CHICAGO | Aqua | 858 FT / 262 M | 87 FLOORS - Page 134

Dalton · #**2661** Posted **Mar 1, 2008, 2:23 AM**

The Spire promises to be better than Aqua in most regards even ignoring the major differences in height and luxury. Just as one example, let's not ignore that Aqua's tower is sitting on a butt-ugly parking/retail podium. The Spire's parking is completely underground.

Setting and surroundings come into play for me when I consider which skyscrapers will be better. Trump has a more prominent location and will be seen by almost everyone visiting the city while Aqua will be a somewhat hidden treasure and may be burried even further as LSE is developed.

So I'm going to rate Aqua as #3 right now. At the very least, despite the location, I'd rather live in Aqua with those balconies than in Trump's hermetically-sealed "masterpiece". The Spire, though, is simply in a different league - perhaps the best residential skyscraper under construction in the world much less Chicago.

samoen313 · #**2662** Posted **Mar 1, 2008, 2:57 AM**

the spire is going to be good, but the twisting has become a gimmick, particularly for calatrava. it will be pretty stunning, but what aqua has is a totally unique take on incremental floor plate changes.

but what in my view is the most important thing about it is studio gang actually employed a theoretical approach to design. this is so rare in the united states. once they had established criteria for the building (the slab-like shape to accommodate simple floor layouts and structural/mechanical systems, a nod to the mies-ian slab buildings that grew out of chicago) and then played around with various concepts that might inform the more specific shape of the building.

once they found a thread which they could run with, namely various views around the city, wind and sound patterns, etc. they used the data to produce a form and they came up with something really attractive and marketable. while the slab template was a static, rigid criteria, the waving patterns were a result of an investigative process. nothing about it was arbitrary. and in an ideal world, that is how all architecture would be.

the vast majority of architects design by sketching/massing/detailing, often times with attractive results. calatrava works with watercolors he then engineers something acrobatic and, with the spire as with most of his other buildings, produces something pleasing. gehry is the same. yet so are adrian smith, dave childs, and every other mega-firm dominating various cities around the states. it all comes down simply to personal aesthetic choices.

but to experiment with different modes of design? to think beyond traditional forms or reinterpret their potential? to use real data and non-architectural information and allow it to mold the building rather than personal ideals? that is where architectural theory has been roaming for years but has hardly been in practice since the end of modernism. i'll truncate this rant a bit, but what i think sets this apart is that it is totally unique.

many other cities now have twisting towers, even if they aren't to the scale of the spire, but thus far aqua is in its own category aesthetically and idealogically. it is both stunning and clever. i sincerely hope this goes a long ways toward repairing the damage postmodernism did to architecture.

Alliance · #**2663** Posted **Mar 1, 2008, 3:23 AM**

Well, similarly, the Idea of Aqua has been around for a while, at least with the undulating balconies. Aqua has some new elements and it certainly perfects the model, but similarly to the Spire, a lot of it is scale.

honte · #**2664** Posted **Mar 1, 2008, 8:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by samoen313

they used the data to produce a form and they came up with something really attractive and marketable. while the slab template was a static, rigid criteria, the waving patterns were a result of an investigative process. nothing about it was arbitrary.

I like what you said, but the above statement seems to be a bit of a stretch. I find it hard to believe that this design - or any design, for that matter - doesn't include a heavy dose of the arbitrary. In fact, I think Aqua probably has a lot more of this than the designers admit.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say there is no concept in what Adrian Smith or the other big designers do. It may not be this pronounced, but I think many buildings being attempted today have similar methodology.

Alliance · #**2665** Posted **Mar 1, 2008, 1:21 PM**

In some ways, but its also the way that architects blend old ideas that makes them new. I personall haven't seen a building that blended the wavy balconies with a Meisian box. I also haven't see one where the balconies were recessed into the building. Also, Alot of the wavy balcony buildings use concrete to form the railings as well, Aqua is more delicat in this regard, with the visually lighter iron railings.

samoen313 · #**2666** Posted **Mar 1, 2008, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

I like what you said, but the above statement seems to be a bit of a stretch. I find it hard to believe that this design - or any design, for that matter - doesn't include a heavy dose of the arbitrary. In fact, I think Aqua probably has a lot more of this than the designers admit.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say there is no concept in what Adrian Smith or the other big designers do. It may not be this pronounced, but I think many buildings being attempted today have similar methodology.

you're right in many regards. what they chose as the data they wished to implement and how they accumulated it and plugged it in is, more or less an arbitrary gesture. there were, i'm sure, twenty different roads they could have gone on. they chose this way because they pre-figured this method would provide enough opportunities and variables to work with. and in some senses, the information that produced the wave effect doesn't actually translate to those passing by.

once they had done their research and experimentation, they simply let the data do the work, so to speak, and the resultant building is a naturally (<-i'm using that term loosely) generated form. no one sat down with it and said "i wish this wave was a little larger and that there was a wave here instead of there to better harmonize the building blah blah blah." so you're right, architecture is as arbitrary as anything else, but the way this building was produced was more of a scientific process of hypothesis and experimentation.

i think you're also right that adrian smith (though notably NOT dave childs) implements some strain of theory in his buildings. with trump, he used the surrounding wrigley, tribune, and ibm (is there one more i'm forgetting?) landmark buildings to inform the setbacks of the building. it's a way to utilize existing conditions and generate a building in some way. but that sort of thinking has been around for a very long time.

jeanne gang used methods that are an evolution of what peter eisenmann began doing in the 90's which has now sprouted into a whole field of possibilities with which to use architecture as a medium of research and exploration as well as in practical applications.

BVictor1 · #**2667** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 1:37 AM**

03/01/07

honte · #**2668** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 2:47 AM**

^ Weber had better make some wavy grilles pronto, or they are going to screw the whole thing up.

photoLith · #**2669** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 5:56 AM**

How do they make the cement wavy like that? IE do they prefab it before they put it on the building, or do they sculpt it while laying the cement?

i_am_hydrogen · #**2670** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 6:04 AM**

Mesmerizing shot, BVictor.

The Dirt · #**2671** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 6:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

How do they make the cement wavy like that? IE do they prefab it before they put it on the building, or do they sculpt it while laying the cement?

It looks like it's prefabbed. You can see the seams of the concrete slabs. There are the standard rectangular pieces seamed together, and you can also see the small wavy pieces seamed to the rectangular slabs. Could you imagine getting the pieces mixed up?

NYC2ATX · #**2672** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 9:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Could you imagine getting the pieces mixed up?

Sounds like a great puzzle to put together with Grandma on a rainy afternoon.

harryc · #**2673** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 1:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

How do they make the cement wavy like that? IE do they prefab it before they put it on the building, or do they sculpt it while laying the cement?

The forms are changeable and made wavy on each floor, there are some great shots of this a few months back..

From early buyer - Post 2022

Quote:

aaron38 · #**2674** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 3:15 PM**

The balconies are all poured in place. As you can see in EarlyBuyer's photo, the rebar in the balconies extends back deep into the building. This is what holds the balconies up.
If they were precast sections, there'd be no way to tie them into the rest of the building as a solid unit.

Alliance · #**2675** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 3:23 PM**

...and they have a way to tie the movable forms into a GPS system to get the exact layout of each floor.

honte · #**2676** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

The balconies are all poured in place. As you can see in EarlyBuyer's photo, the rebar in the balconies extends back deep into the building. This is what holds the balconies up.
If they were precast sections, there'd be no way to tie them into the rest of the building as a solid unit.

I wouldn't say it would be impossible.... but so unworkable and problematic (and expensive), I don't think anyone would consider doing it here.

Brian. · #**2677** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

If they were precast sections, there'd be no way to tie them into the rest of the building as a solid unit.

Not true. There are many ways to achieve a solid unit with precast. You could actually cantilever a prestressed piece of concrete out further then a poured in place that is reinforced with only rebar. FYI

EarlyBuyer · #**2678** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 5:11 PM**

Lakeshore East Winter Newsletter:

http://www.lakeshoreeast.com/media/LSE_Currents_Newsletter_Winter08.pdf

andydie · #**2679** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 7:20 PM**

Hiya guys,

after nearly a month here comes my latest update for the awesome Aqua:

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=97nI2zsLTD0

Enjoy:

Music: Lützenkirchen - 3 Tage wach (3 days awake)

aaron38 · #**2680** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColoPrecaster

Not true. There are many ways to achieve a solid unit with precast. You could actually cantilever a prestressed piece of concrete out further then a poured in place that is reinforced with only rebar. FYI

Well yeah, I've seen that done with 5-9 story suburban condo buildings, where massive precast slabs are brought in, and maybe 10% hangs over the edge to form a balcony.
But in those buildings, the precast slabs form the entire floor area, whereas Aqua has the floor poured in place so that the floor meshes with the rebar in the columns to form the single structural unit.

How would precast slabs tie into the columns? Would that work for an 80 story building?