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

[rlw777]

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.