CHICAGO | 375 East Wacker (Arquitectonica Tower) | 840 FT / 256 M | 76 FLOORS | PRO

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ Thank you for that post. i like it when people can articulate why they do or do not like something as opposed to the terse "it's total shit" idiocy.

some folks can't articulate why they feel how they feel. that's unfortunate since I really like hearing people's take. but that should be okay. as it's okay to just say, "this building f*cking rocks!".

and i have to agree with you about "hulking monstrosities". people in this thread were throwing that around as though it were a bad thing. i friggin LOVE "hulking monstrosities". chicago wouldn't be the broad shouldered city it is without 'em.

there's a difference between a bad "hulking monstrosity" and a good building. Sears Tower is on steroids IMO and it's shockingly elegant because of it. Our two hulking black towers fit in perfectly with our weather. Really, is there a sight more beautiful than the Hancock on an white-out sky in December?

on the flip, the first released version of Trump Tower was by all accounts and purposes a bad hulking tower. It improved greatly through public concerns of it being just that. Therefore, I think it's wonderful that folks state their concerns.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by alex1

some folks can't articulate why they feel how they feel. that's unfortunate since I really like hearing people's take. but that should be okay. as it's okay to just say, "this building f*cking rocks!".

anyone who says "this building f*cking rocks!" or "it's an abomination" at this utterly preliminary stage is an outright idiot, and as such, i will henceforth be deleting all such posts from this thread until we're given more visual information so that people can begin formualting informed opinions about this project.

Originally Posted by alex1

there's a difference between a bad "hulking monstrosity" and a good building.

i fully disagree. the sears tower is the eptiome of a "hulking monstrosity" and it's a very good building. i will agree that just because a building is huge, menacing and imposing doesn't automatically make it good (though it usually does), but using the phrase "hulking monstrosity" as a prejorative is foolish.

Originally Posted by alex1

on the flip, the first released version of Trump Tower was by all accounts and purposes a bad hulking tower. It improved greatly through public concerns of it being just that.

the first released trump rendering wasn't even a real design. it was merely the 2,000 ft pre-9/11 version with the top 900 ft. or so lopped off, hence there was no way that a butchered design like that was gonna look good.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i fully disagree. the sears tower is the eptiome of a "hulking monstrosity" and it's a very good building.

never put down the Sears. Feels that I made the same point you're making, or perhaps I'm not understanding you?

the first released trump rendering wasn't even a real design. it was merely the 2,000 ft pre-9/11 version with the top 900 ft. or so lopped off, hence there was no way that a butchered design like that was gonna look good.

then you agree that there can be bad "hulking monstrosities"?

[Crunked Up]

I really like the design. It will complement the skyline.

[HK Chicago]

No continuous vertical lines. Vertical and horizontal lines intersect on the same plane. Center horizontal lines increase in frequency causing a visual shortening of the tower as you look up. Other horizontal lines happen at arbitrary points. No primary form, just a collection of parts. And it's most striking element is capped by what appears to be a block of balconies.

If there's one problem that comes up with Arquitectonica it's that their work always seems to be trying too hard. They force the issue with their ideas such that it's too obvious they want their towers to be special. "Arbitrary design" is the best way I can think to describe it.

Take 2 towers that have little to do with eachother, Aqua and UBS, and see how a little math, nature, engineering, and creativity are mixed to create artfully-formed towers that effortlessly become a permanent part of the landscape.

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

BCBS started the boom along with the 96 dem convention.

My point was in reference to the Boom Thread timeline.

[ih8spires]

Originally Posted by SNT1

so, is there still hope that this 'hulking monstrosity' is a 'supertall monstrosity' (1000'+?) I hope the B&W rendering is pulling off a Chi-Spire rendering in terms of height.

Btw I would still like da sears if it's proposed now

I would even be thrilled if they said they were going to build a twin of the Sears Tower and tear down Wrigley Field to do it. Then put another one on the 50 yard line at Soldier Field and the Bears and the Cubs were going to have to move to Orlando! Come to think of it they should build another one at LSE.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

This project is not that bad people....

I think a lot of people are expecting some sort of glass sculpture concept that seems to be prevalent in many of today's high profile designs (here and elsewhere). We'll, we're already (hopefully) getting that across the river and elsewhere. So something that serves as a throwback to the massive old school desgns that are present in Chicago is actually refreshing.

Would anyone on this board honestly consider the Sears Tower attractive if it was proposed today?

No...

But that's what makes Chicago...CHICAGO

Likewise, a 'hulking monstrosity' in Lakeshore East will quickly remind people this ain't Miami.

See...the hulk is a problem for me...this is lakesore east...its going to be DENSE, this area can't take BCBS, Aon, 340, Aqua, Archi, and Aqua II as 700+ers in a like 4 block area. The buildings need some room to breathe, ESPECIALLY building like Aqua that could make a tremendous statement about the future of Chicago arquitecture.

I'd rather take less bulk and more height. We're trying to get this principle enforced in every area of Chicago...why not LSE?

The keyhole is a nice save, and if the building is lined up correctly, it could be stunning...but its still not enough...and the form is well...standard.

As far as details of the building...NO ONE can tell anything definative from the renders. There is some motion on the N-S faces...but I can't tell whats going on.

However, look at the E-W faces...It looks to me as if they are mostly glass with some wide-spaced accents(or whatever they are called). THIS is intriguing to me and has great potential.

Sears being built today...I'd hate it and dismiss it as a fat-@ss building. I'd like the black (as I think it has great potential in combination with other types of glass, as I hope to show you all soon). I think New York and Chicago are the only skylines that have true bulk in the world...but I'm not sure I like it. Look at 1Bryant Park...the building is obese, and in teh context of the surrounding buildings, dsepite its great concept, it just looks horrible to me. I think "bulk" is over-rated.

I like Gang's philosophy of "a skyscraper should be every inch, a proud and soaring thing." Now, its not very elegant to lift a 500 pound woman ofer your head and twirl her about. I'm not saying we should rashly build the other way and build 1000 CN towers, but height and bulk should be balanced.

...and yes, the base will likely be nice.

[honte]

^ I think continuing the streetwall along Wacker Drive is a critical feature of any LSE building. So far, the streetwall erodes in LSE due to the DeStefano buildings and, although I hate to say anything negative about him, due to Weese's hotel there.

With this goal in mind, the proposal we see now is about as "soaring" as you can get. The absence of the centermost portion of the tower opens up the sky and produces something rather slender and airy, but the frontage on Wacker is unchanged. It's a sensible concept that actually makes some sense instead of being a pure design play. Meanwhile, the profiles from the sides promise to be very thin and I think could be quite elegant if detailed well.

Also, Aqua and other LSE buildings will be framed beautifully when you get glimpses of them through the opening in this tower (assuming the sightlines work out that way). But I wouldn't count on Aqua being a major skyline player no matter what gets built at this site. It's going to be too hemmed in by BCBS and other buildings to be anything other than an extremely pleasant surprise.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Alliance

I think New York and Chicago are the only skylines that have true bulk in the world...but I'm not sure I like it. Look at 1Bryant Park...the building is obese, and in teh context of the surrounding buildings, dsepite its great concept, it just looks horrible to me. I think "bulk" is over-rated.

Not to stray too far, but I have to disagree about 1Bryant and the bulk. I was just there, and it's big but in no way obese. The bulk of the building isn't even really aparent. It's just part of the streetwall as you walk down 42nd street.
To me in the context of the surounding buildings it just blends in.
I loved the feel of midtown Manhattan and I wish Chicago had more of that.

I think bulk in LSE is great. and between Grant Park, the river, the lake and the LSE park, the buildings have more than enough room to breathe. To me they almost all feel isolated. I'm waiting for the townhomes and the Aqua base to be built to connect it all together.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Not to stray too far, but I have to disagree about 1Bryant and the bulk. I was just there, and it's big but in no way obese. The bulk of the building isn't even really aparent. It's just part of the streetwall as you walk down 42nd street.
To me in the context of the surounding buildings it just blends in.
I loved the feel of midtown Manhattan and I wish Chicago had more of that.

Well, of course any building will blend into the streetwall, but that doesn't stop it from being, imo, overweight. Arqui is a different story though...its going to form more streetwall (Wacker isn't really developed there...as has been mentioned), but on the other side...its park.

I very much dislike chubby towers. I know many people are still old school, but this is my opinon, not yours .

Bulk in LSE scares me. I fear that i could possibly throw the whole skyline out of balance by creating an incerdibly dense area of building of similar height, especially from the park, which is one of the main views that personally concerns me (its not like your average Chicagoan goes wandering into LSE) buildings are getting too close in height for comfort. I like to see variation in height.

Originally Posted by honte

^ I think continuing the streetwall along Wacker Drive is a critical feature of any LSE building.

I think this will adequately address that.

Originally Posted by honte

^ With this goal in mind, the proposal we see now is about as "soaring" as you can get. The absence of the centermost portion of the tower opens up the sky and produces something rather slender and airy, but the frontage on Wacker is unchanged. It's a sensible concept that actually makes some sense instead of being a pure design play. Meanwhile, the profiles from the sides promise to be very thin and I think could be quite elegant if detailed well.

Yeah, but still, it would be nice if the hole was larger. Its fairly large compared to other scrapers...thus less gimmicky, but I still think from the park...this building will be broad and cluttery.

[APPRAISER]

I don't think this building is bulky at all. If you look at it, its probably as wide as Aqua, and as thin. The only differance is the sharp corners.

[Tom In Chicago]

To be fair about this proposal there are some fine Arquitectonica residential buildings which have been designed with similar architectural elements such as 500 Brickell, Icon Brickell and The Marquis. . . if those examples are of the same caliber of design they have in mind for the LSE tower I'm going to be a very happy skyscraper geek. . .

500 Brickell


Icon Brickell


The Marquis


375 East Wacker Drive




Steely - here's a link to the building on Emporis which is, as I said bu>299071:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=...chicago-il-usa

[texcolo]

It's the JPMorgan Chase Tower in Dallas, deisigned by the penultimate Chicago architectural firm SOM. They also did a sister building, the Trammell Crow Center. Note the similar shapes incorporated into both building's crowns





As for my opinion on the subject matter: I think this building stradles the line between novelty and design. The hole in the building is the most dominating feature on the building. Without the hole the building is a tenement, nothing more. It would be interesting if the hung a giant Chicago flag from the top of the hole, or a huge statue of Abe Lincoln or Obama Barak (after he's President, of course.)

[CGII]

Eh? The only similarity JP Morgan has with the LSE tower is the hole.

[texcolo]

The Trammell Crow is a sister (not a twin, but similar) to the JPMorgan.

Look closer at the Trammell Crow, just below the spire.

[Latoso]

I have a lot of confidence that this one will turn out pretty good. I heard through the grapevine from someone not associated with the project, that she saw some more detailed info than what we have here and she thought it looked really nice compared to what we have seen. She wouldn't elaborate much, other than to assuage my fears that this would turn out horrible, and I trust her judgement, wholeheartedly.

[Dr. Taco]

Originally Posted by Latoso

I have a lot of confidence that this one will turn out pretty good. I heard through the grapevine from someone not associated with the project, that she saw some more detailed info than what we have here and she thought it looked really nice compared to what we have seen. She wouldn't elaborate much, other than to assuage my fears that this would turn out horrible, and I trust her judgement, wholeheartedly.

ooh man, i can't wait for more information on this! I have nothing but high hopes (ready to be dashed, if it comes to that)

[CGII]

Originally Posted by texcolo

The Trammell Crow is a sister (not a twin, but similar) to the JPMorgan.

Look closer at the Trammell Crow, just below the spire.

Still, the relevance of either to the LSE tower is nil.

[john doe]

Personally, I find the fact some people feel they are qualified to label this building an 'abomination' or a 'monstrosity' after seeing only one black and white newspaper rendering to be nothing short of hilarious.

Nice to see how open minded people are.

But that said, I like this building, and hope that it keeps the retro feel it has in the one rendering we have seen once we see more.

[alex1]

^i think the rendering has enough detail to reveal its formalistic qualities. For instance, you can tell that any kind of horizontal or vertical flow is impeded.

Now true, color can create the type of flow that most of us are used to in a really tall buildings. Then again, I'm one who strongly believes that the lack of any type of flow is intentional. No decent firm would be oblivious to this. In that regard, I'm intrigued with this building somewhat and look forward to any revisions.

What i find most troubling with this building is how the portion of the building that juts out fights with the hole. formalistically, it's not a very interesting structure as the hole doesn't create enough tension. It's rather bland IMO. However, I'm not in the belief that this is a final design and I do agree that a color version will help to answer some questions.