CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS - Page 301

SouthByMidwest · #1 Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 2:32 PM**

^That last photo had like 16 clicks on it straight from this SSP thread to my Flickr. Cool.

Vista by James Fremont, on Flickr

I'll add another one. Taken with Glowrock from the north steps of the Field Museum.

Untitled by James Fremont, on Flickr

cozy · #2 Posted **Feb 11, 2020, 7:06 PM**

^ harsh

but.. true

bhawk66 · #3 Posted **Feb 12, 2020, 4:07 PM**

Ummm, how different would the blow-thru look had it been conceived of earlier in the design? I'm guessing pretty much the same. Not a lot you can do with empty space.

woodrow · #4 Posted **Feb 13, 2020, 8:39 PM**

That is fascinating. Imagine if it was the original 70 to 90 difference, rather than the 81 to 90 that is is. It would have been significantly more sculptural (?). The 11 feet is really significant.

woodrow · #5 Posted **Feb 14, 2020, 3:38 PM**

Can someone with mad photoshop skills show the building with a 70 ft to 90 ft floor plate difference? Would be interesting to see an approximation. I have no skills

pilsenarch · #6 Posted **Feb 14, 2020, 11:00 PM**

I also think Jeanne is a brilliant designer and has done some sublime work.

This, however, is not one of them.

Fun Fact: Benjamin Romano, designer of Torre Reforma (Building of the Year 2020 by Arch Daily) https://www.archdaily.com/792721/tor...rma-lbr-plus-a, is an educator as well. He takes his students on trips around the world to study both good and bad examples of design and I am afraid he took his students on a tour of Vista last year as an example of how to absolutely not design a skyscraper.

I know everyone wants to love this new tall tower.

You can all have your opinions about the building as a sculpture, but when you critique this design from a strictly functional and/or structural perspective, it is quite simply a failure.

Steely Dan · #7 Posted **Feb 14, 2020, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

from a structural perspective, it is quite simply a failure.

the only way that any structure can be deemed a structural failure, in any objective sense, is if it in fact fails (ie. falls down)

short of that, any other judgement will be chock-full of all kinds of subjective criteria.

pilsenarch · #8 Posted **Feb 15, 2020, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the only way that any structure can be deemed a structural failure, in any objective sense, is if it in fact fails (ie. falls down)

short of that, any other judgement will be chock-full of all kinds of subjective criteria.

of course, you are right... as far as a structural 'failure', I was referring to the efficiencies (or the extreme lack there of) of Vista's structural design...

Tom In Chicago · #9 Posted **Feb 15, 2020, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

of course, you are right... as far as a structural 'failure', I was referring to the efficiencies (or the extreme lack there of) of Vista's structural design...

The only time structural inefficiencies matter is when they turn into economic ones. . .

. . .

Goose Island Guru · #10 Posted **Feb 17, 2020, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

The only time structural inefficiencies matter is when they turn into economic ones. . .

. . .

Paying a premium for something (a structure) the end user can't see or doesn't care about is, by definition, economically inefficient.

pilsenarch · #11 Posted **Feb 17, 2020, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goose Island Guru

Paying a premium for something (a structure) the end user can't see or doesn't care about is, by definition, economically inefficient.

Yes. Thank you.

Tom In Chicago · #12 Posted **Feb 17, 2020, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goose Island Guru

Paying a premium for something (a structure) the end user can't see or doesn't care about is, by definition, economically inefficient.

My post was meant to be read rhetorically. . . apologies to those who are not yet familiar with my posting style. . .

. . .

gandalf612 · #13 Posted **Feb 15, 2020, 5:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Fun Fact: Benjamin Romano, designer of Torre Reforma (Building of the Year 2020 by Arch Daily) https://www.archdaily.com/792721/tor...rma-lbr-plus-a, is an educator as well. He takes his students on trips around the world to study both good and bad examples of design and I am afraid he took his students on a tour of Vista last year as an example of how to absolutely not design a skyscraper.

Fun fact Gang teaches at Harvard's Graduate School of Design. Being an educator does not automatically endow one's OPINIONS with infallibility.

ChiTownWonder · #14 Posted **Feb 15, 2020, 11:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gandalf612

Fun fact Gang teaches at Harvard's Graduate School of Design. Being an educator does not automatically endow one's OPINIONS with infallibility.

In the world of architecture schools, I'd argue otherwise (speaking from experience). Architecture is wildly subjective, where success is based on image and having the "correct" opinions.

Donnie77 · #15 Posted **Feb 20, 2020, 1:38 AM**

Is there lights on top four corners cuz I only see twould and is that legal?

chris08876 · #16 Posted **Feb 20, 2020, 6:39 AM**

I believe it has to do with the intensity of the light. Was trying to find the FAA reg, but IDK if maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any # requirement.

Does anybody have the reg cited?

Possibly amount and location/orientation was determined via FAA submission.

Citizen · #17 Posted **Feb 23, 2020, 9:05 PM**

Any chance they'll paint or seal the balcony ceilings black or dark gray? I think that would be much nicer than raw concrete.

KWillChicago · #18 Posted **Feb 23, 2020, 9:19 PM**

Good point. I find it hard to believe people paying that type of money would want to look at concrete while chilling outside.

bhawk66 · #19 Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 12:28 AM**

These balconies are a huge mistake, imo. Exposed concrete in a million(s) dollar condo = complete miss. It doesn't even matter what color (if any) they paint the ceilings of the balconies. It would still be painted concrete and represent a B-grade dwelling. I sense this project will ultimately prove a failure. Terrible missteps on this building. A billion dollar poser on the lakefront. Again, imo.

And to be fair to Jeanne Gang, I am absolutely certain she was ordered by the developers to include the balconies. This is 100% on them.

Goose Island Guru · #20 Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 1:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66

These balconies are a huge mistake, imo. Exposed concrete in a million(s) dollar condo = complete miss. It doesn't even matter what color (if any) they paint the ceilings of the balconies. It would still be painted concrete and represent a B-grade dwelling. I sense this project will ultimately prove a failure. Terrible missteps on this building. A billion dollar poser on the lakefront. Again, imo.

And to be fair to Jeanne Gang, I am absolutely certain she was ordered by the developers to include the balconies. This is 100% on them.

I don’t think they’re fully exposed concrete. One picture shows a white paint on the underside. Can’t tell whether there’s a walking surface finish by these pictures.

In all fairness they’re so far behind with construction I wouldn’t be shocked if they still framed in ceilings at least on the upper condo floors. The waterproof paint at the very least. If they don’t do an outdoor tile on the walking surface that’s an embarrassment.