CHICAGO | 300 North LaSalle | 785 FT / 239 M | 60 FLOORS

[BVictor1]

11/19/08

[simcityaustin]

Taken Today

[Jibba]

Nice updates, BVictor1 AND simcityaustin. Good to see that they're working on the "crown"-- I'm not going to hold my breath for completion of this one.

[harryc]

Nov 12

LaSalle Bridge


LaSalle Bridge

Nov 20
Looking down Carol st.

Clark/Carol


LaSalle/Wacker

[honte]

Isn't it curious... both this tower and Trump are fairly "cool" glassy towers, yet both went for this clashing "soft" / "warm" feeling around the base. I don't get it....

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by harryc

Nov 12

LaSalle Bridge

HDR is not the base's friend . They really should have chosen a more subtle color, like, um, not urine. Nice shots, though.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by honte

Isn't it curious... both this tower and Trump are fairly "cool" glassy towers, yet both went for this clashing "soft" / "warm" feeling around the base. I don't get it....

Both towers are trying to reference the concrete and limestone of the historic bridges and riverscape, as other north-bank towers have done (the south bank towers are set back behind Wacker and so do not directly engage the river).

By the way, is there going to be a connection to the walk in front of the Helene Curtis building? In harryc's photo, they look disconnected.

[honte]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Both towers are trying to reference the concrete and limestone of the historic bridges and riverscape, as other north-bank towers have done (the south bank towers are set back behind Wacker and so do not directly engage the river).

Yes, obviously. You guys crack me up sometimes.

What I mean is, 1) all they have to do is look around to learn that this doesn't work, and 2) they have both done it like crap. Ochre hues (either like the oolitic from around here or in imitation thereof) have nothing to do with Indiana limestone or the hues / feeling in the buildings. If we were in Joliet, ok maybe. Meanwhile, this lazy contextualism hurts both the river and the developments it engulfs.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by honte

Yes, obviously. You guys crack me up sometimes.

What I mean is, 1) all they have to do is look around to learn that this doesn't work, and 2) they have both done it like crap. Ochre hues (either like the oolitic from around here or in imitation thereof) have nothing to do with Indiana limestone or the hues / feeling in the buildings. If we were in Joliet, ok maybe. Meanwhile, this lazy contextualism hurts both the river and the developments it engulfs.

And yet, if enough buildings do it a new tradition with its own unique if comical origin starts. Funny, that.

Formally, I think it looks pretty cool. I really dig the rectilinearity. And, I don't know, honte, maybe if the panels were more stone-like in their color it would look too much like precast trying to be masonry instead of precast trying to be precast as it does now? (Maybe the color is better for the material?)

[honte]

^ I don't know... you'd have a hard time selling me on any kind of "rusticated" (yes, I'm stretching the word) or masonry-clad base here. It just doesn't belong, especially in the "tower plopped down on something else" way it's being done. The Trump Tower will ultimately be far more successful in that attempt, with a melding of the slick modern tower and the base. I'm pretty sure I'll be fine with Trump's execution (my main complaint being the texture and colors). But the whole thing just looks silly in the scenes above. I'll just tack it onto my long list of reasons why I think this building is pretty marginal.

I'd argue that the tone wasn't necessary to set off the material as precast. The stacked bond, masonry hovering over your head thing they have going on is plenty to trigger the "Wait a second, that's not an 80,000 ton, solid stone base that was built in the same manner as the Pyramids?" reaction. And if you really want to exploit the nature of precast for, err, a cast material, there are a lot of more creative and engaging things you can do (as I'm sure you know).

Really, I don't think their use of precast is all that bad. I'd be fine with this on many buildings. I instead question the use of the material in this setting at all. If they wanted to make this look like an extension of Wacker Drive or the Merchandise Mart's drive or what have you, then they should have just gone all out and done it. Otherwise you have a fundamentally Postmodern dichotomy of the glassy tower sitting upon a supposedly old-looking but altered (cheapened) plinth.

[Michi]

I like the base and think it looks sharp...urine and all.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Does it look like that is still on track to become this ...



... or not?

[ardecila]

Yes, as a matter of fact. I've never seen a rendering with that much detail before, but it looks like the end result will be exactly like that rendering. Of course, the stainless-steel mullions are nowhere near as shiny as they are in the rendering, and the glass is not as reflective as the rendering, but those will be the only differences.

At a certain time of year from a certain angle at a certain time of day, we may in fact get a result as dramatic as the rendering suggests. Proper lighting of the crown will help a lot, as well.

[denizen467]

Including the fins, do you think? That's kind of been the focus of speculation the last couple weeks.

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Including the fins, do you think? That's kind of been the focus of speculation the last couple weeks.

I think so. If you compare the fins in the "new" rendering with the current structure on top of the building, I believe you can see what looks to be the fins' skeleton

[denizen467]

A "skeleton" is visible protruding upwards, but none is visible protruding laterally (southwards), so that's what I was worried about. Perhaps one is not needed in order to install the lateral fins.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by honte

^
Really, I don't think their use of precast is all that bad. I'd be fine with this on many buildings. I instead question the use of the material in this setting at all. If they wanted to make this look like an extension of Wacker Drive or the Merchandise Mart's drive or what have you, then they should have just gone all out and done it. Otherwise you have a fundamentally Postmodern dichotomy of the glassy tower sitting upon a supposedly old-looking but altered (cheapened) plinth.

Agreed, it makes for an awkward mixture. They should have just been better making it more a continuation of the building that makes continual visual sense going up and down flush with the building rather then an awkward second rate attempt at lateral harmonization with the rest of the riverfront. At least hopefully in 15, 30, or 50 years if it is deemed subpar the recladding of its riverscape will be seen as economically. I wouldn't think it would be cost prohibitive down the line to improve it.

I also don't know why there wouldn't be an attempt to build a continuation with the Helene Curtis building.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Does it look like that is still on track to become this ...

... or not?

Most definitely, although the character of the details isn't quite so jarring and obvious in reality. It's pretty much turning out to be a more subdued version of the rendering--a perfect filler. This really would have made it more ideal for Wacker Drive, aligned with the rest of the streetwall and without that little plaza, of course (preferably in place of the Renaissance ).

Edit: Actually, upon looking at a picture I have of that section of Wacker, I remembered just how fantastic that piece of urban wall is in its current form, and although the individual towers are mostly forgettable (specifically those most recently built, and sans 55 W.W.), their textures and masses really create a wondrous synergy (even the Renaissance compliments the height of 55 W.W. quite nicely). I would really like to see 300 N. just east of 333 W. Wacker. I can't recall the name of the structure that's currently there, but it is nothing exceptional.

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by denizen467

A "skeleton" is visible protruding upwards, but none is visible protruding laterally (southwards), so that's what I was worried about. Perhaps one is not needed in order to install the lateral fins.

That is what I am hoping. I am going to assume that the vertical portions can just be attached to the vertical beams. If you look very, very closely you can almost see what appear to be "hanger tabs" on the very outside edges of the horizontal beam on the fin skeleton.

[Chitown]

Originally Posted by Jibba

HDR is not the base's friend . They really should have chosen a more subtle color, like, um, not urine. Nice shots, though.

The stainless looks unbelievable in that photo, however.