Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianXSands
i'm not being rhetorical or antagonistic. i'm actually wondering: do you really think that? really...? you think that because some guys sat around a table and thought, how can we polish a turd (a loewenberg building)? and because they forced this concept of view corridors onto an existing design, based on LIMESTONE, that had been floating around the office before this project ever came along... and despite all of its other architectural shortcomings (not very well crafted, loewenberg diluted, value engineered, and so on) you think this building is (or if it were 1,000ft tall, would be) the most progressive building ever??? or implicitly the most progressive thing to look up at? because when you say visually the most... i wondering if we're talking about a piece of architecture, and not a sculpture instead. 
if, for comparison, you look at the relatively comparable marina city towers, they are visually amazing much in the same way aqua is. but at the same time, and foremost, they are wonderful pieces of architecture based on the modernist ideas of pragmatism and simplicity as a foundation for any building project. they were designed around a very strong structural concept and a very utopian idea of urban living.
on the other hand, aqua is a developer's building in the same way that all the other projects in LSE are. it is a building built on a minimum budget, not for pragmatic reasons, but instead for profit reasons. and aside from looking up at it, which is really cool don't get me wrong... what kind of architectural merit does this building have? ...i'm not dismissing the building completely, i am actually really wondering. because aesthetically it is so great. but architectural is just falls apart in so many ways to me. which sucks, because STUDIO GANG is such a talented firm. |
I said "visually progressive." If I meant "architectural" I would have said it. So yes, sculptural.
See, I dont get this. You claim to be all about the architecture, but here you are, slamming a building because its developed by a guy you don't like. I understand Lowenburg has given us turds in the past, but, with LSE, despite starting out poorly, I think he's shown a pattern of building good, solid buildings. 340, Tides, Aqua...Arqui when it gets built. All are GOOD and SOLID buidlings. They may not be the cream of the crop, but they're great addition to the city and improve the general quality of architecture in the area. And personally, Aqua is either the most or secondmost intriguing building being built in Chicago right now, and it has an opportunity to really make a statement. Not every building is going to be Marina City. You just have to accept that and judge on a high, albeit rational level. You can't just walk around meeting people saying "You're not God, therefore worthless." I know you use hyperbole, as do I, but I really get this impression from you (regardless of your intentionality).
In additon to that, welcome to the world of highrise architecture. PROFITS MATTER. Get over it, or stay out of the field. These aren't private prepaid $4 M dollar homes for rich peeps. Skyscrapers are a PRODUCT and profit matters. Skyscrapers are a combination of art and enigeering (called architecture) and economics. You're cutting a leg off of a tripod and then whining about how it can't stand up. Profit is pragmatism...not to mention it also goes towards filling those empty lots with buildings. Stay in your dreamland if you wish, but just don't b*tch about how the real world functions. I don't see ANY instance where the VEing IRREPERALLY DAMAGED the quality of the building. Lowerd quality slightly? Maybe. But destrowed some critical aspect of it? No. Therefore, I'm not going to complain.
As to aqua specifically, the way I see it is two fold. The balconies have merit because they were constructed with a novel mechanism that enabled a type of strcutre that previously wasn't used, or at least used on this scale. But primarily, I think the benefit of the balconies are their relationship with the glass and the regulation of light and shade on the buildigns facade. I think that is something to note. If Lowenberg was really concerned about VEing it to death, it would have been clad in the highly reflective glass and been balconyless, like most of the other 800+ residential buildings going up now. Instead, they mix the balconies and the glass, and while its kind of creating a problem and solving it, I still think it has merit, and people want views. I think that an underappreciated aspect of buildings are that they are seperate, regulated local environments. I feel sort of building like Aqua that really pays attention to the relationship between the external and internal environments in terms of light and heat and how we regulate the two will really become a dominant feature of architecture in the comming century. Green movement blah blah blah.
Lastly, the building is fun. And while it may not fit into your cookie cutter mold of good architecture, being entertaining, engaging, and uplifiting are merits in my book.
Anyway, regardless of what you think of Aqua, you like Studio Gang and giving them a high profile project like this will only land them more projects in the city allowing them to really start reaching their potential.
Few other additional comments.
I am with honte totally pro-paint. The original concrete had way too much tecture and color variation. It was visually distracting and too dark for the glass used. Course I prefer concrete unpainted, but it may have been necessary to ensure the longevity of the balconies. Painted concrete CAN be fine if done right, which I think this is a case of. I dont automaticaly throw abused aspects of modern architecture (POMO, precast, painted concrete) into the garbage pile, becase they can have thier merits, as rare as they may be.
As to the "views" argument. I think they're just marketing a secondary feature of the building as a primary intention. A "view" is something traditionally desired in a condo. I agree Gang studio is selling themselves short by NOT going into the environmental regulation stuff, visual metaphors, etc. But still, I dunno if this is the largest crime against hummanity, though it is kind of annoying. A "view" is easy to understand for Joe Condo Buyer.
Lastly. Modernism/Chicgo Style Modernism are dead and they should be. Current archtiecture should take Modernism's best elemets (of which there are MANY) and move forward with them, incorporating new advances in architecture and engineering. I think Aqua REALLY attempts to do this. Its success is, as evidenced here, debatable, but I think the attmept in itself is a very positive statement about the future of Chicago Architecture.
Hope that provides some clarity/food for thought.
Prev
Linear Mode
