CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS - Page 32

J_M_Tungsten · #**621** Posted **Apr 3, 2015, 10:25 PM**

I mean, what was the reaction when 311 S Wacker was announced? Is that Chicago architecture!?

CHI -21c · #**622** Posted **Apr 3, 2015, 10:36 PM**

I'm not showcasing 311. In that picture in the collage, look at the shapes of the Hancock and Trump, how the skyline gets a sense of nobility and might. Wanda's loud, zigzagging won't compliment this. Besides, 311's shape is like the Trib and Jewlers' bldg, though I don't think it's great.

Look at the symbolic skyline here. Compare what the Jewlers' silhouette says to you vs. Wanda's silhouette. That's a good example.

Steely Dan · #**623** Posted **Apr 3, 2015, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHI -21c

A building of this scale has to address the theme of the city.

i think it addresses the "theme" of the city perfectly.

it's big. it's broad. it's beefy. it's chunky.

this ain't no pretty-boy manhattan needle tower.

this sucker doesn't just scrape the sky, it chews it up and spits it out.

this tower could be the sears tower's wife.

if the sears tower were into drag queens.

Zapatan · #**624** Posted **Apr 3, 2015, 10:43 PM**

I know this tower is far over budget, but if this turns out to be anything like the rendering in design and height it'll be a great addition to the city.

1150' is a weird height for Chicago though, it would be better a little shorter or taller to not create a ~350m plateau considering they're are 3 other towers about that size.

munchymunch · #**625** Posted **Apr 3, 2015, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i think it addresses the "theme" of the city perfectly.

it's big. it's broad. it's beefy. it's chunky.

this ain't no pretty-boy manhattan needle tower.

this sucker doesn't just scrape the sky, it chews it up and spits it out.

this tower could be the sears tower's wife.

if the sears tower were into drag queens.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**626** Posted **Apr 3, 2015, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch

I mean this is more Chicago like, than the Trump Tower. IMO. I really don't get why you have a problem with it. This one is the best supertall proposal Chicago has had besides the Waldorf.

Also the the Trump is 10x tackier than this.

How is trump tacker it has a far more classic, elegant design than this awkward mess.

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/z...iuyiouyoiy.png

munchymunch · #**627** Posted **Apr 3, 2015, 11:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

How is trump tacker it has a far more classic, elegant design than this awkward mess.

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/z...iuyiouyoiy.png

I don't know it just looks a like the Trump was designed for New York. Also that garbage sign.

Also hat's the old design the new one looks a lot more clean.

ChiTownWonder · #**628** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 1:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch

I don't know it just looks a like the Trump was designed for New York. Also that garbage sign.

Also hat's the old design the new one looks a lot more clean.

And lets not forget that horrible excuse for a spire

HomrQT · #**629** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

How is trump tacker it has a far more classic, elegant design than this awkward mess.

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/z...iuyiouyoiy.png

The trump tower, before the sign, was a blessing on this city. Such an amazing building that any city in the world would have been proud to contain.

ChiTownWonder · #**630** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

The trump tower, before the sign, was a blessing on this city. Such an amazing building that any city in the world would have been proud to contain.

It is perfectly situated. i love getting a glimpse of it while on LSD passing over the river

rlw777 · #**631** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:22 AM**

The only theme of Chicago architecture should be good design nothing more and nothing less.

Zapatan · #**632** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

The trump tower, before the sign, was a blessing on this city. Such an amazing building that any city in the world would have been proud to contain.

Be thankful the sign isn't on top, Trump Tower is still an awesome building

Busy Bee · #**633** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:57 AM**

It's just so convoluted. That rendering looks like a fully fleshed out illustration of a first draft.

pip · #**634** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 3:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i think it addresses the "theme" of the city perfectly.

it's big. it's broad. it's beefy. it's chunky.

this ain't no pretty-boy manhattan needle tower.

this sucker doesn't just scrape the sky, it chews it up and spits it out.

this tower could be the sears tower's wife.

if the sears tower were into drag queens.

That's what I like in a building for Chicago.

NYguy · #**635** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 4:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch

I don't know it just looks a like the Trump was designed for New York.

Hardly. I've always thought of the Trump Chicago as a baby "Sears". The spire could have been better, but it was something Chicago's mayor wanted. Link

_

http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/F...S/Default.aspx
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...t-willis-tower

The Wanda tower may be a little awkward, but I think it fits Chicago, and would go well with the likes of the Hancock and Sears. That being said, I do think that the Chicago Spire, had it been built, would have stood out as something different, but I think more people than not would have appreciated it.

http://loopchicago.com/blog/tag/the-urban-condition

So we'll see how this one evolves.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/12/...akeshore-east/

Zapatan · #**636** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 5:22 AM**

I get sad every time I see pictures of the Chicago Spire. Let's hope Wanda, wolf point and related deliver great things to make up for it

pilsenarch · #**637** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 1:26 PM**

Good Chicago buildings are a direct result of their function...

the Sears Tower looks the way it does due to the structural solution and the way Sears wanted to use the large lower floor plates for maximum efficiency and lease out the top floors to law firms and such who wanted the prestige

the Hancock looks the way it does due to the structural solution and the multi-use function of the building - the large office floors below increasingly smaller condo floors: smaller and greater # of units on the lower floors, larger and fewer units at the top

the Trump looks the way it does due to not only the use, but to the specifics of the site, it's plan and the relationship it has to the river, the IBM, Wrigley, and to a lesser extent, Wabash Ave

The Aon is not a Chicago skyscraper, or a good one

and neither is Wanda

and to those of you who are relying on superior detailing to justify Wanda's totally arbitrary massing and site relationships, take a closer look at Aqua

HomrQT · #**638** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Good Chicago buildings are a direct result of their function...

The Aon is not a Chicago skyscraper, or a good one

and neither is Wanda

and to those of you who are relying on superior detailing to justify Wanda's totally arbitrary massing and site relationships, take a closer look at Aqua

I think the Aon Center could have qualified as a Chicago-ish skyscraper (large, bulky, clean lines, boxy) if it weren't for the huge waste of space in the lot that it's on. It's not really a transition area to go anywhere and it's tucked away. They might as well have put multiple buildings on the site or a larger building. Every time I see a photo of the skyline from Shedd or Adler, I can't help but notice the gaps on the sides of the Aon Center.

pilsenarch · #**639** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 2:43 PM**

^yeah, I'd give you Chicagoish on Aon... there is some structural expressionism, particularly with the corners providing some shear strength but the form seems more simplistic than simple

and you are totally right about the base - overly complex entry sequence, tower totally removed from all surrounding streets on a site that already was separated both vertically (due to the complex layer of streets over there) and horizontally from the rest of the city

rlw777 · #**640** Posted **Apr 4, 2015, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Good Chicago buildings are a direct result of their function...

the Sears Tower looks the way it does due to the structural solution and the way Sears wanted to use the large lower floor plates for maximum efficiency and lease out the top floors to law firms and such who wanted the prestige

the Hancock looks the way it does due to the structural solution and the multi-use function of the building - the large office floors below increasingly smaller condo floors: smaller and greater # of units on the lower floors, larger and fewer units at the top

the Trump looks the way it does due to not only the use, but to the specifics of the site, it's plan and the relationship it has to the river, the IBM, Wrigley, and to a lesser extent, Wabash Ave

The Aon is not a Chicago skyscraper, or a good one

and neither is Wanda

and to those of you who are relying on superior detailing to justify Wanda's totally arbitrary massing and site relationships, take a closer look at Aqua

Meh I think it's a big mistake if we are getting so wrapped up in history to declare what is 'in' and 'out' of being defined as a 'Chicago Skyscraper'. If we want nice architecture in this city and if we want to continue to be a city known for architectural innovation we should not be asking if something is a 'Chicago design' we should be asking if it's a good design. Mies Van Der Rohe wasn't designing what would have been considered 'Chicago skyscrapers' in his day... Nor was Goldberg with all that concrete and those curves. Wright though not really designing skyscrapers wasn't designing in the predominant style of his day either.