CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 412

honte · #**8221** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 8:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

It appears that the color of the cladding is reversed from the rendering.

Huge improvement. There are too many pansy little towers going up in this town.

Chi_Coruscant · #**8222** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 12:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

July 28, 2008

I am so happy to see the demise of another parking structure.

BTW, great work, Solarwind.

Alliance · #**8223** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 1:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Huge improvement. There are too many pansy little towers going up in this town.

...and now it looks just like its neighbor.

It doesn't make aesthetic sense to me at all...in the context of the building or in the context of its local environment.

BVictor1 · #**8224** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 2:45 PM**

Parkview West
07/28/08

honte · #**8225** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

...and now it looks just like its neighbor.

It doesn't make aesthetic sense to me at all...in the context of the building or in the context of its local environment.

I was half joking in my post. But I am glad to see something hard-edged and dark in this day of constant crowd pleasing in design.

If the outer skin was going to be mirror silver glass as we are seeing now, I would have liked it reversed as well, simply because it would be very different than any other building in Chicago. But I don't think it's going to be bad or damage the aesthetics as is. Did you notice that the recess in the middle of the building is virtually nonexistent compared to the render? I think Buck's VE machine has struck again.

Speaking of which, did you ever see all of the very cool designs GP cooked up for this tower's base before Buck rejected all of them (probably too expensive or space "wasting" or whatever)?

aaron38 · #**8226** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 4:31 PM**

Parkview West turned out great. How's the park looking, is that just about done?

harryc · #**8227** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 4:33 PM**

353 N Clark crane looms over Wrigley

Nowhereman1280 · #**8228** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Did you notice that the recess in the middle of the building is virtually nonexistent compared to the render? I think Buck's VE machine has struck again.

Look again at the render, the recess doesn't get very severe until a few floors up, for example, look at the full perspective from the back, there is quite clearly a large recess there.

Alliance · #**8229** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

I was half joking in my post. But I am glad to see something hard-edged and dark in this day of constant crowd pleasing in design.

If the outer skin was going to be mirror silver glass as we are seeing now, I would have liked it reversed as well, simply because it would be very different than any other building in Chicago. But I don't think it's going to be bad or damage the aesthetics as is. Did you notice that the recess in the middle of the building is virtually nonexistent compared to the render? I think Buck's VE machine has struck again.

Speaking of which, did you ever see all of the very cool designs GP cooked up for this tower's base before Buck rejected all of them (probably too expensive or space "wasting" or whatever)?

Meh, the blue is shiny enough and has enough hue to not really be that dark and dismal. Black glass need a comback. Also, 333 N Wacker and 200 N Wacker (least thats what I think the addy is) both have rather dark glass. I was looking worward to a whiter and differnt tower. It also would have helped tie in the Wacker streetwall to the stainless on Hyatt and 111.

As to the recess (I did the diagram for 151 so I remebr this) the very bas has no recess and is flush, the recess doesn't start for a few floors up. I'll have to look at the steelwork again, but I don't think it was VEed.

And no, please share good designs (as long as we won't get depressed lol).

BVictor1 · #**8230** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

Parkview West turned out great. How's the park looking, is that just about done?

they have a few evergreens planted but there's still a ways to go.

honte · #**8231** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

As to the recess (I did the diagram for 151 so I remebr this) the very bas has no recess and is flush, the recess doesn't start for a few floors up. I'll have to look at the steelwork again, but I don't think it was VEed.

I think it does become more pronounced later on up the building, but it takes a lot longer than the render shows.

I'll post the alternate bases later if I find time. Yes, you will find it depressing, just like the redesign of 111 S. was depressing (but still turned out beautiful).

Alliance · #**8232** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

just like the redesign of 111 S. was depressing (but still turned out beautiful).

Thanks. But, 111 was a redesign? I guess my youth shows. Still an excellent building, very underrated and with perhaps the best base of any office tower I've ever seen...anywhere.

Steely Dan · #**8233** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 6:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Thanks. But, 111 was a redesign? I guess my youth shows. Still an excellent building, very underrated and with perhaps the best base of any office tower I've ever seen...anywhere.

well, the original base of 111 S wacker would have blown the current one out of the water in my opinion. the entire structure above was cantilevered off of these massive diagonal braces that all radiated from the concrete core, leaving a clear glass jewel box for the lobby. it was dumbed down after 9-11 when the developer thought the design made the building look wobbly and unsafe, not what the office market apparently wanted in the aftermath of the WTC collapse.

you can check out the original design in this emporis link: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102127

source: http://www.emporis.com/images/6/2002/01/137680.jpg

wrab · #**8234** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 8:31 PM**

SoNo from the Armitage El, 7/29;

honte · #**8235** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 8:42 PM**

Steely, thanks for the link. A blast from the past. Haven't renders improved in the last 5 years?

Looking back, the old 111 really wasn't the most attractive thing - it needed another 20 stories or so to equalize the massive bracing. But it certianly would have been fascinating.

That's an old form for a tower that has been kicked around for a long time (at least since the 1960s). Does anyone know of any built examples of it?

Tom Servo · #**8236** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

Steely, thanks for the link. A blast from the past. Haven't renders improved in the last 5 years?

Looking back, the old 111 really wasn't the most attractive thing - it needed another 20 stories or so to equalize the massive bracing. But it certianly would have been fascinating.

That's an old form for a tower that has been kicked around for a long time (at least since the 1960s). Does anyone know of any built examples of it?

the yamasaki tower in seattle comes to mind...