CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS - Page 48

Skyguy_7 · #1 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 2:01 PM**

^I am in agreement with you. I didn't understand the point of the second vocab in the base at first, but now I totally get it. I see 3 towers. What an excellent design. Can't wait for "Summer 2016," which is technically 9 months from now

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The Model!!!

Beautiful! The model ain't bad either.

munchymunch · #2 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 4:13 AM**

Beautiful.

pilsenarch · #3 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 12:22 PM**

First, thanks BVic!

I know I'll get a ton of grief for this, but hearing Jeanne talk again about the frustums made me laugh hard enough this morning that I spewed my latte.

Having said that, it appears that they took some of my advice and fixed most, if not all, of the problems with the base. Most importantly, they added the 'second vocabulary' which although they introduced a while ago, now for the first time it appears solidly on the bustle building without any lingering frustum vocabulary. This allows the three towers to stand 'alone'. It also appears that they straightened the bottom of the westernmost frustum to meet Gems II.

BVictor1 · #4 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 2:54 PM**

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...o-high-rise-in

Quote:

September 17, 2015
See the condo interiors planned for Jeanne Gang's next high-rise
By Dennis Rodkin

Rendering of a living room in the new building.

Hoping to capture the attention of art-minded patrons of this week's Expo Chicago contemporary art fair, the developer of architect Jeanne Gang's next Chicago tower released the first images of proposed interior designs for the condos.

A video of Gang talking about the project is on the website for the building.

California firm Hirsh Bedner Associates designed the interiors. "They were designed to be in keeping with the architecture of the exterior" that Gang designed, said Jim Losik, national marketing director for Magellan Development Group, developer of the 92-story tower planned for East Wacker Drive.

rlw777 · #5 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 3:51 PM**

Render from the website video

Jibba · #6 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 6:58 PM**

Those interiors are incredibly underwhelming. And not sophisticated in the least. A pastiche of already stale trends. They should have worked with Getty's or PYR, both local and with much better taste.

But the building looks pretty good otherwise.

123fakestreet · #7 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 8:00 PM**

...

ithakas · #8 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 8:21 PM**

Just got back from Expo – they had some interesting on-site marketing activation going on for Vista. Basically 10 or so standalone frustum sculptures next to the entrance with girls in futurist white sleeveless hooded dresses wearing big headphones and looking at iPads.

CHI -21c · #9 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 10:03 PM**

I plead with all of you to LOOK PAST SHINE, LOOK PAST TWILIGHT SHOTS.
Every single building is shiny and glimmers at twilight... We all are excited about a supertall, but be critical.

I think we and Gang are kidding ourselves. It's an economical design and will be the mother of all V.E. glass boxes.

This a major problem with selecting pretentious "novelty form makers". They always need to be watered down to nothing.

Honest, beauty-seeking design is not mutually exclusive with creative architectural engineering.

Skyguy_7 · #10 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 11:10 PM**

^The design makes economic sense. It is the most creative design possible for the lowest amount of money possible. Sorry the if developers disappointed you, but they're not in it to please critics. They're in it to make money. Here's hoping they take the high returns from this investment and dump them into aesthetics in the next investment.

rlw777 · #11 Posted **Sep 18, 2015, 1:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHI -21c

I plead with all of you to LOOK PAST SHINE, LOOK PAST TWILIGHT SHOTS.
Every single building is shiny and glimmers at twilight... We all are excited about a supertall, but be critical.

I think we and Gang are kidding ourselves. It's an economical design and will be the mother of all V.E. glass boxes.

This a major problem with selecting pretentious "novelty form makers". They always need to be watered down to nothing.

Honest, beauty-seeking design is not mutually exclusive with creative architectural engineering.

Meh. I like the design. I'm not a fan of the BS afterthought rationale for several of the design decisions... but it's doing a lot of things quite well. I'm especially impressed with the plan for this thing to connect upper wacker, lower wacker, LSE, and the riverwalk. Actually even in some of the areas where the Gang rationale is really weak I feel like they made some decent design choices though they don't seem to know why.

It doesn't bother me in the least to have 'novelty form makers' and actually it doesn't bother me that some designers create a design before working through rationale. Some designers are playful and intuitive in their approach and some are very formal and cerebral. What does bother me is when it's pretty obvious they were lazy with the design decisions before, during, and/or after they created it.

Ned.B · #12 Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 123fakestreet

9-4 ceiling heights seem pretty low for this price point.

What is considered an appropriate ceiling height for this price point? 9'4 sounds plenty high to me, given that all of the rooms will be open to expansive views, but I've spent most of my time in vintage 1920s high rises where 9 to 9'-6" was pretty much the standard.

123fakestreet · #13 Posted **Sep 18, 2015, 2:23 PM**

...

SamInTheLoop · #14 Posted **Sep 18, 2015, 3:28 PM**

^ Very much agreed.....what is this, amateur hour? This is certainly not the price point at which you skimp on ceiling heights......10' is where they should start..........

SamInTheLoop · #15 Posted **Sep 18, 2015, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

Those interiors are incredibly underwhelming. And not sophisticated in the least. A pastiche of already stale trends. They should have worked with Getty's or PYR, both local and with much better taste.

But the building looks pretty good otherwise.

Yes, yes, yes on the interiors......I was shocked at how utterly uninspired these first renderings are......I think a lot of the disappointment here - whether it's too-low ceiling heights, interiors, etc surely must reflect Magellan's input, as opposed to Dalian Wanda Group's...........Magellan I don't think 'gets' the super-luxury segment of the market, which, after all is what this tower by all accounts is really going for.....

the urban politician · #16 Posted **Sep 18, 2015, 2:10 AM**

1 bedrooms starting at $900k? Ok, this is clearly not gonna be Cabrini Green

hawainpanda · #17 Posted **Sep 18, 2015, 3:23 AM**

I have to say...never liked the design i itially...but really like the new renders

wierdaaron · #18 Posted **Sep 18, 2015, 4:46 PM**

People will put up with incredibly short ceilings to live in a signature building (Aqua, Hancock) or for luxe finishings (Gold Coast).

SamInTheLoop · #19 Posted **Sep 18, 2015, 5:12 PM**

^ Way different price point here than Aqua or Hancock........look at the few very high end condos we've seen come out of the ground this cycle - State/Elm, No 9 W, etc: I'm sure they have at least 10' ceilings.....

Ryanrule · #20 Posted **Sep 18, 2015, 5:33 PM**

i find many many condos in chicago to be overpriced for what you get.
what happens is the price points get moved up.
average gets a luxury price. luxury gets an ultra lux price. ultra lux isnt even built.