CHICAGO | 375 East Wacker (Arquitectonica Tower) | 840 FT / 256 M | 76 FLOORS | PRO - Page 9

djvandrake · #**161** Posted **May 18, 2007, 2:07 AM**

Hopefully they'll put a few more refinements in the design. I will admit that I'm not immediately taken with the design, but Steely is absolutely right that there is no way to adequately judge a project with the information we have. I am cautiously optimistic that I'll learn to love this one in the same way as I now love 7 WTC in NY. (I wasn't thrilled with that design at first either, but seeing the final product I think it's a gem. But enough of that OT).

Busy Bee · #**162** Posted **May 18, 2007, 2:58 AM**

What's the Big D? That building means so much to me I don't even know what or where it is.

Dalton · #**163** Posted **May 18, 2007, 3:13 AM**

.

luvthebigbox · #**164** Posted **May 18, 2007, 3:37 AM**

Make it black and it will be stunning.

HK Chicago · #**165** Posted **May 18, 2007, 4:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalton

this thing is a hulking monstrosity and will never be built without significant revisions in my opinion.

Unfortunately it will, Magellan is a development machine.

Not only did they start the "boom" they've also never seriously wavered on a project. They're the reason LSE moves ahead like clockwork when other super-plot projects in Chicago or New York are constantly changing plans.

Alliance · #**166** Posted **May 18, 2007, 5:32 AM**

I think people are overstating the "ugliness" of this tower.

SamInTheLoop · #**167** Posted **May 18, 2007, 6:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

I think people are overstating the "ugliness" of this tower.

This is the understatement of the millennium!!

Alliance · #**168** Posted **May 18, 2007, 6:14 AM**

Thats a big overstatement.

honte · #**169** Posted **May 18, 2007, 6:55 AM**

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with forming a preliminary opinion based on the current information... positive or negative. After all, we all know that most of the fancy, color renderings that would be ostensibly "acceptable" to judge from are also often really a bunch of BS.

The problem here, in my mind, is the lack of articulation in the arguments. If people would like to identify issues they have with the design rather than making broad and generic statements, it might be productive to debate the issues.

Yea or nay, this is an interesting proposal. Curious to me is its unabashed recollection of Art Deco and other early modern styles, while also managing to create something that thus far appears to be much different. It seems to be a kind of "thinking man's Postmodernism," which we don't see very much of in Chicago.

denizen467 · #**170** Posted **May 18, 2007, 7:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by texcolo

Great, now Chicago's rippin' off the Big D!!!!

Hi, Big D and Texcolo.

The architecture firm that gave you that building is based in, let's see, what city?

tm30 · #**171** Posted **May 18, 2007, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvthebigbox

Make it black and it will be stunning.

That would be AWESOME! (in my humble opinion)

volguus zildrohar · #**172** Posted **May 18, 2007, 3:19 PM**

I intensely dig this one.

Steely Dan · #**173** Posted **May 18, 2007, 3:54 PM**

i just realized that this might become arquitectonica's tallest building to date if it gets built. does anyone know what their current tallest building is?

Vertigo · #**174** Posted **May 18, 2007, 4:26 PM**

This project is not that bad people....

I think a lot of people are expecting some sort of glass sculpture concept that seems to be prevalent in many of today's high profile designs (here and elsewhere). We'll, we're already (hopefully) getting that across the river and elsewhere. So something that serves as a throwback to the massive old school desgns that are present in Chicago is actually refreshing.

Would anyone on this board honestly consider the Sears Tower attractive if it was proposed today?

No...

But that's what makes Chicago...CHICAGO

Likewise, a 'hulking monstrosity' in Lakeshore East will quickly remind people this ain't Miami.

Am I in love with the design? No. I still think it needs some tweaking but I think the basic elements are in place. I like the fact that there are NO curves and I even like the heavy broad base. It gives a level of substance that so many light and airy condo towers lack.

Steely Dan · #**175** Posted **May 18, 2007, 4:36 PM**

^ Thank you for that post. i like it when people can articulate why they do or do not like something as opposed to the terse "it's total —" idiocy.

and i have to agree with you about "hulking monstrosities". people in this thread were throwing that around as though it were a bad thing. i friggin LOVE "hulking monstrosities". chicago wouldn't be the broad shouldered city it is without 'em.

SNT1 · #**176** Posted **May 18, 2007, 6:01 PM**

so, is there still hope that this 'hulking monstrosity' is a 'supertall monstrosity' (1000'+?) I hope the B&W rendering is pulling off a Chi-Spire rendering in terms of height.

Btw I would still like da sears if it's proposed now

Rocket1 · #**177** Posted **May 18, 2007, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i just realized that this might become arquitectonica's tallest building to date if it gets built. does anyone know what their current tallest building is?

Dumb question: what is arquitectonica?

I just thought it was the name of this building -- but I guess it means more?

nomarandlee · #**178** Posted **May 18, 2007, 7:06 PM**

Its the Miami based architecture firm who designed it. There is no official name of the building as of yet.

Wild Onion Mike · #**179** Posted **May 18, 2007, 9:14 PM**

Yes, I too am looking forward to seeing a higher resolution rendering. But in the meantime, there are alot of interesting details that can be gleaned from the black and white verion. For instance, this project has a lot of similarities with Architectonica's 500 Brickell project. That project has an opening between, although not as dramatic. It also displays a sweepingly linear base featuring a different texture from the buildings higher floors. And it also has groups of floors partitioned by wider linear articulations. It is this last part that caught my eyes the last time I looked at the LSE proposal. The 500 Brickell has lnear articulations every five floors, but the LSE project does something very stealth. The bottom is first grouped by 4 floors, then as you rise they are grouped in 5, then 6, and ultimately 7 floors before yielding to the penthouse/mechanical floors. An interesting play with massing and visual perception. The ocular in 500 Brickell is really interesting and although it is hard to tell from the B/W rendering, the LSE looks like it may have small circular openings along the roofline. Then again, maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me. One last thing, can anybody guess by looking at the rendering if the balconies are recessed or overhanging? I know asking this is almost like asking the forum to identify how many freckles a person has in a painting by Seurat.

The Mad Hatter · #**180** Posted **May 18, 2007, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i just realized that this might become arquitectonica's tallest building to date if it gets built. does anyone know what their current tallest building is?

This building would become there tallest unless the building they designed for the UAE is built, anyways this building,marquis (underconstruction) will be there current tallest at 679ft and has a similar design.