CHICAGO | Aqua | 858 FT / 262 M | 87 FLOORS - Page 91

dallasbrink · #**1801** Posted **Oct 4, 2007, 2:49 PM**

Ya, this will be one of those towers that you either love or hate.

Steely Dan · #**1802** Posted **Oct 4, 2007, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Many moons ago someone asked for a larger rendering of Aqua.

THANK YOU!

god, for perhaps the greatest building chicago has built in a couple generations, it was truly frustrating that it took so long for a proper high-res rendering to get released.

if it turns out anything like the rendering above, this thing is gonna blow some minds.

*fingers super-extra-mega-crossed that it isn't VE'ed to shit*

Sir Isaac Newton · #**1803** Posted **Oct 4, 2007, 4:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer

Sir Isaac Newton, the tower will be on the Northwest side of the site (the yellow crane is next to the core). The larger lower part of the structure is the enormous podium, and that's not all of it. Other portions of the podium/related structures to be built East, North and Northeast of the tower have not yet been started, however below ground work is done.

The MO site cannot be seen in these photo's, however the tower will be on Stetson Avenue positioned behind and in-between (from a visual perspective in the first photo) the Fairmont Hotel and the Park Millennium condo tower.

THanks!

bjorda1 · #**1804** Posted **Oct 4, 2007, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldpainless

This is going to be one of those buildings whose popularity will be greatly affected by time. 25 years down the road this building will either hold up amazingly to the tests of time and be an incredible testament to the foresight of the architechs --- Or it will age very rapidly, become a huge eye sore and the source of much public angst like the Metlife building in New York. I just can't see it settling somewhere in the middle -- its too extreme for that. It all depends on where the trends in architecture go and how public opinion and taste changes.

Similar to the eyesore at 311 Wacker?

Rocket1 · #**1805** Posted **Oct 4, 2007, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldpainless

This is going to be one of those buildings whose popularity will be greatly affected by time. 25 years down the road this building will either hold up amazingly to the tests of time and be an incredible testament to the foresight of the architechs --- Or it will age very rapidly, become a huge eye sore and the source of much public angst like the Metlife building in New York. I just can't see it settling somewhere in the middle -- its too extreme for that. It all depends on where the trends in architecture go and how public opinion and taste changes.

At least if Aqua turns out to be an eyesore, it'll basically be hidden by its neighbors.

Alliance · #**1806** Posted **Oct 4, 2007, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjorda1

Similar to the eyesore at 311 Wacker?

At least they didn't built the other 2 of it.

chicagoguy1 · #**1807** Posted **Oct 4, 2007, 7:12 PM**

I actually love 311 South Wacker! I loved the late 80's-early 90's boom, 2 Pru, At&T and 311. To each his own.

Nowhereman1280 · #**1808** Posted **Oct 4, 2007, 8:09 PM**

^^^ Yeah 311 is one of those buildings I think people give too much shit and really isn't that ugly. Most lay people actually like it and I frequently get "The Sears tower is ugly, whats that pretty reddish thing with the white lights on top, I like that one."

I don't think its amazing or anything, but I like the overly detailed nature of it and the cylinders add a different shape to a very boxy part of the skyline. I also like how bright the top is at night.

I definitely don't think Aqua will be an eyesore, the design is just too original and seems almost foolproof. The whole super efficient rectangle shape is so cheep that it easily makes up for the extra expense of the balconies, thus I doubt it will be VE'd very much.

Tom In Chicago · #**1809** Posted **Oct 4, 2007, 11:34 PM**

^Just be thankful they never completed the other two. . .

Dr. Taco · #**1810** Posted **Oct 5, 2007, 8:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^Just be thankful they never completed the other two. . .

link? I haven't heard of previous proposals for 311 south wacker...

oops, O/T. but still...

Tom In Chicago · #**1811** Posted **Oct 5, 2007, 2:38 PM**

^There were supposed to be 3 identical buildings on that block. . . link? Lord no. . . there was no such thing as the Internet back in 1980s. . .

Alliance · #**1812** Posted **Oct 5, 2007, 3:25 PM**

^^^ Hey. I said that earlier

And there IS a link. STR has an image of the triple proposal from his model. I jsut can't find it right now.

SlatsGrobnik · #**1813** Posted **Oct 5, 2007, 3:30 PM**

Actually, 311 S. Wacker is the definitive one-bagger. Nice body, ugly head. I was in Law school two blocks away when they were putting that one up. I liked it a lot until they got to that gawdawful top.