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

[Jibba]

^Ditto on the paint. It's good to hear that Gang wanted the concrete left as-is too; I think it looks much better that way and more parallel with the aesthetic of the tower from a conceptual standpoint. At first I talked myself into liking the paint for its "clean, modern, and high-tech look," but now I just think it looks a little too cheesy, a little too...Miami. I also am starting to question the ability of white paint to age well, either from a stylistic or durability aspect.

[Dalton]

The paint was ruining this one for me a few weeks ago. I just viewed the construction yesterday and the more white paint they slap on those balconies, the worse it looks.

Maybe someone could convince Daley to send a secret midnight crew with sandblasters over to the site, and later claim the white paint was making the tower a terrorist target?

[jjk1103]

.......it is really too bad that that Aqua doesn't have a more prominent site....except for the east......it is really hemmed in by the other buildings around it ..and even more so....when the rest of Lakeshore East gets built out......

[howardroark]

Originally Posted by jjk1103

.......it is really too bad that that Aqua doesn't have a more prominent site....except for the east......it is really hemmed in by the other buildings around it ..and even more so....when the rest of Lakeshore East gets built out......

I agree.

I'm completely disappointed in the location. Why build it so close to the Aon Tower? This is about as dumb as building 311 South Wacker Drive right next to the Sears Tower.

[Nowhereman1280]

How is that dumb? Aren't tall buildings supposed to grow in clusters? Or are we looking for a towers-in-the-park 1960's paradise that will turn into a slum in 20 years?

[Alliance]

LSE is the pinnacle of New Urbanism.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Alliance

I think you're suffering from nostalgia. Aqua isn't a development concept like Marina was, but it is a building concept. And frankly, its rationalized expressionism could be the solution to the modernist ("where do we go from here") problem that has plagued architecutre of late. It ends the "anything goes" philosopy of architecture and starts to present a coherent method of design.

Lets get the building built first before we question its full impact. Also, personally I LIKE the subtely. Aqua doesn't need to flash its innovation, it makes it all the more mature. It achieves some delicate qualities that weren't as aspired too in the age of concrete brutalism.

You can certainly dislike the building, but saying its unsuccesful because it uses an unsuccessful element in other buidlings is nieve (espeically ignoring the use of the glass, the form, construction methods, etc). It totally sells short the depth, complexity, and rationality that exists an Aqua. Frankly, I think, with this buildigns height, that unpainted balconies would get lost in the strucutre. Compaing Aqua to Grand Plaza is a tremendously false comparison. Its like comparing the Eiffel tower to railroad tracks because they both use steel.

Then again, this is comming from the guy with Aqua as his avatar.

Alliance, I think you missed my point. I am not saying I dislike the building. I don't think it's unsuccessful yet. I was wondering what the PUBLIC will think when it's done. I thought it might make for discussion.

Marina City was: 1) A development concept, 2) a structural concept, 3) a building concept (several, in fact), 4) a social experiment, 5) an efficiency concept, 6) a radical form and composition. Aqua can't match that. Again, I am NOT trying to dis' Aqua, but look at the real facts.

Last, you should read Mies's essay, "Where Do We Go From Here?"

Anyway, this wasn't intended to start arguments. Thanks Wrabbit and AdrianX for your replies. I agree with your points; love the IBM / Marina City analogy. The "fit in with Lakeshore East" bit is very troubling to me. ... a bad indication of things to come.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by honte

Marina City was: 1) A development concept, 2) a structural concept, 3) a building concept (several, in fact), 4) a social experiment, 5) an efficiency concept, 6) a radical form and composition. Aqua can't match that. Again, I am NOT trying to dis' Aqua, but look at the real facts.

[the urban politician]

Why does everything have to be revolutionary to satisfy you people?

Revolutions don't happen in America any more. Get over it. We have too many toys and too much money. Just enjoy that things are pretty

[HowardL]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Why does everything have to be revolutionary to satisfy you people?

Revolutions don't happen in America any more. Get over it. We have too many toys and too much money. Just enjoy that things are pretty

Hehe, I love you.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by jjk1103

.......it is really too bad that that Aqua doesn't have a more prominent site....except for the east......it is really hemmed in by the other buildings around it ..and even more so....when the rest of Lakeshore East gets built out......

Take a look at the pictures. The building looks much better up close than from far away (so far, I don't know how the bigger balconies will affect the view). Jeanne Gang said that she designed the building from a sidewalk perspective, looking up, so the best views of the building will be up close, where the ripples will be the most prominent. Right now, the building looks like a basic modernist box from afar, but up close, it's amazing.

Hemmed in as it is, it forces people to come up close and get the best view of the building.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

.....she seemed REALLY intent on leaving the concrete exposed. she said that it was part of the concept from the beginning. but she said that like 'her developer wanted it to fit the rest of the towers.'.....

The concrete really did look sweet exposed.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

The concrete really did look sweet exposed.

i also heard her say that they couldn't find a clear sealant and that was the biggest reason for the white... does that sound like a load of bs to anyone else? she kind of stressed that... any thoughts?

[i_am_hydrogen]

[honte]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

i also heard her say that they couldn't find a clear sealant and that was the biggest reason for the white... does that sound like a load of bs to anyone else? she kind of stressed that... any thoughts?

Yeah, I don't buy it exactly either. There are plenty of clear acrylic and epoxy concrete sealers out there. They probably are too expensive to use on an entire building, though... and I am not sure what kind of tests have been made to prove their endurance on exterior applications. They tend to have a gloss finish as well, which might not have been to Gang's liking.

Clear-sealed high-rises are something I've thought about in the past. I have never heard of one in reality, however...

[ethereal_reality]

^^^
wonderful photo I_Am_Hydrogen! Thanks for posting.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by honte

Yeah, I don't buy it exactly either. There are plenty of clear acrylic and epoxy concrete sealers out there. They probably are too expensive to use on an entire building, though... and I am not sure what kind of tests have been made to prove their endurance on exterior applications. They tend to have a gloss finish as well, which might not have been to Gang's liking.

Clear-sealed high-rises are something I've thought about in the past. I have never heard of one in reality, however...

the 30 w oak tower and contemporaine pulled off exposed concrete very well. and if exposed concrete was 'part of the concept from the beginning' why not stick to it and instead abandon it for the white of LSE thus far? but i don't think we can blame gang where this building fails and will. i blame the boss in this project... nonetheless, white paint and lowenberg and everything else, i think aqua will be an architectural success to say the very least. though i think gang will REALLY shine in hyde park.

[harryc]

April 2nd


April 4th

[wrab]

^ Fascinating that from this angle & at this height Aqua appears to be a glass box with some interesting transparency but little suggestion of the concrete balconies.

BTW, anyone know who coined the name "Aqua", and whether it was determined before or after Gang got the commission? I ask because the monicker has little relation to what the building presents, apart from the tint of the glass.

[jjk1103]

Originally Posted by sammyg

Take a look at the pictures. The building looks much better up close than from far away (so far, I don't know how the bigger balconies will affect the view). Jeanne Gang said that she designed the building from a sidewalk perspective, looking up, so the best views of the building will be up close, where the ripples will be the most prominent. Right now, the building looks like a basic modernist box from afar, but up close, it's amazing.

Hemmed in as it is, it forces people to come up close and get the best view of the building.

.....the building is in a somewhat hidden location....beautiful as it is, it will always be somewhat hidden ..........just imagine though if the locations of Aqua and BCBS were simply switched !!!!!! .........Aqua would become one of the most famous icons in Chicago architecture !