CHICAGO | Aqua | 858 FT / 262 M | 87 FLOORS

[CGII]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

but aren't the details what matter? imo, who really cares what it looks like from afar. if you sweat the details, everything else will follow, right?

The only reason it looks great up close is because of the depth the balconies bring. From a distance the balconies really just dissapear, making it resemble a boring, green box. At least, thus far.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Taken today:

nice photo! and WHOA! a lot needs to be said about the crew working so amazingly on top of shit in the dead of winter.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by CGII

The only reason it looks great up close is because of the depth the balconies bring. From a distance the balconies really just dissapear, making it resemble a boring, green box. At least, thus far.

i think you missed my point

[CGII]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

i think you missed my point

I assure you, I did not. The detail is fine, but in this case, the detail only benefits the view from up close, at least this far in progress to my limited viewpoint. My point is, since the detail is the balconies, Aqua might just look like an uninspired, green box with cheap glass from just a few blocks away.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Forgot this one:

[photoLith]

I would have to agree with CGII, it does look like a boring terd from a distance thus far, but everyone on these forums seems to judge buildings before they are even 1/14 of the way done. A building will almost always look like crap, well not always but a lot will before they are TO and done. I personally thing that it will look pretty good when its done, maybe not as good as the renderings, but what building does look as good as its renderings?

[CGII]

Originally Posted by photolitherland

but what building does look as good as its renderings?

Lots, but that's not important.


I'm lowering my standards with this tower so I won't be dissapointed. Now I'm expecting a fairly traditional, predictable condo-scraper style with a unique design element instead of a world masterpiece of architecture in condo-scraper form.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by CGII

... I'm expecting a fairly traditional, predictable condo-scraper style with a unique design element instead of a world masterpiece of architecture in condo-scraper form.

...oh my god...
you know there's more to a building than what it looks like in the skyline.
also, what's wrong with boxes? it's a building. is jeanne gang too boring because her tower doesn't zig-zag or have shiny mullions or have fins or what?

[Tom Servo]

also... there's more to this building than just some neat balconies...

[CGII]

Listen, I don't care what you say. That's my opinion, you telling me I'm completely wrong isn't going to change it.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by CGII

The only reason it looks great up close is because of the depth the balconies bring. From a distance the balconies really just dissapear, making it resemble a boring, green box. At least, thus far.

AGAIN, the balconies will become MUCH MORE PRONOUNCED as the tower rises, ergo they'll have a much bigger presence from farther away.



"Zuccone" by Donatello sits in the middle of 278 ft campanile in Florence. The toga folds are greatly exaggerated in order to make them clearly legible from afar on the ground. You can compare the design to those of the relief work and statuary at the base of the bell tower:



The forms and folds are subtler, more understated, because of the decreased proximity of the subject to the audience below.

Gang's tower will operate in the same fashion. They're only at, what?, the thirteenth floor? All you have to do is check out the render on the first page and count up to realize the big transformation has barely even started.

So stop rushing to judgment.

[honte]

Originally Posted by CGII

I'm lowering my standards with this tower so I won't be dissapointed. Now I'm expecting a fairly traditional, predictable condo-scraper style with a unique design element instead of a world masterpiece of architecture in condo-scraper form.

I think that's probably a good idea. It's going to be a nice building - that should be plenty to satisfy us, given the circumstances.

Frankly, if I were Gang, I would be freaked out that everyone is expecting this to be a masterpiece. It's her first highrise. What if it's not mind blowing? What if it's just above average? Is she going to let everyone down? Let's give her a bit of a break.

Not only is this her first tower, it's gigantic, and she's working with one of the most problematic developers in the city. Most architects would just be glad at this point if it stands up, doesn't leak, and the huge quantity of occupants finds it to be a good home.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

So stop rushing to judgment.

I'm not rushing to judgement! Read my posts! I said several times I'm waiting for the completion of the tower but thus far I'm dissapointed.

[the urban politician]

What I don't understand is the notion that there's anything wrong with this building's details only being noticed up close, while from a distance it looks like a dumb box. What's wrong with that?

I liken it to what Honte mentioned a few pages back: this building is in a unique style which allows itself to interact personally with people who take a good look at it; kind of like one of those old fashioned ornamented buildings, but with a modern twist.

If we look at most older ornamented buildings, they are often little more than dumb boxes with a finely crafted cornice and decorative details.

I'm not arguing that Aqua is some sort of masterpiece; far from that, in fact. I am not even "qualified" to tell you what a masterpiece is. But if the argument against this building is that you don't notice the details unless you are close to it, I don't really consider that a very strong one. After all, if this thing were so flasy and wavy that one could see the waves from far away, I'm sure we'd here comments such as "it's too flashy" and "it belongs in Miami or Dubai", or "it's not Chicago".

[CGII]

The problem is that without the balconies, Aqua would be nothing but identical floors packed on top of each other. No details, no fancy cornices, no massing....Let's face it, what helped make Mies' boxes so nice were the magnificent lobbyways and 'crowns' that gave the building proportion. Aqua has neither, it's simply floor after floor after floor and then a roof. If it weren't for the balconies Aqua would be hideous and disgusting. My concern is that the balconies won't be discernable enough from a distance. But it's only a concern, not a judgement (happy, Ch.G, Ch.G?)

[the urban politician]

^ Except that Aqua isn't being built 'without' the balconies, it's being built 'with' the balconies, so why the hypothetical discussion?

It's like saying "if you strip all of the ornamentation and cornice off of this beautiful masterpiece, you're left with a rather dull box" leading to the conclusion that "thus it's a poor piece of architecture". Aqua's balconies are the major design elements of this building, so to imagine Aqua without them just doesn't seem fair.

And as an added bonus, balconies actually serve a purpose, as opposed to some stone carving of a bearded Hercules.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Except that Aqua isn't being built 'without' the balconies, it's being built 'with' the balconies, so why the hypothetical discussion?

It's not. My cheif concern is that the balconies won't be visible from anywhere except close up.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Here's the deal with Aqua's balconies - yes, they will seem to disappear when they are level with your line of sight, but Aqua is 800 feet tall, so only a segment will be level at any given sight line, unless, perhaps, you are viewing it from a distance of many miles away. This is similar to looking through a window with venetian blinds - the farther up or down you look, the higher the ratio of blind to glass & the less you can see through, the slats being like Aqua's balconies. Hydro's pic above shows the effect already, when the structure is only a few stories high & the balconies still rather narrow.

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by CGII

The problem is that without the balconies, Aqua would be nothing but identical floors packed on top of each other. No details, no fancy cornices, no massing....Let's face it, what helped make Mies' boxes so nice were the magnificent lobbyways and 'crowns' that gave the building proportion. Aqua has neither, it's simply floor after floor after floor and then a roof. If it weren't for the balconies Aqua would be hideous and disgusting. My concern is that the balconies won't be discernable enough from a distance. But it's only a concern, not a judgement (happy, Ch.G, Ch.G?)

In my view, if the balconies "disappear" from a few blocks away, it may even add interest to the tower (which, from what I'm seeing so far, without the balconies would look like a run-of-the-mill, but nice and by no means disgusting green glass box), as an unsuspecting visitor, seeing and anticipating a plain glass box, is surprised by the wavy balconies as he gets close to the tower. To be interesting aesthetically/architecturally, a building does not have to project its gimmick for miles around.

[Dr. Taco]

and even from a distance, think of all the shadow-play possibilities. a normal box wouldn't have that