CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS - Page 4

Mr Downtown · #61 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 3:24 PM**

Yes, the primary goal of architecture should be Novelty.

LouisVanDerWright · #62 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 3:30 PM**

^^^ No one said that, he said that thinking outside of the box is a good thing. I think you will have a hard time convincing most people that it's not a good thing. And, you know what, if the budget allows, then yes, novelty is great for architecture assuming it doesn't sacrifice function. I am personally a big time less is more modernist, but I would never want a city of only Miesian boxes. Hell, what do you think all prior styles of architecture to Modernism were? They were all novelty whether it is second empire mansard roofs, the ridiculous crown and cladding on the Carbide and Carbon Building, the impractically ornate design of the Jewlers Building, etc. That was back when budgets allowed architectural novelty and, frankly, if the Chinese are willing to come to Chicago and pay for 21st century architectural novelty, I'll take it. Again, I think it follows all the same strains as brutalism did: A playful rejection of the trap of rigid modernism. As long as this building is clad in quality materials, it will turn out great and contribute another layer of architectural intrigue to our skyline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenmore

ok, now i get it

It should be black like that, preferably with no windows. Actually, it should just be clad in black precast panels like the Roosevelt Tower. The more oppressive and dystopian the better.

Chicago Shawn · #63 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 4:15 PM**

^^LVW, I think you hit the nail on the head: Gang is leading the way into a 21st century take on brutalism; an alternate path forward deviating from the modernist revival seen in so many new buildings. I agree this would look best dressed in black. Add some darth-vador bronze tinted windows and it would proudly scream 'I will eat your soul' as the best brutalist buildings do.

I think massing is excellent and tallest portion being further east is gesture of grand things to come at the mouth of the river.

Greatly looking forward to this breaking the Streetville/LSE height plateau; its going to look great rising above the crowd when viewing this from the north or south lakefront.

I had a chance to speak with the upper echelon of Magellan after the Gino's East community meeting. After I heard Chinese money was going in on this project I jokingly replied "that means the building will be 88 floors, right?" to which he just smiled. This news confirms what I have been anticipating for the last month.

rgolch · #64 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawainpanda

this is great, but i hope it doesn't hurt the spire's ability to get funding, I know spire will be condo's, but Related did have interest in building some apts in the spire

They have no bearing on each other. The Spire is a long-shot under any circumstances. This has way more possibility of becoming reality. We've learned the hard way in Chicago that you can't pop the corks on the Champaign until the buildings are topped out (looking at you Waterview Tower and Spire). But given that this is a foreign investor ready to commit almost a billion dollars on their first foray into the US market, I'd say the possibility of this being built are very, very good.

wierdaaron · #65 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

I had a chance to speak with the upper echelon of Magellan after the Gino's East community meeting. After I heard Chinese money was going in on this project I jokingly replied "that means the building will be 88 floors, right?" to which he just smiled. This news confirms what I have been anticipating for the last month.

Is that like a lucky number 8 thing? The number being claimed now is 89, but maybe that's so the alderman has something to chop off. Given that design, it seems like any significant height alteration would require lots of re engineering of the angles. I guess that's one advantage of elaborate designs, it makes it harder to arbitrarily shorten it, whereas modernist or tripartite design can be stretched or shortened without much math.

The hotel will only have about 250 rooms, which accounts for maybe 25 stories in one of the 3 towers. There'll probably be more residential or commercial than hotel. The Peninsula and Langham hotels in town are also 5 star hotels owned by Chinese companies.

rlw777 · #66 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 4:39 PM**

Illustrated

Zapatan · #67 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 5:05 PM**

Taipei 101 gone wrong

Nice to see an 1150' building in the works in Chicago but the design needs work, but if it is built like that I'd probably grow to like it.

ChiTownWonder · #68 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 5:07 PM**

maybe if the smallest tower on the right was removed it would look a lot better, more slender, and a bit more composed. but honestly i do like the design, It would contrast the tallest buildings from the 70's very well. this is a first for Chicago, probably the most contemporary skyscraper in Chicago if built

UPChicago · #69 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 5:11 PM**

reminds me of a less interesting version of the Toronto proposal.

ChiTownWonder · #70 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 5:16 PM**

sorry but i honestly hate the new Toronto proposals. the facades are nice but the actual shape of the tower is too random. in this LSE proposal, there is at least a pattern to a building

Steely Dan · #71 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago

reminds me of a less interesting version of the Toronto proposal.

i'm failing to see much of any similarities between the two.

Notyrview · #72 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 5:26 PM**

yea whatever the Toronto designs are a pretentious mess. I do hope the Gang proposal is still in the works though. This reminds me too much of one57 in manhattan, the base of which is totally hideous.

the urban politician · #73 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 6:01 PM**

I have a newfound respect for Chinese billionaires

UPChicago · #74 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 6:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'm failing to see much of any similarities between the two.

Both are very tall undulating deconstructionist towers.

aaron38 · #75 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 6:31 PM**

Given its location in LSE I don't mind the overall design. It's a 21st century neighborhood and will look fine in context. What I don't like is how it purposefully disrespects the existing street wall. Jutting out and sloping in, when a flush fit with the adjacent buildings would look better, before beginning the zigzag.

I do miss arquetectonica though. That would have been absolutely iconic going north on lake shore drive. I'd love to see a render of Gang's proposal looking north from say Monroe.

scalziand · #76 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 6:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It should be black like that, preferably with no windows. Actually, it should just be clad in black precast panels like the Roosevelt Tower. The more oppressive and dystopian the better.

Funny you should mention the Roosevelt Tower, because if the the glass on here matches that, it should turn out ok.

the urban politician · #77 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

What I don't like is how it purposefully disrespects the existing street wall. Jutting out and sloping in, when a flush fit with the adjacent buildings would look better, before beginning the zigzag.

^ I thought about it as well, but the Spertus Institute really doesn't take away from the Mich Avenue streetwall despite its design. In a way, it sort of adds 'punctuation' to it.

A good streetwall will have very little deviation from it, but a few odd buildings can sometimes stand out and become that much more distinct. The key is to not have too many buildings like this, where it turns into a cacaphony of "look at me" buildings.

chris08876 · #78 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 6:51 PM**

WTF. Whats up with all of these supertall proposals in one day. This, Jersey City, Nordstrom tower massive height increase. My heart, ahahchchccccckckc

Good for Chicago. Finally, a supertall proposal. Looks pretty trippy in design. Something new architecturally. I like it.

Steely Dan · #79 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Both are very tall undulating deconstructionist towers.

i guess, but Gang's design is so much more highly ordered and restrained. it's still deconstructivist if i had to place it anywhere, but without the arbitrary whimsy Gehry has become so famous for. Gang's design is still quite austere and serious in an appropriately chicago kinda way. two very different designs; i don't see one as being a less or more interesting version of the other.

hunser · #80 Posted **Jul 9, 2014, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

WTF. Whats up with all of these supertall proposals in one day. This, Jersey City, Nordstrom tower massive height increase. My heart, ahahchchccccckckc

Good for Chicago. Finally, a supertall proposal. Looks pretty trippy in design. Something new architecturally. I like it.

Yeah, I think I already need a break!

And to think I was just on vacation last week ...

Anyways, finally a solid supertall proposal for Chicago which seems legit. I won't judge the design till further, better renderings surface.