CHICAGO | OneEleven - 111 West Wacker | 630 FT | 59 FLOORS | COM - Page 74

r18tdi · #**1461** Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc

This was at 300 N LaSalle - somewhere in that thread is a photo shopped image of the current tower with the old garage incorporated.

Repost that vomit!

chi-arch · #**1462** Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc

Borg Cube installed .....

This was such an exciting time during the original construction; and then all of the air went out of the building. Now we have an unremarkable and boring slab with some grill marks.

rlw777 · #**1463** Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 8:00 PM**

I don't mind it. It's not great but it's not awful either. And I appreciate that the designers "grill marks" seem to pay bow to the buildings around it. Now lets get rid of the renaissance hotel and finish off that street wall

chikid · #**1464** Posted **Apr 1, 2014, 7:55 PM**

I really don't understand why people hate this building so much. No it's nothing amazing, but I think aesthetically it's pleasing and fits into the canyon perfectly. I really don't get why there is so much hate. I think it has more character and is more interesting then the IBM building and a more aesthetic than something like the Sears Tower.

Could have been better, but ti's not bad at all IMO.

Randomguy34 · #**1465** Posted **Apr 1, 2014, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikid

I really don't understand why people hate this building so much. No it's nothing amazing, but I think aesthetically it's pleasing and fits into the canyon perfectly. I really don't get why there is so much hate. I think it has more character and is more interesting then the IBM building and a more aesthetic than something like the Sears Tower.

Could have been better, but ti's not bad at all IMO.

I'd be careful with your word choice if I were you. Many people in this page take this topic too personally.

JDMChicago · #**1466** Posted **Apr 2, 2014, 7:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikid

and a more aesthetic than something like the Sears Tower.

A more aesthetic?

harryc · #**1467** Posted **Apr 4, 2014, 3:45 PM**

J_M_Tungsten · #**1468** Posted **Apr 4, 2014, 9:55 PM**

Sick Clark st. shot Harry.
This morning

I don't know.. Looks pretty awesome to me. I know some would prefer to live in a taller building (Waterview?), but what really changed if you live in this building vs the previous design? Your location is the exact same. If you want to live in this building and area, you will. If you don't, meh. Another River North or West Loop property will get rented from. It all is good for the city. The building details are really just dissected by us, lol!

The Lurker · #**1469** Posted **Apr 5, 2014, 12:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikid

I really don't understand why people hate this building so much. No it's nothing amazing, but I think aesthetically it's pleasing and fits into the canyon perfectly. I really don't get why there is so much hate. I think it has more character and is more interesting then the IBM building and a more aesthetic than something like the Sears Tower.

Could have been better, but ti's not bad at all IMO.

I think its 417 feet too short to get love here. But the last time I walked through the area a 30 story concrete mass punctuated an otherwise beautiful riverwall. I'm not going to say it's world class architecture but I don't think it's half bad either. At least the transfer floor plays nicely with LaSalle-Wacker's setback.

BVictor1 · #**1470** Posted **Apr 5, 2014, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurker

I think its 417 feet too short to get love here. But the last time I walked through the area a 30 story concrete mass punctuated an otherwise beautiful riverwall. I'm not going to say it's world class architecture but I don't think it's half bad either. At least the transfer floor plays nicely with LaSalle-Wacker's setback.

Where'd you get 417' from?

Koodoo25 · #**1471** Posted **Apr 5, 2014, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Where'd you get 417' from?

The original height for the Waterview tower was 1047 feet, which is 417 feet taller than the current 630 foot tall design

chi-arch · #**1472** Posted **Apr 7, 2014, 1:35 PM**

In just about every view now this building pumps up that post modern Bofill extravaganza. It really should have been taller, even with this half-A design. Height would have at least helped define it's own presence, as now it has none.

Chi-Sky21 · #**1473** Posted **Apr 7, 2014, 1:50 PM**

I like it, no its not THE GREATEST design ever, BUT combined with 77 West Wacker, and the Leo Burnett building, the triumvirate of buildings together have their own impressiveness. Something about them being almost the same size and lining up next to each other works for me.

chi-arch · #**1474** Posted **Apr 7, 2014, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I like it, no its not THE GREATEST design ever, BUT combined with 77 West Wacker, and the Leo Burnett building, the triumvirate of buildings together have their own impressiveness. Something about them being almost the same size and lining up next to each other works for me.

Cool. One more and we will have another presidential towers. awesome!