CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS

[UPChicago]

I want to judge this negatively just as I judge the Spire negatively but in both I think the materials will look much different from the actual renders so this might be a masterpiece or a turd depending on the materials.

[Vlajos]

Wow, interesting!

[Kenmore]

Maybe it's because we're all so hungry for a new supertall or maybe it's the reputation of the developer but i feel like a lot of you are being a little too diplomatic. This thing is flat out hideous.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

Maybe it's because we're all so hungry for a new supertall or maybe it's the reputation of the developer but i feel like a lot of you are being a little too diplomatic. This thing is flat out hideous.

or maybe it's because opinions about aesthetics are quite subjective?


no............ no............ that can't be right at all. what was i thinking?


if the great and powerful Kenmore deems something to be flat out hideous*, then it is an immutable fact! and any who might disagree simply must be clouded by by ulterior passions and associations.


(*) based entirely off of a single, small, early, and perhaps preliminary rendering, no less

[joeg1985]

I actually like the massing the way it is. Having the largest tower all the way to the east is just more unexpected. I don't think this design will block Aqua all that much from the river. That is probably why the largest tower is all the way to the east. Can't wait for more detailed renders.

The shape of the building is so different from anything else we've seen in the city. So exciting. It's almost the antithesis of Aqua.

[rlw777]

I really like the concept. I don't like the render but I could see it working. I am wondering if the stripes on this thing will be anything like the stripes on One57.

[LouisVanDerWright]

I wasn't sure how I felt about this design when I first saw it last night, but the more I think on it the more I like it. Honestly I think this just continues Studio Gang's recent trend of wandering more and more into the territory of brutalism. I almost hope that this building isn't entirely clad in glass, but rather had prominent concrete components. The massing of this project (and her recent U of C dorms) are very reminiscent of the monumentalist themes of brutalism. Screw the green washing, let's call a spade a spade, Gang's monolithic Aqua was a preview of a new wave of brutualism out of her, not some flowy green bullshit.

I can already tell this is going to be a good building because of the angsty, mixed, response to this design so far. It is evoking strong feelings from people which indicates that it is radical, unexpected, and, most importantly, original.

Edit: Also this:


angelfire.com

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I can already tell this is going to be a good building because of the angsty, mixed, response to this design so far. It is evoking strong feelings from people which indicates that it is radical, unexpected, and, most importantly, original.

Agreed - I love designs that think outside of the box and that's one thing I like about this design. It's unique and pushes the boundaries of design IMO. Which is great

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Edit: Also this:


angelfire.com

ok, now i get it

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ No one said that, he said that thinking outside of the box is a good thing. I think you will have a hard time convincing most people that it's not a good thing. And, you know what, if the budget allows, then yes, novelty is great for architecture assuming it doesn't sacrifice function. I am personally a big time less is more modernist, but I would never want a city of only Miesian boxes. Hell, what do you think all prior styles of architecture to Modernism were? They were all novelty whether it is second empire mansard roofs, the ridiculous crown and cladding on the Carbide and Carbon Building, the impractically ornate design of the Jewlers Building, etc. That was back when budgets allowed architectural novelty and, frankly, if the Chinese are willing to come to Chicago and pay for 21st century architectural novelty, I'll take it. Again, I think it follows all the same strains as brutalism did: A playful rejection of the trap of rigid modernism. As long as this building is clad in quality materials, it will turn out great and contribute another layer of architectural intrigue to our skyline.

Originally Posted by Kenmore

ok, now i get it

It should be black like that, preferably with no windows. Actually, it should just be clad in black precast panels like the Roosevelt Tower. The more oppressive and dystopian the better.

[Chicago Shawn]

^^LVW, I think you hit the nail on the head: Gang is leading the way into a 21st century take on brutalism; an alternate path forward deviating from the modernist revival seen in so many new buildings. I agree this would look best dressed in black. Add some darth-vador bronze tinted windows and it would proudly scream 'I will eat your soul' as the best brutalist buildings do.

I think massing is excellent and tallest portion being further east is gesture of grand things to come at the mouth of the river.

Greatly looking forward to this breaking the Streetville/LSE height plateau; its going to look great rising above the crowd when viewing this from the north or south lakefront.

I had a chance to speak with the upper echelon of Magellan after the Gino's East community meeting. After I heard Chinese money was going in on this project I jokingly replied "that means the building will be 88 floors, right?" to which he just smiled. This news confirms what I have been anticipating for the last month.

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

I had a chance to speak with the upper echelon of Magellan after the Gino's East community meeting. After I heard Chinese money was going in on this project I jokingly replied "that means the building will be 88 floors, right?" to which he just smiled. This news confirms what I have been anticipating for the last month.

Is that like a lucky number 8 thing? The number being claimed now is 89, but maybe that's so the alderman has something to chop off. Given that design, it seems like any significant height alteration would require lots of re engineering of the angles. I guess that's one advantage of elaborate designs, it makes it harder to arbitrarily shorten it, whereas modernist or tripartite design can be stretched or shortened without much math.

The hotel will only have about 250 rooms, which accounts for maybe 25 stories in one of the 3 towers. There'll probably be more residential or commercial than hotel. The Peninsula and Langham hotels in town are also 5 star hotels owned by Chinese companies.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It should be black like that, preferably with no windows. Actually, it should just be clad in black precast panels like the Roosevelt Tower. The more oppressive and dystopian the better.

Funny you should mention the Roosevelt Tower, because if the the glass on here matches that, it should turn out ok.

[marothisu]

It's amazing how there's these companies out there who you've never heard of and have all this money. I had no idea this company bought AMC Theatres for $2.6 Billion. The design is definitely interesting - I'm in the middle about it. I don't hate it but I don't absolutely love it either. Wish it was more curved in some places. I'd be interested to see other more HQ renders.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

.....(T)he wsj article seemed to imply a total project cost of no more than approximately $250 million. Seems to me to be at least somewhat on the low side to build what's in that rendering (and keeping in mind luxury hotel and condos for the residential)........Actually, scratch that - that up to $250 million would only be the equity investment I'm assuming.....total cost including debt of course could be much more........I have a feeling the leverage here will likely end up being quite a bit lower than other 'similar' projects.....

Wanda's own website gives a figure of US$900-million. Link.
That seems like a more realistic figure.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by wrab

Wanda's own website gives a figure of US$900-million. Link.
That seems like a more realistic figure.

I may get pilloried by some for saying, so - but Wanda's own website is definitely wrong about the price tag of their investment in this single project (and of course by implication the price tag of the overall project). I do believe instead the WSJ article that stated they authorized an investment of up to US$226 mil. in the project. That very same Wanda Plazas press release also states that Chicago is the US' second largest city. I stopped reading after that, rather than ingest another handful of factual errors before breakfast. Who knows how they screwed up on that figure (exchange rate calculation flub, lost in translation, general sloppiness, the US$900 figure is an investment representing much more than just the LSE tower, etc - you find these errors about their own information much more often than you'd think - or maybe not - in emerging world company websites) but they assuredly did err here. Total project cost here I'm guessing is less than $600 million (not Wanda's equity investment, but total project cost) - who knows, at the end of the day, perhaps no more than $450-500 million. I also am guessing that height may come in at less than 1,000' from Upper Wacker (consistent with New Yorker article), and that actual construction will not begin this year. Chinese websites in general should not be thought of as reputable sources of information - the WSJ, New Yorker on the other hand are.......

Here's another guess - Magellan was caught completely off guard by Wanda's announcement. They probably have some misinformation they'd like to correct a little right about now!

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I may get pilloried by some for saying, so - but Wanda's own website is definitely wrong about the price tag of their investment in this single project (and of course by implication the price tag of the overall project). I do believe instead the WSJ article that stated they authorized an investment of up to US$226 mil. in the project. That very same press release also states that Chicago is the US' second largest city. Who knows how they screwed up on that figure (exchange rate calculation flub, lost in translation, general sloppiness, the US$900 figure is an investment representing much more than just the LSE tower, etc - you find these errors about their own information much more often than you'd think - or maybe not - in emerging world company websites) but they assuredly did err here. Total project cost here I'm guessing is less than $600 million - who knows, at the end of the day, perhaps no more than $450-500 million. I also am guessing that height may come in at less than 1,000' from Upper Wacker (consistent with New Yorker article), and that actual construction will not begin this year. Chinese websites in general should not be thought of as reputable sources of information - the WSJ, New Yorker on the other hand are.......

Here's another guess - Magellan was caught off guard by Wanda's announcement. They probably have some misinformation they'd like to correct a little right about now!

great post

[SamInTheLoop]

^ thanks, although I've potentially just exposed myself to a lifetime of targeted cyberattacks.....

[Ryan81]

[aaron38]

^^^Excellent! Thanks for those Ryan, there's the view north along LSD I wanted.


It's hard to tell from the building render, but is pedestrian access north out of LSE park along N Field Blvd preserved in this design? I wonder if there'll be improvements to the access to the riverwalk and the various levels of Wacker? I love walking through there, but pedestrian access there is rough.