CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS - Page 40

hunser · #**781** Posted **Apr 16, 2015, 11:48 PM**

So many great buildings in Chicago, but Aqua ain't one of them.

BVictor1 · #**782** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

So many great buildings in Chicago, but Aqua ain't one of them.

The only downside is the low floor-to-ceiling heights.

Zapatan · #**783** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 3:17 AM**

^^ For a residential building that's not such a terrible thing though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

So many great buildings in Chicago, but Aqua ain't one of them.

Really? To each their own but I think the balconies are really cool! Imagine living in one of those apartments

www.solaripedia.com

sentinel · #**784** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 3:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

So many great buildings in Chicago, but Aqua ain't one of them.

Uh huh, sure.

LouisVanDerWright · #**785** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 2:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

^^ For a residential building that's not such a terrible thing though.

Really? To each their own but I think the balconies are really cool! Imagine living in one of those apartments

www.solaripedia.com

Yeah, the pictures don't even do it justice. I had the good fortune to go to a party on the 68th floor SW corner where the balconies jut out further than almost anywhere else. It's one of the few things that I've experienced in life that was truly breathtaking. It generated the same euphoria as standing on the edge of a 1800' vertical cliff in the Wind Rivers in Wyoming or skydiving did for me. When you are out there on Aqua's balconies you are VERY aware of the fact that you are standing on a very thin slab of concrete jutting 10'+ out over the city. You are also immersed in the wave effect you see from street level. You are not just viewing it from a distance, you are in it, which is an entirely different level of wow. It's the only time I've ever gotten vertigo in a skyscraper.

Ned.B · #**786** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The only downside is the low floor-to-ceiling heights.

8'-0" ceiling aren't as big of a deal (at least for me) when the entire exterior wall is glass. It's all about the horizontal expansiveness.

r18tdi · #**787** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B

8'-0" ceiling aren't as big of a deal (at least for me) when the entire exterior wall is glass. It's all about the horizontal expansiveness.

I was on the 69th floor of Aqua a few weeks ago. I was prepared to make snarky comments about the low ceilings based on what I've read on the internet but instead was pleasantly surprised -- seemed fine to me.

Ryanrule · #**788** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 4:01 PM**

the ceilings are a problem when you look at the prices.
they are screwing you, hard.

Steely Dan · #**789** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 4:04 PM**

let's please not rehash the tired old aqua ceiling height debate in this thread.

this thread is about Wanda Vista, let's keep the posts on topic.

Ned.B · #**790** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 7:39 PM**

Tying the previous off topic discussion to this thread, it looks like floor-to-floor heights will be approximately 11'-0" judging by some of the numbers on the provided building section, or roughly 10' to 10'+ unit ceiling heights. That would put this building on par with ceiling heights in Trump and Lincoln Park 2550. (sorry if this has been previously discussed)

If anything higher ceilings help make up for the fact that modern apartments/condos (even luxury condos) are generally smaller than their early 20th century counterparts where 9' ceilings were the standard. Don't see too many 2000 sf 2 bedrooms or 3500 sf 3 bedrooms built these days.

CHI -21c · #**791** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 10:04 PM**

I like it, but Gang (and a lot of architects) would be better off designing home decor:

The basic shape is like seaweed and is arbitrary. Instead of a serious architectural look, it's more the look of a whimsical mantel decoration.

The base is loud, uninteresting... and a tribute to the frustums? Why? It's the only design scheme. They shouldn't hint back to it; it's too obvious. And we keep getting reminded of it on the walkways, benches, and honeycomb... it's not even worth celebrating, especially since it's toned down so much.

Both the seaweed shape and honeycomb pattern aren't serious enough to put on a skyscraper. It should not get the same design effort as Target furniture.

I like that it's more serious like the IBM logo, but the checkered pattern isn't great and the shape is very two-dimensional from afar.

Juxtaposed with the Aon, 2Prudential, Trump, CrainsComm, and Hancock, it doesn't compliment them as much as it adds noise to the skyline. It's shape is different in an arbitrary way that Dubai would like to achieve, but not Chicago.

We have the opportunity to distinguish ourselves from other cities which will eventually clutter their skylines with abstract, wacky, attention-seeking towers. Shanghai looks like a pile of toys while Chicago looks really mighty and noble. This look plus structurally driven designs need to be the guiding forces for us.

We know the frustums were decorative from the start because, originally, there was no low-E glass.

Instead of standing tall and dignified, Wacky Wanda seeks attention with no message, and yet, it's still fairly dull.

I'll be great because it's a huge, shiny building, but within that, architects have a job. Gang didn't do her job well by clinging to her doodle, which you know was the first random form she drew trying to be novel.

Zapatan · #**792** Posted **Apr 17, 2015, 11:39 PM**

I honestly dig the uniqueness (and color) of it.

I do however see where you're coming from and that it might make for a better lamp post than skyscraper.

ChiTownWonder · #**793** Posted **Apr 18, 2015, 1:05 AM**

my only critiques would be to smoothen out the frustums a bit, and and start the setbacks higher up and space them in smaller increments.

rlw777 · #**794** Posted **Apr 18, 2015, 2:17 AM**

^^^ I like the frustrums. Design often starts playfully and its quite alright to keep those playful elements when you can justify them. However in this case if Gangs rationale was anything other than an aesthetic one (I wasn't at the meeting so I don't know) its probably BS. I like the frustrums because they do a nice job of breaking up the form horizontally and emphasizing the verticality. The waves created by the interlocking forms I see as a nice reference to the river and lake. I have no clue whether any of that is intentional but that's my impression of the form.

modkris · #**795** Posted **Apr 18, 2015, 5:51 AM**

Arbitrary arbitrary arbitrary...it's all I ever hear from you stick-up-the-ass armchair critics about EVERYTHING that is designed in this town. Curves are arbitrary. Color is arbitrary. Any shape other than a box is arbitrary. You have the right to complain but seriously do you really think you could come up with something better? Form follows function, yes, to a point. After that what happens? An endless stream of blank boxes. No need for creative designers. This isn't going to turn Chicago into Shanghai or Dubai or whatever the fuck. This will be a great building, if it is built. If it is not we have missed yet another opportunity to enhance our great city.

the urban politician · #**796** Posted **Apr 18, 2015, 1:03 PM**

^ I read your post with a but of a grin because I've been grumbling about this stuff for years. Build a bland box and they complain. Build something interesting and it's "Too contrived!"

Anyhow, Blair Kamin reviewed the revised proposal in today's Tribune and had very positive things to say.

Zapatan · #**797** Posted **Apr 18, 2015, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I read your post with a but of a grin because I've been grumbling about this stuff for years. Build a bland box and they complain. Build something interesting and it's "Too contrived!"

For real, people are too picky. I mean obviously if the building is downright hideous there is right to complain but we're getting an ~1150 foot (maybe higher) foot cool looking tower which will be a great addition to one of the world's best skylines.

The one complaint I have is that it's very close in height to the other 3 ~350 meter towers which are in relatively close proximity so a little taller couldn't hurt to avoid a plateau effect. (Maybe shorter too but the design is worthy of 350+).

Ryanrule · #**798** Posted **Apr 18, 2015, 4:51 PM**

lets wait on some detail shots before spectu-bitching about it.

chris08876 · #**799** Posted **Apr 18, 2015, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

The one complaint I have is that it's very close in height to the other 3 ~350 meter towers which are in relatively close proximity so a little taller couldn't hurt to avoid a plateau effect. (Maybe shorter too but the design is worthy of 350+).

A plateau though starts to become apparent when there are many towers of the same height. This is far from achieving that. 700' so would be a better number. Chicago though has good placement of its supertalls and its skyline is rated number one due to the aesthetics and its form. Something like this will only add to it. Now if everything was lets say 600 feet, then its boring. But these peaks add to it, especially from a distance.

More supertalls near Sears would be good for aesthetics. I think that river project in the coming phases could bring one. Wolf point I believe is the name.

FlashingLights · #**800** Posted **Apr 18, 2015, 7:04 PM**

IDK this new update is better than before. I overall like the grand scale but given this budget and lot size I feel something much more spectacular could have been done.

I'm not going to sign off on this just because we finally get a tall building.

I like studio gang a lot. I really love their work but this could have been even more grand.

(Side Note: Aqua is a great looking building for the budget to construct, but a ripoff rent price wise to live in)