CHICAGO | The Row (900 W Randolph) | 495 FT | 43 FLOORS - Page 35

SolarWind · #**681** Posted **Apr 16, 2023, 8:16 AM**

April 6, 2023

April 11, 2023

April 12, 2023

April 13, 2023

left of center · #**682** Posted **Apr 18, 2023, 4:23 PM**

This building has turned out great. I love the steelwork on the facade, giving the building an industrial look, which is reminiscent of the neighborhood's past. 10/10 design!

Thanks for the pics, Solar!

dropdeaded209 · #**683** Posted **Apr 18, 2023, 5:17 PM**

certainly nice to see another robust, dusky highrise anchor a neighborhood, tho the asymmetrical inset balconies at the top are awkward.

mh777 · #**684** Posted **Apr 18, 2023, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209

the asymmetrical inset balconies at the top are awkward.

Couldn't agree more. Glad I'm not the only one who is annoyed by that.

HomrQT · #**685** Posted **Apr 18, 2023, 10:44 PM**

Man this building just oozes cool. Despite its height, it works very well in this warehouse/factory style centric neighborhood.

r18tdi · #**686** Posted **Apr 19, 2023, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh777

Couldn't agree more. Glad I'm not the only one who is annoyed by that.

It looks fine on the diagonals, but head-on it triggers my OCD.

Steely Dan · #**687** Posted **Apr 19, 2023, 9:37 PM**

I find the mere presence of the voids more disappointing than theoir asymmetry.

But I guess you can't rent penthouse units for 8 billion dollars a month without giant terraces.

LouisVanDerWright · #**688** Posted **Apr 21, 2023, 2:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I find the mere presence of the voids more disappointing than theoir asymmetry.

But I guess you can't rent penthouse units for 8 billion dollars a month without giant terraces.

It would be infinitely more cool if this was a steel superstructure. since this is just faux steel its kinda lame.

left of center · #**689** Posted **Apr 21, 2023, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It would be infinitely more cool if this was a steel superstructure. since this is just faux steel its kinda lame.

Agreed, but just because it isn't doesn't really detract from the design visually.

99% of people wouldn't know the difference anyway. It's still a very well executed design. We could have had some beige precast River North turd instead... god forbid lol

Steely Dan · #**690** Posted **Apr 22, 2023, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

since this is just faux steel its kinda lame.

Meh.

All of those steel framed first Chicago school buildings clad with stone, brick, and terra cotta are all "faux" as well, so I guess they're all kinda lame too?

In fact, the Monadnock is the only honest one. why should we bother saving any of the remaining imposters?

Architects have been mixing the structural and facade materials of skyscrapers since the very literal beginning of the building type's existence.

LouisVanDerWright · #**691** Posted **Apr 22, 2023, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Meh.

All of those steel framed first Chicago school buildings clad with stone, brick, and terra cotta are all "faux" as well, so I guess they're all kinda lame too?

Nonsense, the cladding on the old Chicago School highrises serves a purpose and was required to protect the steel from fire. And yes, the ones that tried to look like a 25 floor version of the Parthenon were lame as hell from an aesthetic perspective.

Quote:

Architects have been mixing the structural and facade materials of skyscrapers since the very literal beginning of the building type's existence.

It's not about mixing materials, its about the fakeness of making it look like faux steel and then extending it exposed as if that structure is doing anything at all. It's a hokey way to terminate this design, doesn't mean this is a terrible building, it's just very fake looking. Again, not that it's totally ruined, it just pales in comparison to the beauty of the old school loft architecture and elevated structures it's trying to run with.

Speaking of, why is it so hard for someone to build an actual reinforced concrete building with exposed structure today? Like what's stopping someone from just building an extruded clone of the old funnel column warehouses with brick infill? Is it the lack of thermal breaks on the structure?

Steely Dan · #**692** Posted **Apr 22, 2023, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Nonsense, the cladding on the old Chicago School highrises serves a purpose

Nonsense.

All cladding serves a purpose.

There is zero difference in my mind between a steel frame building clad with masonry and a concrete frame building clad with metal.

LouisVanDerWright · #**693** Posted **Apr 22, 2023, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Nonsense.

All cladding serves a purpose.

There is zero difference in my mind between a steel frame building clad with masonry and a concrete frame building clad with metal.

There absolutely is a difference, the metal skin covering up concrete is purely ornamental. It is not required by code. It is not doing anything except masking the true nature of the building.

Terra cotta was required by the city fire code. It HAD to be there, there was no option of leaving the steel exposed. As we can see from the armada of exposed poured concrete towers built in recent history in Chicago, the skin on this tower is entirely optional. It's a farce, a nice looking farce, but it's nothing more than decor.

left of center · #**694** Posted **Apr 22, 2023, 10:43 PM**

^ You would prefer this building kept its exterior as exposed reinforced concrete, because its more "honest"?

pilsenarch · #**695** Posted **Apr 23, 2023, 1:07 PM**

Kinda ironic that LVDW has such an issue with the 'honesty' of cladding concrete structure with metal, but absolutely worships the 5' thick exterior concrete walls of the St. Regis being clad with floor to ceiling glass...