it's anything but. The building staggers back significantly from SE to NW along the river in order to create as many corner views as possible down the river towards the lake on the North side of the building and towards the Park and Millennium Park on the South face.


Finally, surely you must be joking about 2 Pru. While it is a generally attractive building, it is not architectural masterpiece. Also, Steve Wright, the architect, is one of the finest purveyor's of suburban office architecture in Chicago. Literally everything else he's designed is cookie cutter 5 floor office buildings with pomo granite facades marooned in the middle of a huge parking lot in the suburbs. Not exactly an allstar building and CERTAINLY not complementary to Chicago's architectural heritage.

[CHI -21c]

Wanda is facetious; 2 Prudential is dignified... as are the Hancock and Trump. It doesn't have to be a masterpiece to look serious.


It was described as having a "weaving facade" before the glass color was changed. The frustums have been so reduced, there's no "interlocking" action anymore yet shading was added. That makes the checkered patter look superficial. It's a dominant characteristic, and lacks an architectural look. The design, as a whole, lacks detail and line width never varies (probably because she drew it really small in her notebook).

Up very close, it's staggered, but from afar, it's two dimensional. Corners/views are independent of this design.

Architecture should be disciplined in general, but this is on the river, on the park, in the skyline. We're not fooling anyone with this building. We need arch that can withstand the criticism of today and future generations in order for Chicago's legacy to endure.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by CHI -21c

Wanda is facetious; 2 Prudential is dignified... as are the Hancock and Trump. It doesn't have to be a masterpiece to look serious.

I'm sorry, but pomo, particularly 2 Pru, is the Comic Sans of architecture. There is nothing "serious" about Pomo. In fact, Postmodernism in architecture is virtually synonymous with playful and eclectic. It's literally the opposite of serious. Like I said, I think 2 pru is a decent building and don't have the abject hatred of pomo that some on this board do, but to suggest that 2 Pru is "serious" and that it "complements" Chicago is absurd. That building is about everything that Chicago is not.

If you wanted to talk about a building that actually is serious and actually complements Chicago you could have used Big Stan / Aon as your example which literally overshadows 2 Pru. If anything I see this Wanda design having a lot more in common with 2 Pru and postmodernism than with classic Chicago architecture. What about 2 Pru is form follows function? Literally nothing. It doesn't even belong in the same book, let alone sentence as Hancock or other Chicago classics. Wanda, just like 2 Pru, has several "arbitrary" design motifs, but like I said about 2 pru, that alone doesn't make it ugly or bad design. If picking arbitrary shapes were a crime against architecture, then you could say that Mies' 860-880 is criminal for totally ignoring the unique shape of it's site in favor of glass boxes. Remember that one of the fundamental concepts of capital M Modernism was separating the form of the building from the site. Placing two square boxes on a trapezoidal site seems pretty arbitrary to me...

[wierdaaron]

Guys, guys, guys.... but what about gentrification?

[CHI -21c]

LVDW: I agree, but I'm talking about aesthetics here. The rationale was clearly secondary, so Wanda's being judged on its aesthetics.

I agree that 2Pru is not a masterpiece but aesthetically, the silver, sharp lines, verticality, orderly tapering, and spire all look serious and complement the city which, aesthetically, has a serious and dignified look. It symbolizes our commerce, industriousness, it looks smart, orderly and mature.

What does Wanda symbolize?
What look is created when juxtaposed with other the supertalls?

[LouisVanDerWright]

How do tapering and vertical lines signify commerce? What a load of BS. Minimalism and glass symbolize commerce. Why? Because unbridled capitalism in Chicago is the crucible in which that style was forged.

I don't want to spout a bunch of garbage myself, but I feel like these wild skyscrapers we see these days symbolize the immense technological advances of our times. Why build something crazy as hell like this? Because we can. I know I feel this way about Aqua, the awesome balconies directly represent our mastery of technologies like CAD (used to design it), GPS (used to measure it), and synthetics (which make up the teflon forms that built it). Why do we have to justify this at all? Why can't we say we are doing this because it looks cool and creates all sorts of nifty views from the units? Maybe sometimes it's OK to do things simply because we can.

[joeg1985]

^ Well said! We most certainly should show off what we can do in this era, just as the next era will show it's glitter. And the era after that. And the era even after that. Long live the skyscraper!

[CHI -21c]

I said Chicago's seriousness reflects its commerce and industriousness. How do suits reflect commerce?

There's no disputing that order, verticality, tapering, and varying line width are all characteristics of dignified, serious, buildings. Maturity outside, reflects the industriousness inside. And dignified architecture projects power. It's not just about saving money. Look at vanity height, and trophy offices.

I doubt anyone wants their accounting records looking like some of these crazy supertall proposals. Shanghai and Dubai became prosperous and applied this "just-because-we-can" attitude. The result looks very immature and facetious. Chicago, in contrast, looks noble. I'm very proud of that. And with all these egotistical towers being built worldwide, it's important that we retain that nobility and pride through dignified architecture. It will pay off in the future.
Unlike Shanghai and Dubai, our country's wealth was not built on population or oil, but ideas. So I do want innovation. However, dignity has shown to be mighty and our architecture should reflect that.

Wanda looks like a child designed it. Where's the discipline? I'm no purist, either! I like the BoA Tower in Manhattan. I care about the feeling of a building's aesthetics, and the identity it gives the city.

Seriousness is the key to Chicago's aesthetics. Instead of looking for flaws in my logic, tell me how Wanda looks good.

[Domer2019]

Going back to the form and perhaps homogeneity (as much as can exist) when viewed from far away, I do think this is a concern:


[Studio Gang]

It's dangerous territory when a form is watered down to obsolescence when viewed from far away. Others like the Sears and even Trump don't appear to suffer this as much. And others like Aon don't even have features to miss out on (but, crucially, that building never sold itself on aesthetic merit vs the debate we have here).

Of course, some buildings like Aqua are meant to stare up at and appreciate from near, not far, but I think it's a cop-out to rationalize that way with Wanda Vista. Disclaimer being that all we have are renders so far...

[Zapatan]

Meanwhile, I'm just thinking "oh cool, new big skyscraper in Chicago!"

[Domer2019]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Meanwhile, I'm just thinking "oh cool, new big skyscraper in Chicago!"

I support this

[i_am_kyry]

^ I do appreciate (hopefully intentionally) that the building staggers down to the east. When viewed from the south like that rendering, the western section lines up with Aon's roofline, the middle section between BCBS and 340, and the eastern with section roughly median to the surrounding smaller buildings.

However, that rendering is horrible. It's like looking at a grey scale bar or something. Gang should be ashamed that they didn't release a more detailed rendering, especially within the most iconic skyline view.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Minimalism and glass symbolize commerce. Why? Because unbridled capitalism in Chicago is the crucible in which that style was forged.

BOOM! Well fucking said. Good job!

[bcp]

those horizontal lines / varying color changes are not ACTUAL changes in glass color...are they?

i hope not...i think this is more likely just a very bad rendering (ms paint?) and the color changes are meant to represent the projections and recession of the glass walls..and how this will create shadows / reflect light.

god i hope i'm right on this.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by i_am_kyry

However, that rendering is horrible. It's like looking at a grey scale bar or something. Gang should be ashamed that they didn't release a more detailed rendering, especially within the most iconic skyline view.

I don't think the renderings are "horrible" but I agree with the last part.

[CHI -21c]

^ No, no chance. They reduced the frustums so much more than the first two renders --which didn't have much color change at all. The projections and recessions are practically nonexistent.

The checker pattern is basically superficial.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Domer2019

I support this

Ha, thanks. Doesn't seem to be the current general consensus though.

[wierdaaron]

I think the people who are fine with it are done talking about it.

I've stopped thinking about the building itself and started wondering if there's any hope of pedestrians making their way all the way up that boring stretch Wacker to go look at it.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I think the people who are fine with it are done talking about it.

That's true, I'm excited for this building mostly because of how it looks and the color. The height is nice but Chicago already has three buildings in that height caliber plus one much taller so it's not that special but still a welcomed addition. The city definitely deserves another in the 400 meter club. I actually think this building would look good a bit taller, especially in that location.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Domer2019

Going back to the form and perhaps homogeneity (as much as can exist) when viewed from far away, I do think this is a concern:


[Studio Gang]

It's dangerous territory when a form is watered down to obsolescence when viewed from far away. Others like the Sears and even Trump don't appear to suffer this as much. And others like Aon don't even have features to miss out on (but, crucially, that building never sold itself on aesthetic merit vs the debate we have here).

Of course, some buildings like Aqua are meant to stare up at and appreciate from near, not far, but I think it's a cop-out to rationalize that way with Wanda Vista. Disclaimer being that all we have are renders so far...

Sears and Trump have setbacks which help define shape. Hancock is obelisk like, which helps to define shape while the X-bracing defines texture. wanda has setbacks which will help define shape as well as frustums which will be unique and unlike what we have in our skyline. Can we please be patient and relax? Do you honestly think we're going to get a 1,150' piece of vertical shit designed by Gang? Come one people... Chill!