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

[Dr. Taco]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Do I recall someone writing that the crain will jump one more time around later Jan??

answer found here. In the first listing, near the bottom

[Brian.]

Am I the only one who is irritated with the reflecting glass not flowing better then it does? I like the idea but between floors it should step much better then it does. It gives it a pixilated look if you will.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ I actually like the effect.

[ChicagoChicago]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

^ I actually like the effect.

I do to.

[Brian.]

Meh...since it is Aqua I think the reflection should flow like water and not have the pronounced jagged steps from floor to floor.

[honte]

^ Your topic gets to the true tension of this design: The pragmatic vs. the artistic. Some might argue even that it is Aqua's real raison d'etre.

You can find lots of examples of this in the design beyond the windows, such as balconies instead of smooth and flowing form, the goofy-looking square parts of the base, the mismatched townhouses, the absent balcony at the mechanical level, etc. Cost of course also has something (perhaps a lot) to do with this.

Aqua seems to me a building truly in the spirit of Chicago architecture, but only because it can't decide how much of our tradition to carry forth vs. how much to follow larger, global trends. That's been a perplexing problem here since at least the 1980s.

[wrab]

Honte, when you say "spirit of Chicago architecture", I take this to mean pragmatism & structural expression?

[honte]

^ Just taking a jab at the "new" spirit - eg confusion.

Aqua, while I don't dislike it, reminds me of the Chicago Mercantile complex Fujikawa did. It's got one foot in the Chicago of the past and one foot somewhere else. Unfortunately, those hallmarks you correctly identify don't excite most people like they used to, but they are a part of this place. No one's made a compelling case to abandon them.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Your topic gets to the true tension of this design: The pragmatic vs. the artistic. Some might argue even that it is Aqua's real raison d'etre.

You can find lots of examples of this in the design beyond the windows, such as balconies instead of smooth and flowing form, the goofy-looking square parts of the base, the mismatched townhouses, the absent balcony at the mechanical level, etc. Cost of course also has something (perhaps a lot) to do with this.

Aqua seems to me a building truly in the spirit of Chicago architecture, but only because it can't decide how much of our tradition to carry forth vs. how much to follow larger, global trends. That's been a perplexing problem here since at least the 1980s.

I'm sure cost had a lot to do with it. I recall someone saying Jeanne Gang wanted glass balconies, no? I imagine those weren't alone on the chopping block. And is she the townhouse culprit or was that job delegated to a less reputable (and presumably less expensive) firm? (For the record, if it wasn't, then I'm genuinely disappointed in Studio Gang.)

Anyway, I think you are and have been too harsh on the building. Even if you reject the the ostensibly very pragmatic rationale for the balcony design-- which I know you do-- it's tough to deny that something very 21st Century (in that amorphous subvert-the-box kind of way) was achieved very subtly and with very little (in terms of both resources and funding). I'd argue that this feat alone is an ingenious practical solution worthy of the Chicago Architecture mantle.

[honte]

^ I like the building. I was just down in the park two days ago thinking that particular aspect (the thin east side) is pretty handsome.

And I liked the townhouses too (yes, they are Gang), before the cladding materials went on, making them look cheap and unrefined. I thought they were pretty well done, although not complementary to the tower.

Cost has to do with everything, of course. But I'm not sure cost cutting had much to do with this - in other words, Gang picked her poison.

I don't recall her saying she preferred glass balconies, but I might be forgetting that tidbit.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Your topic gets to the true tension of this design: The pragmatic vs. the artistic. Some might argue even that it is Aqua's real raison d'etre.

People like me!

I love the "I kinda like to follow global trends, but really am rooted in the traditional evolution of Chicago architecture.

[Jibba]

Tonight:

[EarlyBuyer]

Lush Lakeshore East Park takes first place in mayor's landscape awards program


"...The lush six-acre park that is the nucleus of the blossoming Lakeshore East neighborhood in downtown Chicago has captured first place in the Specialized Garden category of Mayor Daley's Landscape Awards 2008 Program..."


http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/classifieds/homes/1353087,1_5_ST02_AWARD_S1.article

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer

[wrab]

^ Thanks for all the site pics.

1/11

[wrab]

1/11 This staircase is gonna be fun:

[aaron38]

That staircase is trippy. I wonder how they're going to finish the inside? A community mural would be nice.

Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer

That wall there for the staircase goes up against more park homes, right? Have those already been sold?

[EarlyBuyer]

Great shots wrabbit!

aaron: you're right, that wall on the east side of the spiral staircase is where more parkhomes are slated (per the master plan). I'm guessing though based on the speed of sales for those parkhomes which are nearing completion south of the Lancaster; that sales at this site will not begin for quite some time. Once they are built however they'll be a great transition from the Aqua spiral staircase to the Tides. Additionally, there are nine (I believe is the number) parkhomes in the base of Aqua, which to the best of my knowledge have yet to begin being marketed.

[Jibba]

Great updates Early Buyer and wrabbit.

And by the way, wrabbit: those above shots are really, really nice. Dabbling in HDR I see?