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

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

well, you can question my motives, but if you are going to argue that the quality of those bedrooms is what one would expect entering an all glass skyscraper, I would suggest you have an inability to read plans...

those exterior walls are over 4' thick... all-in-all, even the living and kitchen spaces are awkward (check out the location of the stove, the size of the structure, the huge wasted space in the kitchen)... this is not the kind of floor plan I would expect to see in a corner unit in what is supposed to be the most luxurious tower in the city...

this structural system didn't happen by accident, it is a direct result of the frustums...

so, sorry, I know that this building is a gift from God...

Not sure if your comment was directed at me personally, but I'm a registered architect and I know how to read plans, thank you.

No one has ever said anything about this building being a 'gift from God' - not sure why you have a chip on your shoulder regarding this building and/or Studio Gang. And the plan you highlight only shows one of the unit plans, out of eight/nine on that floor, and not all of the layouts have the same outer shear wall thickness...and again, the south-facing plan you chose to highlight still has plenty of light coming in from floor to ceiling windows, not to mention the master bedroom which appears to have a roughly 8' wide opening.


https://www.vistatowerchicago.com/residences/

Here is a rendering of one of the north-facing units with a similar layout.

Yes, the outer shear wall is very massive, but it is HARDLY a jail cell.

Get. Over. It.

[F1 Tommy]

That wall looks tornado if not hurricane proof. Not that you would need either since downtown Chicago has not had a tornado since 1876 and a hurricane only in a Hollywood movie

[harryc]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

That wall looks tornado if not hurricane proof. Not that you would need either since downtown Chicago has not had a tornado since 1876 and a hurricane only in a Hollywood movie

You say that now - but after a few years of Bolton - when the Canadians come to liberate Chicago - 4" thick concrete walls will help protect from the shellfire.

[rlw777]

^ I think it should be pointed out that the rendering is of a bedroom that uses the full width of the opening in the shear wall for the window. If that opening was half that size as it is for the entertainment room and second bedroom in the floor plan it wouldn't be so flattering.

I agree with Pilsen not exactly what I would expect in a corner unit of a luxury highrise.

On the other hand several of the thin residential supertalls that have been planned or are going up in the US have shear walls with tiny windows. I'm not so convinced that the shear walls and their openings are the direct result of the frustrums. I suspect fairly thick shear walls would have been required with similar dimensions even without the frustrums to handle the wind loads against the north or south face of the building.

The more egregious problem to me is the kitchen planning. Honestly WTF was studio gang thinking?

[aaron38]

My house right now is a cape cod. The bedrooms upstairs have the dormer windows that project out past the roof line, so it's a very similar effect. In my son's bedroom, we have our reading nook, chair, bookshelf, in one of the dormer bays. It's very cozy.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

That wall looks tornado if not hurricane proof. Not that you would need either since downtown Chicago has not had a tornado since 1876 and a hurricane only in a Hollywood movie

Just you wait..I think the shear walls were meant to defend against this guy. At least we have the Rock (and shear walls) to protect us.

[KWillChicago]

^haha. That movie looks horrible. But you gotta love that hollywood has a hard-on lately for the chicago skyline to use as a demolition derby. City filming tax and permit prices must have gone down drastically in the last 10 years. I remember reading that Chicago is the most expensive city to film in because of those things and others. Gonna be sweet to see movies with Vista, OGP, OBP and OCS in action sequences in the near future.

[gebs]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

^haha. That movie looks horrible. But you gotta love that hollywood has a hard-on lately for the chicago skyline to use as a demolition derby. City filming tax and permit prices must have gone down drastically in the last 10 years. I remember reading that Chicago is the most expensive city to film in because of those things and others. Gonna be sweet to see movies with Vista, OGP, OBP and OCS in action sequences in the near future.

It can be annoying watching action sequences filmed in Chicago if you're an architecture nerd. Tough to pick just one, but there was a scene in Transformers 3 where a military squad enters the Tribune Tower and then it cuts to them going up the stairs of the Rookery.

I get it, no one knows, but still ... I noticed.

[KWillChicago]

Grinds my gears too. Especially when you know what the interiors look like and is not only the same building but on the other side of town. Haha.

[jc5680]

From bKL's instagram:

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Not sure if your comment was directed at me personally, but I'm a registered architect and I know how to read plans, thank you.

No one has ever said anything about this building being a 'gift from God' - not sure why you have a chip on your shoulder regarding this building and/or Studio Gang. And the plan you highlight only shows one of the unit plans, out of eight/nine on that floor, and not all of the layouts have the same outer shear wall thickness...and again, the south-facing plan you chose to highlight still has plenty of light coming in from floor to ceiling windows, not to mention the master bedroom which appears to have a roughly 8' wide opening.

Yes, the outer shear wall is very massive, but it is HARDLY a jail cell.

Get. Over. It.

my comment wasn't directed at any single person... but, just to explain my reference to the frustums directly influencing the shear walls: It is my understanding that the shear walls run vertically on the interior and only slope on the exterior. So, as the frustums move in and out, it just serves to increase the overall mass of the wall with the thinnest part of the wall serving as the minimum required to reach the desired strength... this results in a lot of concrete that really wouldn't otherwise be needed... you can compare these shear walls to shear walls that have been utilized in NYC for example to compare the differences in mass (and placement with regard to unit layouts for that matter)... which appear to be significant...

yes, there are better unit plans in this building, but I'm not sure the other bedrooms in this unit come close to looking like that rendering (and it also appears that your rendering is of a much larger bedroom then the one in the plan I posted)... particularly at the widest/thickest part of the frustum (which as you pointed out also, varies significantly) that results in a much deeper pocket for that window...

anyway, I'm not interested in arguing the personal opinions about the design, I'm just pointing out the effects and the incongruities with expectations of an all glass high-rise... comparing it to a dormer situation in a single family home is interesting...

I've always found achieving functional and efficient condo layouts in highrises challenging, particularly resolving the unforgiving structural requirements... I think the plan I've highlighted just serves to show that with this building it appears to be especially challenging...

What I don't understand is why there appears to be many who need to defend the design of this building on all accounts...

[kayosthery]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

my comment wasn't directed at any single person... but, just to explain my reference to the frustums directly influencing the shear walls: It is my understanding that the shear walls run vertically on the interior and only slope on the exterior. So, as the frustums move in and out, it just serves to increase the overall mass of the wall with the thinnest part of the wall serving as the minimum required to reach the desired strength... this results in a lot of concrete that really wouldn't otherwise be needed... you can compare these shear walls to shear walls that have been utilized in NYC for example to compare the differences in mass (and placement with regard to unit layouts for that matter)... which appear to be significant...

yes, there are better unit plans in this building, but I'm not sure the other bedrooms in this unit come close to looking like that rendering (and it also appears that your rendering is of a much larger bedroom then the one in the plan I posted)... particularly at the widest/thickest part of the frustum (which as you pointed out also, varies significantly) that results in a much deeper pocket for that window...

anyway, I'm not interested in arguing the personal opinions about the design, I'm just pointing out the effects and the incongruities with expectations of an all glass high-rise... comparing it to a dormer situation in a single family home is interesting...

I've always found achieving functional and efficient condo layouts in highrises challenging, particularly resolving the unforgiving structural requirements... I think the plan I've highlighted just serves to show that with this building it appears to be especially challenging...

What I don't understand is why there appears to be many who need to defend the design of this building on all accounts...

The interior slopes with the exterior. Floor plate size and usable square footage increases and decreases with the inward or outward climbing shear walls.

[pilsenarch]

^wow. thanks for the clarification... I can't imagine the engineering that went into those shear wall calculations... maybe that's why they look so overengineered... having a shear wall that moves completely in and out in the opposite direction from what would appear to be the lateral force it's reacting against just seems so highly inefficient...

So, I guess based upon the interior renderings they are 'straightening' the exterior sheer walls with drywall on the interior? (I'd insist they expose the angled concrete in my unit)...

anyway, this brings us back to the misleading exterior renderings where this all started... I swear, some of the exterior renderings that actually do depict the shear walls show volume/space behind the glass... I highly doubt they will be using vision glass, or what is called shadow boxes in front of those shear walls... regardless, I can guarantee you that when the building was conceived, none of this amazing concrete shear wall system was even remotely imagined by the frustum conceiver...

[LouisVanDerWright]

"no matter what reality is, this is crappy engineering"

Ok dude, whatever, rotational forces are not going to be stronger against a sheer wall the slopes than a strictly vertical wall. This isn't trying to stop the building from swaying, it's to stop it from torquing and a gently sloping wall is not going to have any significantly less efficient effect than a perfectly verticle one. The both stiffen the structure.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

well, you can question my motives, but if you are going to argue that the quality of those bedrooms is what one would expect entering an all glass skyscraper, I would suggest you have an inability to read plans...

those exterior walls are over 4' thick... all-in-all, even the living and kitchen spaces are awkward (check out the location of the stove, the size of the structure, the huge wasted space in the kitchen)... this is not the kind of floor plan I would expect to see in a corner unit in what is supposed to be the most luxurious tower in the city...

this structural system didn't happen by accident, it is a direct result of the frustums...

so, sorry, I know that this building is a gift from God...

You're cherry picking apartments from the lower floors to try and illustrate your point.

[pilsenarch]

68th Floor:


Again, the point is, do these plans represent the expectation of openness that the tower sales itself as? I for one would not expect to have a 3 bedroom condo with 3 exposures on the 68th floor of a all glass tower and have to get out of bed and walk up to a 32" wide window in order to view out of two of the bedrooms (it appears they are only showing queen and full size beds in all of the layouts, an old trick but a good one)

and what's with the two stonehenge like shear wall slabs eating up half the living space? (in this case, it would appear that those two slabs do indeed run vertically)

The necessity of the structural design has made even this high floor plan result in very awkward inefficiencies, redundant circulation, unusable space... not the kind of plan I would expect for the price they are asking... it would seem that with most of the layouts in Vista, occupants will not be able to avoid the feeling that they are constantly moving in and out of bunkers...

Also, I assume all of these plans show the layouts at the most GSF, so you will have to imagine the above floor plan at the narrowest point... not a pretty picture...

[10023]

^ that is an ENORMOUS 3 bedroom, btw.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

68th Floor:


Again, the point is, do these plans represent the expectation of openness that the tower sales itself as? I for one would not expect to have a 3 bedroom condo with 3 exposures on the 68th floor of a all glass tower and have to get out of bed and walk up to a 32" wide window in order to view out of two of the bedrooms (it appears they are only showing queen and full size beds in all of the layouts, an old trick but a good one)

and what's with the two stonehenge like shear wall slabs eating up half the living space? (in this case, it would appear that those two slabs do indeed run vertically)

The necessity of the structural design has made even this high floor plan result in very awkward inefficiencies, redundant circulation, unusable space... not the kind of plan I would expect for the price they are asking... it would seem that with most of the layouts in Vista, occupants will not be able to avoid the feeling that they are constantly moving in and out of bunkers...

Also, I assume all of these plans show the layouts at the most GSF, so you will have to imagine the above floor plan at the narrowest point... not a pretty picture...

What a bunch of nonsense.

These are perfectly fine floorplans.

[Le Baron]

I have to agree with pilsenarch here. The floorplans of One Bennet Park and 1000M, to name a couple, are substantially nicer. I find the Vista floorplans to be brutal, especially for the price.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Le Baron

I have to agree with pilsenarch here. The floorplans of One Bennet Park and 1000M, to name a couple, are substantially nicer. I find the Vista floorplans to be brutal, especially for the price.

Agreed. The West block is simply overburdened with structure.