CHICAGO | Aqua | 858 FT / 262 M | 87 FLOORS

[lawfin]

^^^I go back and forth but bottom line I find it gimmicky

[Steely Dan]

i can't think of a single highrise tower constructed anywhere in this city (or indeed much of this nation) in the past 3 decades that comes anywhere close to touching the magic of Aqua.

that might be faint praise considering the time period in question, but still, this tower is the real deal and LONG overdue.

[ardecila]

I don't know about magic, but we've had some pretty cool towers go up. These are just the progressively modern ones: Hyatt Center, 1 South Dearborn, Skybridge, 235 West Van Buren, 340 On The Park, etc.

If you, like me, also think buildings like OMP, OMPW, Legacy, 353 North Clark, and Trump also contribute to the architectural vitality of the city, then there are those as well.

[Nowhereman1280]

Aqua is one of my favorite buildings of the boom and one of the few that actually represents innovation in architecture and engineer and best of all it is entirely homegrown, offering hope for the future of the Chicago architectural community.

[EarlyBuyer]

Update released by Magellan 5/14/09:

"...landscaping featuring interesting topography was installed on the outdoor deck this week along with the framing for the gazebos. The tiling around the indoor lap pool is near completion and looks gorgeous! Additionally, IPod docking stations are being installed throughout the Shore Club amenities for custom music options. Furniture for the Skygarden and Party Rooms were delivered this week. Framing is still at floor 70 and drywall is installed through floor 56..."

[george]

5-14-09

[Aleks]

Umm... I really thought this would come out better. I still like but now that I see the finished product I would like it more in Dubai Marina or someplace of the sort [Panama would be nice too].

It's just that it doesn't strike me as "Chicago". I'm not sure if that makes to everyone else but it makes sense to me. Compare it to Trump [well, you can't really but whatever], which fits perfectly in Chicago. Aqua is nice, it's really nice, but not in Chicago. I think the thing that bothers me are the "waves". They don't look as good as I expected and again, compared to another buildings, the Beekman, which also has "waves", Beekman looks better in terms of surroundings, design, the way it's coming along, the flow of the waves, blah blah blah.

I'm not hating on this building, I'm just not as big of a fan that I thought I was.

[modkris]

Maybe you don't understand what "Chicago" is then. People were saying the same thing about Trump not too long ago. I think the architect, Jeanne Gang knows Chicago architecture better than most. The balcony "waves" are inspired by the rock formations that can be found all over the great lakes. Personally I don't think this building belongs anywhere but Chicago. Hopefully it will help change people's narrow minds about what Chicago architecture "is" now and can become in the future.

[Ardvark]

It amazes me how much the Aqua in George's pictures (post 4907) resembles the original drawing in the first post.

Stunning use of existing materials, and relatively cheap too...
I think it's a masterpiece.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by george

^ I can't get over this staircase. It's just so cool. I hope they don't paint it.

I imagine all these different neighborhood grade separations connected by outdoor public staircases is emerging as another "Chicago" thing, if you will. Of all of them, though, this one pictured above seems to be the most stylized

[ardecila]

The spiral definitely has its share of blemishes, though. The ugly amalgam of variously-sized CMUs and columns in the back is rather ugly, the red detectable warnings on the stairs are glaringly bright, and the water drainage sucks (one step was flooded with 3" of water on Wednesday).

I'm also hoping the handrails are temporary - right now they're just galvanized pipe with electrical tape on the ends. The other fixtures are kinda ugly, too - there are security lightsaffixed to the inside of the spiral that look off-the-shelf from Home Depot, and the scupper that drains one of the steps does not project the water far enough out, so it gets blown back onto people descending the stairs. The water from this drips down the concrete, and it's already staining.

My impression of the stair was probably influenced by the generally awful day on which I visited it, but if it can't handle rainwater, there's a serious problem. Many points of cost-cutting and design compromise exist on these stairs - I really hope that most of these are temporary problems, and that the stairs have plenty more finishing work to be done. If not, then Jeanne Gang will have seriously disappointed me in what is perhaps the grandest public gesture of the entire project.

God, I still can't get over the idea of those god-awful red detectable warnings... because I KNOW those aren't going anywhere, and they can't even fade since they're in the shade. They're obviously available in less jarring colors.

This photo illustrates most of my gripes, although EB's excellent composition makes it seem rosier than reality:

Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer

[avngingandbright]

Hate to be a party pooper, but doesn't that staircase provide quite an opportunity for crime?

[djvandrake]

Maybe I should have been a touch more specific rather than make such a generalized statement.

(and also let me state for the record I'm a HUGE fan of Chicago architecture. 340 on the Park to me is the essence of beauty. )

If I can point out from the excellent pictures posted by George;

Originally Posted by george

5-14-09

In the first three images above, I'll agree with Steely. Magic, with the one glaring exception of the floor where they skipped a set of balconies about 2/3 the way up (Why? Destroys the flow! ). From this angle looking up at the tower a full appreciation of the form is visible, and of how much inspired genius went into it's design.

In the fourth image with the higher vantage point the effect of the form goes from inspired to......well? Messy. It looks dark, cluttered, and the overhangs eliminate the availabilty of glass surface area to catch the light and really shine. The contrast is semi-lost. Now you could argue the play of foucs from the white balconies to the darker colored glass area achieves that, but in my opinion the higher up your vantage point (or the farther away you view it) this building loses it's magic.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by djvandrake

with the one glaring exception of the floor where they skipped a set of balconies about 2/3 the way up (Why? Destroys the flow! ).

it's a mechanical floor, there would be no functional reason to have balconies located at that level. it makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by djvandrake

In the fourth image with the higher vantage point the effect of the form goes from inspired to......well? Messy. It looks dark, cluttered, and the overhangs eliminate the availabilty of glass surface area to catch the light and really shine. The contrast is semi-lost. Now you could argue the play of foucs from the white balconies to the darker colored glass area achieves that, but in my opinion the higher up your vantage point (or the farther away you view it) this building loses it's magic.

i wholly disagree. the building is perhaps even more magical from a distance because it drifts into relative anonymity as just another chicago box, and yet as you draw closer it morphs into this other-worldy form. i love how this building pulls off that trick. it doesn't draw attention to itself until you're right on top of (underneath) it. that's a neat trick and i'm certain there's a fair bit of genius behind it.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's a mechanical floor, there would be no functional reason to have balconies located at that level. it makes sense to me.

Purist functionality vs. non-functional ornament is one thing, but I don't think any architecture critic or modernist diehard would drag Jeanne Gang into the street and stone her for including a much needed visual continuance at this mechanical floor. I'm with the others in saying that it doesn't ruin the building, but it does take away from the wave effect.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by modkris

Maybe you don't understand what "Chicago" is then. People were saying the same thing about Trump not too long ago. I think the architect, Jeanne Gang knows Chicago architecture better than most. The balcony "waves" are inspired by the rock formations that can be found all over the great lakes. Personally I don't think this building belongs anywhere but Chicago. Hopefully it will help change people's narrow minds about what Chicago architecture "is" now and can become in the future.

I'm not saying the design is ugly. But it's not as good as I expected it to be. And it's also not that the architecture isn't "Chicago", I just don't think the building was designed well enough. Maybe it's not even that! The waves from one side aren't good looking. Like in this picture, the waves don't look as graceful, as random or as good as the waves on this picture. And Trump was the complete opposite for me. I thought it would look ugly and it wouldn't fit but now that I see the finished product it looks even better than the renderings! Which is a pretty hard accomplishment for nearly all building in general!

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i wholly disagree. the building is perhaps even more magical from a distance because it drifts into relative anonymity as just another chicago box, and yet as you draw closer it morphs into this other-worldy form. i love how this building pulls off that trick. it doesn't draw attention to itself until you're right on top of (underneath) it. that's a neat trick and i'm certain there's a fair bit of genius behind it.

You're right on this part. The actual building is designed nicely. The box "beneath" the waves looks really good and I feel like if it was by it's self it would look pretty modern, sleek, and fit in. But as you get closer I feel different, especially from the bottom. And like I said in my other response, some sides look good, while others look too randomized.

But I haven't really seen this building in real life so I can't be too sure about it. Maybe this Summer I'll check it out [maybe] and I'll be able to see the entire building and actually experience it instead of just looking at pictures.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I think the lack of the mech floor wave is genius. Not only would it be a completely stupid waste of time and materials to build it, but it being a blank spot allows you to see the true box that exists inside. Besides, if you've ever actually seen the building in real life you can't ever see the lack of the wave from any angle where the wave pattern is truly spectacular, its only from a few blocks away that it is visible. The entire essence of this building is that it never looks the same. From a distance it is only a box. From right underneath, if you move but 5 feet in any direction, its appearance is completely altered.

[Soaring_Higher]

this building rocks! It has exceeded my expectations.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Aqua is one of my favorite buildings of the boom and one of the few that actually represents innovation in architecture and engineer and best of all it is entirely homegrown, offering hope for the future of the Chicago architectural community.

^^Young, Ardent and of course never wrong......a ..shall we say.....volatile....mix

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by modkris View Post
Maybe you don't understand what "Chicago" is then. People were saying the same thing about Trump not too long ago. I think the architect, Jeanne Gang knows Chicago architecture better than most. The balcony "waves" are inspired by the rock formations that can be found all over the great lakes. Personally I don't think this building belongs anywhere but Chicago. Hopefully it will help change people's narrow minds about what Chicago architecture "is" now and can become in the future.

Boy...I lived here....actually born and raised in the city for well over 30 years...I am a dying breed...and I would never be arrogant enough to claim I know....:what "Chicago" IS or How "Chicago" something X is.....


some people are so convinced they can reconcile complexity and fully understand chaos......

To them I humbly offer Chicago