CHICAGO | 375 East Wacker (Arquitectonica Tower) | 840 FT / 256 M | 76 FLOORS | PRO - Page 36

EarlyBuyer · #**701** Posted **Aug 25, 2008, 12:38 PM**

Photo taken by EarlyBuyer 8/24/08

Jaime · #**702** Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 9:02 PM**

I've heard that this area is a holding space for Aqua and the Swissotel expansion construction and ground breaking for Arquitectonica wouldn't start for another two years?

Tom In Chicago · #**703** Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 9:25 PM**

That could very well be. . . I don't expect a lot of movement on this for a while unfortunately. . .

. . .

archytype · #**704** Posted **Oct 26, 2008, 2:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

That sounds like an oxymoron, to me the architecture IS the design.
By design you mean concept, and by architecture you mean actual implementation?

Then you would like Marina Towers, nice to look at but far from classy. The floorplans give more vertigo than the view.

spyguy · #**705** Posted **Dec 15, 2008, 6:17 PM**

i_am_hydrogen · #**706** Posted **Dec 15, 2008, 6:24 PM**

Damn... Nice find, as always, spyguy. That would make for a jaw-dropping entrance into LSE. What a statement it makes from that angle at night.

Jibba · #**707** Posted **Dec 15, 2008, 7:49 PM**

Yes, a very tantalizing new image of this one. I think there is such a thing as trying to be too contextual: "It addresses context beyond the boundaries of its immediate neighborhood and acknowledges its privileged position opposite the Chicago museum."...

...What?

Dr. Taco · #**708** Posted **Dec 15, 2008, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

Yes, a very tantalizing new image of this one. I think there is such a thing as trying to be too contextual: "It addresses context beyond the boundaries of its immediate neighborhood and acknowledges its privileged position opposite the Chicago museum."...

...What?

suppose you are at the exact spot of the above render's perspective. If you turn around, you will be looking straight down LSD, and your view would perfectly terminate with the field museum

EDIT: I might have misunderstood what you mean by "...What?"

Jibba · #**709** Posted **Dec 15, 2008, 8:05 PM**

^To be sure, but the fact that one can have both the tower in question and the Museum Campus in the same view or even view the latter "through" the former hardly qualifies as context.

Dr. Taco · #**710** Posted **Dec 15, 2008, 8:20 PM**

^ lol, yeah, but I think in this case, it's one of the few instances where this could be warranted. There will never be anything between this building and the field museum but a straight line of a major roadway. It's pretty unique. And I think the current rendering is more than acceptable, btw

lawfin · #**711** Posted **Dec 15, 2008, 8:59 PM**

Prettyy cool...for some reason I though this was going to be taller?? I think it stands a good chance of happening over the next 2-3 years given LSE general success

BVictor1 · #**712** Posted **Dec 15, 2008, 10:01 PM**

This has to be an older rendering becauser that's not at all how the Tides looks.

This particular rendering makes the building appear 900'-950' tall.

Chicago Shawn · #**713** Posted **Dec 16, 2008, 8:56 PM**

^Yeah, if only The Tides actually looked that good.

Anyway, nice find,you can see the LED lit facade facing the Lake Shore East park. Its the section right over Field Blvd. This is one big behemoth of a building, 2 MILLION SQUARE FEET, Damn!

scalziand · #**714** Posted **Dec 17, 2008, 4:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

This is one big behemoth of a building, 2 MILLION SQUARE FEET, Damn!

That's pretty much the same as Aqua. I suspect that the hole and the higher floor to floor height give it more visual mass.

honte · #**715** Posted **Dec 17, 2008, 5:52 AM**

In looking at the new rendering (thanks for posting), I begin to think that this tower would have (will) look too much like the existing Loewenberg buildings that frame it. Perhaps it's the lighting, but it seems like a bit more variety would be a good thing.

andydie · #**716** Posted **May 16, 2009, 5:23 PM**

hiya guys,

wanted to hear after Aqua is nearly done if there are any news what will be done next? Will this one be build any time soon or will we have to wait a while till the developer will start building this or anything again? Thanx for any insight you can give me / us

Kngkyle · #**717** Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 8:48 PM**

Bump. Perhaps someone could visit the sales office and see whats going on with this.

spyguy · #**718** Posted **Jun 30, 2010, 2:19 PM**

Delightful little article that says what we've all been thinking. Funny how Loewenberg thinks that the worst part of Grand Plaza is the base; I'd argue that the first few floors are great. It seems like their thinking hasn't evolved much so the only hope is that they bring in more outside firms.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Radar/Deal-Est...berg-on-Aqua-and-Surviving-the-Downturn/

Magellan's James Loewenberg on Aqua and Surviving the Downturn
By Jeff Bailey

...Post-Aqua, is it back to standard-issue buildings at Lakeshore East?

No. It’s going to be tough to top that building. But we hired Arquitectonica, the Miami firm, and they designed a building that straddles the street. We were ready to go. Thank God we never started. A great market opportunity, in the next two or three years, after you get through the overhanging inventory.

DePaul Bunyan · #**719** Posted **Jul 3, 2010, 8:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Delightful little article that says what we've all been thinking. Funny how Loewenberg thinks that the worst part of Grand Plaza is the base; I'd argue that the first few floors are great. It seems like their thinking hasn't evolved much so the only hope is that they bring in more outside firms.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Radar/Deal-Est...berg-on-Aqua-and-Surviving-the-Downturn/

Magellan's James Loewenberg on Aqua and Surviving the Downturn
By Jeff Bailey

...Post-Aqua, is it back to standard-issue buildings at Lakeshore East?

No. It’s going to be tough to top that building. But we hired Arquitectonica, the Miami firm, and they designed a building that straddles the street. We were ready to go. Thank God we never started. A great market opportunity, in the next two or three years, after you get through the overhanging inventory.

My favorite:

"OK. Going back further: I’m a fan of how residential towers transformed the center of the city, but some—Presidential Towers, say—are grim. Your Grand Plaza of 2002, 56 stories on State Street, is the same tan concrete, with a massive, boxy base. Not so easy on the eye. Could we have done better?

I didn’t design the base. But I took all the — for it. It was done by OWP/P. From a financial standpoint, forgetting about Lakeshore East, it was the most successful building we ever did. If I was an uneducated aesthete, I’d say, ‘Why the hell did you do this?’ I look at it pragmatically. We build to the people we serve. We deliver the goods."

Busy Bee · #**720** Posted **Jul 3, 2010, 1:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

I didn’t design the base. But I took all the — for it. It was done by OWP/P. From a financial standpoint, forgetting about Lakeshore East, it was the most successful building we ever did. If I was an uneducated aesthete, I’d say, ‘Why the hell did you do this?’ I look at it pragmatically. We build to the people we serve. We deliver the goods."

If this is his unabashed ethos, then he really has no business at all calling himself an architect. The guy's a artless businessman. The perfect case-in-point for why the field of architecture should remain the field of architecture and not the business of developing real estate - at least not on this scale.