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

[NYC2ATX]

I must say, this is shaping up to be the Marina City of the 21st Century. Chicago is living up to it's heritage with this stunner.

[Beck4ABigChicago]

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

I must say, this is shaping up to be the Marina City of the 21st Century. Chicago is living up to it's heritage with this stunner.

This is shaping up to be the Presidential Towers of the 21st Century, and yes, we are living up to our isolated, self-sustaining , never-go-outside heritage...very unfortunate.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Beck4ABigChicago]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

^ uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

maybe I should clarify. The tower itself is freakishly awesome to say the least. The development as a whole, however, is an embarrassing waste of prime real estate for a city whose architecture and planning is pivotal in defining what is traditionally known as "urban landscape." Simply said, the "base" is appalling.

[EarlyBuyer]

Awesome Shots Andy! Thanks for posting both sets!

[andydie]

Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer

Awesome Shots Andy! Thanks for posting both sets!

glad you liked em

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

I must say, this is shaping up to be the Marina City of the 21st Century. Chicago is living up to it's heritage with this stunner.

please don't minimize marina city to such an ordinary level that would suggest marina city is simply a neat design. marina city's aesthetic is a direct result of the functions it serves. this tower is nothing more than an exhausted attempt at bringing a certain uniqueness to the skyscraper. it is a design based on looks and imagery. to liken it to marina city either diminishes the architecture of goldberg or thoughtlessly gives too much merit to the architecture of this tower. this tower should be represented as what it is: a really cool looking skyscraper. it is a great design but should not ever be placed into the same ranks as marina city or other triumphant works of architecture that make up chicago's architectural heritage.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I disagree with you, Marina city is not completely functional, in fact, it is faaaar from it. Circles? Seriously, probably the least rational shape for a building since it makes odd slice shaped rooms that waste lots of space since nearly all furniture is square. Most of Marina City's form is clearly a result of creating a positive, uniform aestetic, not producing something minimalistic with form following function. For example, why does every single bedroom and living room have a huge balcony when its clear that a two bedroom unit doesn't need three huge balconies? Because not having a balcony on every room would not be aestetically pleasing. At least Aqua only places balconies where it needs them through clever computer planning.

I would say its very fair indeed to compare the two buildings. The truely revolutionary thing about MC is that it was a first for downtown highrise urban living and pushed the mixed use concept and "city in a building" concept which were all quite revolutionary at the time, not that it was some functionalist masterpiece like Hancock or IBM...

I mean many people would say MC is futurist which is probably the branch of modernism that least follows the form follows function philosophy...

[honte]

^ I think you should study Goldberg more. I believe he would be very annoyed to be grouped with the Futurists.

I agree with Adrian. There is no qualitative architectural comparison between the two developments whatsoever beyond a few formal similarities, as I've said here before.

[NYC2ATX]

Besides the obvious fact that they are both unique residential towers... What I meant by my comparison was that Marina City, as Nowhereman said, was a first for downtown high-rise living, and is still today a residential landmark. I feel that Aqua has the same characteristics, but on a 21st-Century level.

What I really mean to say is this: it is not the architecture/design I am comparing, it is the symbolism. I truly believe that, say, 50 years from now, Aqua will be looked back on as an outstanding example of early 21st-Century design, in much the same way we admire Marina City as a hallmark of Mid-Century Modern.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by honte

^ I think you should study Goldberg more. I believe he would be very annoyed to be grouped with the Futurists.

I agree with Adrian. There is no qualitative architectural comparison between the two developments whatsoever beyond a few formal similarities, as I've said here before.

Ok, so Goldberg was much more thoughtful in his design philosophy than futurists (who, lets face it, litterally just built shit they though looked sleek and cool), but that doesn't deny the fact that his designs maintain aestectics FAR more than they do functionality. Like I said before, there is absolutely no reason why every room in MC needs a balcony (other than producing the uniform corn cob effect we all love) and there are no reason they should be round. I would say that, out of the two buildings, Aqua is actually the more functional of the two. Aqua is literally a box with the exception of cleverly disguised balconies. Marina City is a cylander with more balconies on it than it needs. Which form has greater function?

You say there is no qualitative similarities between the two other than a few similarities. What do you think makes MC so much greater than Aqua? Is it the obviously revolutionary thoughts behind building residential downtown that MC heralded? If its along those lines I agree, but if its just because you think Aqua's waviness is gimicky I disagree since MC's corn cobbiness is just as unnecessary.

[honte]

^ Absolutely incorrect. However, I don't want to discuss Marina City here. Suffice it to say, there is much more to that design than you are allowing. The circular form has far greater significance than Aqua's waves, I am quite positive.

If you really study Goldberg's work, you will see a complete devotion to functionality in each and every design. There is no fluff.

[andydie]

i like Marina City and it does look cool as captured in these shots of my architectural cruise 10/10:






and my walk around it the next day:

[harryc]

It will be interesting to see how occupancy affects the look and feel of Aqua. Marina City has constantly changing details in the balconies and their contents in a way the even the lovely Jewelers building, or CBOT does not. Only really important for those of us that spend countless hours in stultifying meetings, surreptitiously staring out the window.

[andydie]

Originally Posted by harryc

It will be interesting to see how occupancy affects the look and feel of Aqua. Marina City has constantly changing details in the balconies and their contents in a way the even the lovely Jewelers building, or CBOT does not. Only really important for those of us that spend countless hours in stultifying meetings, surreptitiously staring out the window.

had to lol at that one Harry Btw it would be nice if you send me the pictures of our group gathering last Saturday to my mail adress: [email protected] thanx buddy Also some more nice shots from Sunday of Marina:




and the awesome foursome:

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I disagree with you, Marina city is not completely functional, in fact, it is faaaar from it. Circles? Seriously, probably the least rational shape for a building since it makes odd slice shaped rooms that waste lots of space since nearly all furniture is square.

as a resident of marina city, it is clear to me that you have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about. the circle is the genius of marina city. the non-parallel walls of my tiny studio unit that expand outward to the the exterior window wall create many times more psychological space than a conventional shoe-box unit of a similar square footage in a typical residential highrise. having lived in marina city with its ridiculously high functionality and utmost efficient use of space, i don't think i'll ever be able to live in another highrise ever agian in my life. i've simply been spoiled by the best, most efficient, most functional, and most beautiful residential skyscraper in the world.

and yeah, aqua is really cool too (just to keep it on topic )

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I disagree with you, Marina city is not completely functional, in fact, it is faaaar from it. Circles? Seriously, probably the least rational shape for a building since it makes odd slice shaped rooms that waste lots of space since nearly all furniture is square. Most of Marina City's form is clearly a result of creating a positive, uniform aestetic, not producing something minimalistic with form following function. For example, why does every single bedroom and living room have a huge balcony when its clear that a two bedroom unit doesn't need three huge balconies? Because not having a balcony on every room would not be aestetically pleasing. At least Aqua only places balconies where it needs them through clever computer planning.

...wow
...i'm tempted to say that you've never read a single thing about marina city. and are perhaps assuming everything about its design based on its appearance. and i mean no offense by that. if you'd like to pm me, i have some great lectures by goldberg about marina city. i also have a book about the whole concept behind his utopian city theories and such.
and btw... circles? seriously, it's a structural thing and an attempt at utmost efficiency.

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

I feel that Aqua has the same characteristics, but on a 21st-Century level.

huh? the building is amidst an massive residential development... i completely fail to see how you could say the two buildings are even closely similar or related in anyway... there are lots of residential buildings in the downtown area that have balconies, so what's preventing the comparison there? i'm convinced people are comparing aqua and marina city only because the balconies produce a cool looking tower. which is, without trying to sound like a total asshole, an extremely pedestrian way of viewing architecture.

[Mojava]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I disagree with you, Marina city is not completely functional, in fact, it is faaaar from it. Circles? Seriously, probably the least rational shape for a building since it makes odd slice shaped rooms that waste lots of space since nearly all furniture is square.

Just wondering if you feel the same way with regard to the Spire?

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by honte

I agree with Adrian. There is no qualitative architectural comparison between the two developments whatsoever beyond a few formal similarities, as I've said here before.

As do I.

[Nowhereman1280]

Settle down guys, I never said that Marina City is inefficient or not a modern masterpiece, I just disagreed with the notion that its some sort of god of pure modern simplicity beyond what Aqua brings. I think that Aqua, (with its structurally efficient square core) and cleverly disguised balconies is very comparable to Marina City. I mean they both have the same core principle, take an efficient shape (I am going off what you guys say that a circle is efficient) and find a clever way to use the balconies as the ornamentation instead of a detriment to the design.

For those of you who want to send me lectures and stuff, go right ahead and flood my inbox! I'm bored and need some new reading material!

Originally Posted by Mojava

Just wondering if you feel the same way with regard to the Spire?

I feel that way moreso about the Spire, but I don't care because I recognize that efficiancy isn't the only thing to a building.