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

[wrab]

Yeah - "dabble" would be the right word.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by honte

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.

Were the townhouse renderings ever released? That brick just seems so incongruous with the rest of the design. In fact, the whole complex seems kind of cobbled together: the two exaggerated staircases with the textured concrete; the boxy, stuccoed base; the purple townhouses; and the tall, lean tower which abruptly juts out of the northern portion. Except for the townhouses (which, I guess to be fair, aren't finished yet), I do really like (in the case of the tower, love) the individual components. It just doesn't seem like they (yet) for a coherent whole.

I don't think I understand your point about Jeanne Gang "picking her poison," though. Doesn't Lowenberg provide a very limited palette? You can only do so much with Popsicle sticks. The rest is damage control.

[EarlyBuyer]

I think this is the closest that we've seen so far with regard to a rendering for the Aqua Parkhomes.

Rendering from Magellan online images.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Hey, thank you. I had never seen that one.

[Zerton]

the base is weird in pictures and in person

[texcolo]

So, they're going to leave that space open between the Aqua and the BCBS Building???

[wrab]

^Slated for future development.

[andydie]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Great updates Early Buyer and wrabbit.

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

I only can agree with Jibba, great updates once again from both of you

[Jibba]

Cool find with that rendering there, EarlyBuyer. Really illustrates the dichotomy of the private and public experience of the building quite vibrantly: the haves will be alternating between swimming laps and taking nature walks, and the have-nots will be confronted with a blunt face of cheap materials and relegated to the extreme periphery of a car turn-around just to access the park below. For the pedestrian, the base is functionally a flop.

Originally Posted by wrabbit

Yeah - "dabble" would be the right word.

Keep dabbling then, because it looks damn good to me.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Cool find with that rendering there, EarlyBuyer. Really illustrates the dichotomy of the private and public experience of the building quite vibrantly: the haves will be alternating between swimming laps and taking nature walks, and the have-nots will be confronted with a blunt face of cheap materials and relegated to the extreme periphery of a car turn-around just to access the park below. For the pedestrian, the base is functionally a flop.

^ I think this is a bit of an exaggeration

[Taft]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Cool find with that rendering there, EarlyBuyer. Really illustrates the dichotomy of the private and public experience of the building quite vibrantly: the haves will be alternating between swimming laps and taking nature walks, and the have-nots will be confronted with a blunt face of cheap materials and relegated to the extreme periphery of a car turn-around just to access the park below. For the pedestrian, the base is functionally a flop.

I really disagree. From the park side, I think this will look quite nice once the facade and townhomes are complete. The stairs are also a very welcome addition to the area, allowing much better access to LSE park. While the architecture may be less than inspiring, I think it is functional and not unpleasant and adds a lot to the area immediately around the park while providing some nice amenities to aqua building dwellers.

Taft

[honte]

^ One way to look at a building this large is that it might simply be a collection of different works by the same architect. This approach doesn't usually yield good results aesthetically, but I think it's certainly applicable here in a formal sense when you have different points of entry, different finished elevations, access roads, etc. In the case of the townhouses, I'm not too worried about the fact that they don't complement the tower. They're far more complementary to LSE in general than the PoMo wreck being built at the opposite end of the park. The base, however, I have many more issues with...

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Were the townhouse renderings ever released? That brick just seems so incongruous with the rest of the design. In fact, the whole complex seems kind of cobbled together: the two exaggerated staircases with the textured concrete; the boxy, stuccoed base; the purple townhouses; and the tall, lean tower which abruptly juts out of the northern portion. Except for the townhouses (which, I guess to be fair, aren't finished yet), I do really like (in the case of the tower, love) the individual components. It just doesn't seem like they (yet) for a coherent whole.

I don't think I understand your point about Jeanne Gang "picking her poison," though. Doesn't Lowenberg provide a very limited palette? You can only do so much with Popsicle sticks. The rest is damage control.

There was an even better one than the one EarlyBuyer posted; I can't seem to find it. It was rendered from the park base and showed the townhouses looking quite dark. Maybe Superhero Spyguy can dig it up for us?

My point about Gang is that she is a talented architect. She knew what she was going into with Loewenberg and knew that this thing wasn't operating on a lavish budget. So, yes, if there are faults resulting from only having "Popsicle sticks," I hold her accountable. These were calculated decisions and I presume that she knew the potential shortcomings, evaluated the benefits / risks, and went ahead after balanced consideration. That's the respectable way to operate and I don't find fault with the process, but I might not agree with some decisions that were made. For instance, the base being a real dud: I think it hurts the building and perhaps if there wasn't the budget or time to make a better statement at the public interface, I might have tried to cut costs elsewhere.

I'll say again for the record though, since this all sounds very critical, that in general I like this building and I definitely give Studio Gang a ton of credit for getting it done.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ You're definitely right that some bad decisions were likely made in the cost-cutting process, but it just sounds like you're forgetting that this is Loewenberg we're talking about, the developer responsible for some of the most atrocious buildings in this city. That we have a tower among the most innovative and daring (and, judging from the responses here, most pleasing) of all developments at this scale, of any developer, in Chicago, in awhile, and that it was all done on what no doubt was a shoestring budget with strict oversight from the worst of the worst, speaks volumes about Jeanne Gang's ability. Were it not for her intervention we'd be looking at another Tides or Chandler (or worse?).

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm more inclined than you-- given the wretched history of her boss and the way in which it contrasts with the almost- final product-- to place the blame for some of the flaws on Loewenberg not Gang.

[honte]

^ Of course the ultimate blame for budget crunching (Utility brick? Really?) should be put on Loewenberg and Magellan. My point is that Gang was possibly spending beyond her means. Does that make any sense? Loewenberg is Loewenberg. I agree that she did the unthinkable with a tight budget, notoriously bad client, difficult site etc, and I've said that many times in the past. But if the final product isn't totally convincing, perhaps it should have been time to think of a more conventional solution that could have been pulled off at a higher standard?

I don't know the answers to my own question - they are complex and no one knows better than Gang. It's the classic Mies argument about being good vs. interesting. But since Studio Gang is the firm they are, I am comfortable that they went through this process. Being good brings with it a lot of baggage.

The stalled Arquitectonica / Loewenberg building is a good example. It's a box. It's also probably fairly cheap to build (in a relative sense). Instead of producing some strange form, they pulled a few big moves and tried to bring the materials to a higher standard. It's not built, so we can't compare the two, but you can see that they made a decision along the way (I'd say) to sacrifice some of the wow factor for a focus on making a good building. There are plusses for each approach; I'm not making claims as to which is better, but I'm inclined to say that at this point in time I'd probably take interesting over "good." But that doesn't mean I hold Gang totally harmless when things about Aqua are lackluster, as I tried to explain above.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think this is a bit of an exaggeration

I certainly chose my words to give my opinion a certain strength, and I can understand someone calling my sentiments "an exaggeration". However, my disappointment with the base comes from a deep dislike for towers that share Aqua's design scheme (giant, fortress-like base with more forbidding blank material than glass and a highly enjoyable space above for only those that buy directly into the building), a scheme whose inequities are really emphasized (not deliberately, of course) in that rendering above. Certainly, of all of the tower-on-a-fortress designs in the area, Aqua is above and beyond the best (possibly vying with Lake Point Tower for the title), but for whatever reason it's look and feel insistently reminds me of those other examples that inspire justifiable hate. Call it guilt by association. It is noted how ridiculous the notion is of applying that phrase to aesthetics, but it is precisely what influences my opinion of Aqua.

Aqua is, on the whole, a stellar development, but that does not overshadow completely the minor complaints I have of it. The whole of Lakeshore East only helps to further skew my perception of the pick of the litter that is Aqua. It would help if one didn't have to perform trials of the Pedestrian Olympics just to get into the place...

[wrab]

Originally Posted by honte

^ (Y)ou have different points of entry, different finished elevations, access roads, etc. In the case of the townhouses, I'm not too worried about the fact that they don't complement the tower. They're far more complementary to LSE in general the PoMo wreck being built at the opposite end of the park. The base, however, I have many more issues with.....

I was going to make this very point, especially after having walked around LSE again yesterday - that the North face of the base converses with the rest of the LSE assembly as much as or more so than it does with the tower. And I'd much rather look at its purple brick than the dark, dank stuff that Magellan uses on the park homes to the SW.

As to some of the other stylistic & programatic concerns that others are expressing about Aqua's coherence - it think it is too early to say. What seems jarring or discordant now may make more sense as all of the loose ends are stitched together. Or not.

[Jibba]

Tonight:

[harryc]

Basically the same a Jibba's, but with light.
[IMG][/IMG]

( working on my night skills )

[Beck4ABigChicago]

Originally Posted by Jibba

I certainly chose my words to give my opinion a certain strength, and I can understand someone calling my sentiments "an exaggeration". However, my disappointment with the base comes from a deep dislike for towers that share Aqua's design scheme (giant, fortress-like base with more forbidding blank material than glass and a highly enjoyable space above for only those that buy directly into the building), a scheme whose inequities are really emphasized (not deliberately, of course) in that rendering above. Certainly, of all of the tower-on-a-fortress designs in the area, Aqua is above and beyond the best (possibly vying with Lake Point Tower for the title), but for whatever reason it's look and feel insistently reminds me of those other examples that inspire justifiable hate. Call it guilt by association. It is noted how ridiculous the notion is of applying that phrase to aesthetics, but it is precisely what influences my opinion of Aqua.

Aqua is, on the whole, a stellar development, but that does not overshadow completely the minor complaints I have of it. The whole of Lakeshore East only helps to further skew my perception of the pick of the litter that is Aqua. It would help if one didn't have to perform trials of the Pedestrian Olympics just to get into the place...

This discussion about the base is kinda like a bad rerun...but I really enjoy this one as people have interesting opinions now that there is more to look at....however, I'll stick with my original impression that the complex is a strip mall with a building growing out of the top ala Presidential Towers (albiet, the actual tower is amazing). I put up a great rendering once, but it got deleted (a strip mall with a 7-11, dry cleaner, etc with Aqua popping out of the top) :-)

Still, a great tower, but a lot of space between it and its neighbor on the park. The downturn in the economy may make the space expendable for now, but I bet someday down the road someone will wish there were more residential units in the area lost to that giant gap.

[OhGreatOne]

So, how close is Aqua to being topped out? It appears to be around 800 feet tall now, by a visual comparison of the neighbouring buildings.