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

[george]

I have to admit, the lighting of the fins is a limp attempt to dress up the crown. I am seeing some kind of a tartan plaid pattern effect around the fins with no real pinpoint illumination of the fins themselves. Hopefully the light show is still being adjusted.

[vexxed82]

To me, the lighting looks much like an unclad floor at night when the construction lights are left on.

[Dr. Taco]

I HATE the lightning. construction lights is a perfect description

[VivaLFuego]

What's frustrating is that, in certain conditions that seem to occur randomly (including both day and night, rain and shine, from various perspectives), this tower looks outstanding - not like an international landmark or anything of the sort, but still a striking and attractive addition to the office core.

But most of the time, well, the various deficiencies have already been pointed out ad nauseum, so I won't repeat them.

Sometimes the building gets lucky with lighting and composition of the perspective, and its verticality is emphasized in a flattering way. It's the lack of vertical emphasis most of the time that is most disappointing, I think.

[honte]

The major problem I have with the lighting is that it looks too much like someone left the lights on in their office. It's not specific enough nor focused enough to really sing.

Kudos to them for doing anything, I suppose. Lighting can be reworked down the road, perhaps. At least the electrical feeds are there and the penetrations through the facade are in place without requiring retrofit.

[Jibba]

I was hoping for something a la 1 S. Dearborn. Does anyone know if that is lit from within or just really convincing trickery?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

I'm not going to continually post in this thread about how disappointed I am, but I'd like a decent explanation from someone as to how this thing could be so drastically different from the renderings. I'm sure they still need to tweak the lighting, so I'm not even going to comment on that yet, I'm more so talking about the facade. Completely NOT what we saw in the renders.

Perhaps I'm just comparing it to Trump as a benchmark, which literally came out exactly as the early renderings.

Because a rendering is a computer generated image of someone's interpretation of how they want/think a building will look at it's completed state.

Sometimes they're on the mark and sometimes they aren't. Buildings like Park View West and others sometimes turn out better than the render.

[intrepidDesign]

The fins in the rendering are quite taller than the final product. In the rendering it seems like if you were looking at the crown from street level, one would be able to see the fins. Now it seems like you would have to be much further back to even notice them. More like stubs than fins. The lighting seems to be a reaction to their lack of height. If the height of the fins matched the rendering, you would be able to light them from the front/back as apposed to the side how it is now. Too bad I had high hopes for this one, but in this case, Lecom is correct.

[spyguy]

Since this tower is nearing completion, I thought I'd finally post this image showing an alternative design for the base and riverwalk that I mentioned some time ago.

[Jibba]

^That's, um, interesting (read: haphazard). Certainly more adventurous than the current scheme, but I definitely don't prefer--what we got is much more fitting.

This evening:

[wrab]

1/13

[Jibba]

My opinion keeps wavering about this one. One minute I think the facade doesn't have enough depth and is a little too Tartan. Then, when I see a picture like wrabbit's above (great shot, btw), I just think "that's 'bout perfect."

Maybe I'll just revert to complacent ambivalence (if that's even possible) and call it a day.

[honte]

Thanks for that model shot, Spyguy. I guess it's clear that the architects desired something more from this building, but their client put the brakes on that in a hurry (even if what the model shows was rather ungainly).

You have to wonder, is this a sad reflection of the image that Chicago is a buttoned-up, conservative Midwestern town? I've maintained for a long while that Hines's work in Chicago does not live up to their national and international portfolio.

[wrab]

1/13

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Jibba

My opinion keeps wavering about this one. One minute I think the facade doesn't have enough depth and is a little too Tartan. Then, when I see a picture like wrabbit's above (great shot, btw), I just think "that's 'bout perfect."

Maybe I'll just revert to complacent ambivalence (if that's even possible) and call it a day.

Well, just think: If it were indeed great, its greatness would not be conditional on the angle and the time of day. I think what we have is a tower that is just good with occasional moments of greatness, but which could have been so much greater so much more often.

Originally Posted by honte

Thanks for that model shot, Spyguy. I guess it's clear that the architects desired something more from this building, but their client put the brakes on that in a hurry (even if what the model shows was rather ungainly).

You have to wonder, is this a sad reflection of the image that Chicago is a buttoned-up, conservative Midwestern town? I've maintained for a long while that Hines's work in Chicago does not live up to their national and international portfolio.

It's a great question, honte, and one maybe better addressed in the State of Chicago Architecture thread (if it's still kicking), but I don't think you're far off the mark. We all know there's a disparity between outside perceptions of the city and reality. Like I just wrote in some other thread, Chicago is still shaking off the dust that settled after the collapse of its economic engine, the industrial sector (which, though base, clearly kept the architects in business). Not too long ago, I had a professor-- a successful and still active British venture capitalist who became an envoy to China for the senior George Bush-- earnestly refer to Chicago as a still-decaying rustbelt city upon disclosure of my hometown during a one-on-one, get-to-know-your-students dinner. It was actually the first time I confronted that attitude in person so I was a bit shocked; nothing in my experience remotely approximated the city he described. (It also wasn't the last time-- which my peers from the rest of the country have made certain. I watched two friends-- one from Minneapolis, no less, who, when pressed, defended her position by citing her frequent trips to Chicago-- mutually encourage each other, in a typical pseudo-intellectual masturbatory collegiate exercise, to the hypothesis that Chicago is a mere "simulacrum" of a city. I was incredulous.)

On top of that, you have all the bias accumulated since day one towards the city's historical "low culture" which developed in lockstep with its high culture. Like most societies, America's is a classist one and was even more so during Chicago's formative years when the teeming masses of immigrant laborers far outnumbered the barons of business and their ilk.

These aren't easy legacies to combat, despite the fact that the city has pulled such an amazing about-face. (The international exposure of and prestige accrued by the Olympics would go a long way to help; I think that more than anything is Daley's motivation.) Were another developer to take the lead and commission a truly progressive design (with truly successful results), I imagine Hines might follow suit on any future projects. In the meantime, they may just be content to rely on a tried formula that is at least successful enough.

Alternatively, they and Pickard Chilton-- in the case of 300 N LaSalle-- may sincerely believe themselves to be honoring a larger-than-life tradition. The IBM building is only a few blocks away. All of those "contextual" elements which you've noted and (deservedly) pulled apart seem deferential if poorly thought out and followed through.

[ChiPsy]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Since this tower is nearing completion, I thought I'd finally post this image showing an alternative design for the base and riverwalk that I mentioned some time ago.

I honestly thought that photo was taken, for some outlandishly odd reason, near a grocery cart -- I spent a full second trying to discern the "model" from the background until I realized the whole thing was the model.

And that it was no shopping cart after all.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

It was actually the first time I confronted that attitude in person so I was a bit shocked; nothing in my experience remotely approximated the city he described. (It also wasn't the last time-- which my peers from the rest of the country have made certain. I watched two friends-- one from Minneapolis, no less, who, when pressed, defended her position by citing her frequent trips to Chicago-- mutually encourage each other, in a typical pseudo-intellectual masturbatory collegiate exercise, to the hypothesis that Chicago is a mere "simulacrum" of a city. I was incredulous.)

^ They're all morons.

I'm sure being some Minneapolis there was also likely a hint of jealousy

[Rilestone75]

[QUOTE=Ch.G, Ch.G;4023946]Well, just think: If it were indeed great, its greatness would not be conditional on the angle and the time of day. I think what we have is a tower that is just good with occasional moments of greatness, but which could have been so much greater so much more often./QUOTE]

I think that this tower in the future will begin to look better as the immediate surrounding area continues to develop taller. In fact, I think is might actually begin to act like an anchor for this area as more mid rise buildings go up.

[X-fib2]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Not too long ago, I had a professor-- a successful and still active British venture capitalist who became an envoy to China for the senior George Bush-- earnestly refer to Chicago as a still-decaying rustbelt city upon disclosure of my hometown during a one-on-one, get-to-know-your-students dinner. It was actually the first time I confronted that attitude in person so I was a bit shocked; nothing in my experience remotely approximated the city he described. (It also wasn't the last time-- which my peers from the rest of the country have made certain. I watched two friends-- one from Minneapolis, no less, who, when pressed, defended her position by citing her frequent trips to Chicago-- mutually encourage each other, in a typical pseudo-intellectual masturbatory collegiate exercise, to the hypothesis that Chicago is a mere "simulacrum" of a city. I was incredulous.)

As a former Chicagoan, who makes all to infrequent return visits, I am never failed to be amazed by the growth that has taken place vs my prevoius trip. Growing up in the city in the 1960s and early 70s I saw the central core of Chicago transfrom from a medicore skyline, height wise, to one of world calabore. This familiarity probably gives me an advantage over those non-natives to whom Chicago's growth over the past few decades may seem less apparent. Since 300 N LaSalle is in such a visible location it should help change their opinions.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by honte

.....You have to wonder, is this a sad reflection of the image that Chicago is a buttoned-up, conservative Midwestern town? I've maintained for a long while that Hines's work in Chicago does not live up to their national and international portfolio.

Tempting to think so. But then I recall that Hines also played it safe with the San Francisco Transbay Transit Center project - opting for the predigested Pelli design & the only one of the three proposals without a residential component. And SF is neither buttoned-up nor Midwestern.

What puzzles more is their iconoclasm in NYC, which bucks the national trend by offering up splendid things like Nouvel's mannerist take on JHC.

Their regional office structure - separate teams for the NE, Midwest & West - may have a lot to do with this?

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

.....We all know there's a disparity between outside perceptions of the city and reality.....

You do a good job of desconstructing these attitudes in your post. But I'll add that just this year I had two separate visits from two (very) well-travelled friends who'd never been to Chicago and were surprised & impressed by the sophistication. I think there is a tendency in the popular imagination to bundle the Great Lakes cities into one polis - so if you've been to Buffalo or Detroit or Cleveland, but not to Chicago (or Toronto), you will color your expectations accordingly.

Getting to Hines & property development, the irony here is that the historical Midwest (the Great Lakes Midwest) has been and continues to be highly receptive to new architecture.