CHICAGO | 375 East Wacker (Arquitectonica Tower) | 840 FT / 256 M | 76 FLOORS | PRO - Page 14

Steely Dan · #**261** Posted **May 24, 2007, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHamp

LSE is essentially a highrise suburb in the heart of the city.

it's not state street, was never intended to be, but it's more than a suburb. wait till it's built out with the park, the parkhomes, the market, etc. this will be a fine place to live if you want the heart of the city but with a bit more of an intimate neighborhood feel. the park in the middle of it all is already a fantastic space, and it's only going to be getting more awe-inspiring as the new towers continue to enclose it. also, some of the projects such as aqua need to be completed so that folks can better understand how the street level elevation changes are going to be handled for pedestrians.

it's not perfect, but it was such a weird piece of land to begin with, especially with all those wacky multi-level roads surrounding the place, that i think they're doing a pretty good job with it. fast forward 20 years into the future, after full build out and some tree maturation, and i think some of the current naysayers will see LSE a bit differently.

ardecila · #**262** Posted **May 24, 2007, 11:28 PM**

I really don't see any problem with it. Asian cities like Singapore and Hong Kong are full of skyscraper complexes with lots of crazy elevation changes, walkways, and terraces, and you don't really see those cities suffering for it. They keep building more, in fact.

While I wouldn't suggest such an urban design for most neighborhoods in Chicago, this area, because of its residential nature, tremendous height, and quirky site can be allowed such a design.

DHamp · #**263** Posted **May 24, 2007, 11:54 PM**

I never said that I loathe LSE. In fact, I rather applaud it and I'm not nearly as harsh on some of the buildings (like the Regatta) as some of the forumers here. I'm just simply stating that the community is suburban in design -- just with highrises instead of single family homes. And you're right it is for people who want a more intimate neighborhood feel. It seems to be largely intended to attract empty-nest baby boomers back into the city, and to that end it's working reasonably well.

Again, I'm not a LSE naysayer. I've walked over there and tried to imagine it fully built out, and it still feels like a hirise suburb to me -- not that that's a bad thing. It just doesn't feel connected to the busy city that surrounds it, and that's by design. It's straddling a fence fairly well, I think, and many of the real naysayers probably will change their minds 10-20 years in the future.

Pandemonious · #**264** Posted **May 25, 2007, 12:16 AM**

I'd like to see site O as a really tall mixed use building. I think it would make sense to stack some uses above an office portion anyway, since the hulking BCBS with the added height totally kills all southern views. There was originally supposed to be some office space in LSE, has that been completely scratched??

HK Chicago · #**265** Posted **May 25, 2007, 12:49 AM**

Aqua looks great in that full LSE image (try to imagine that it doesn't glow for an accurate impression).

I'm looking forward to potential improvements to this tower because even if it's built & detailed well as is I still believe there's a better overall design for this building program. It is better than any of the Loewenburg designed towers. (What an opportunity was lost to have The Tides & The Shoreham complement this centerpiece tower)

Tom Servo · #**266** Posted **May 25, 2007, 3:09 AM**

steely, why don't you just make a LSE thread?

jcchii · #**267** Posted **May 25, 2007, 3:19 AM**

strikes me as an asian-type living complex

singapore. not suburbs

DePaul Bunyan · #**268** Posted **May 25, 2007, 4:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

...oh well, so they aren't 1000', what's the big deal? bragging rights? huh...

this whole lse development REALLY gets to me: what's with all the excessive amount of landscaping; the whole development is right across the street from one of the biggest parks in the city, yet there's a MASSIVE park in the middle, and why does aqua need a forest around it? all around i think lse is kind of a planning nightmare. too much open space and all the buildings are just kinda randomly placed... there's absolutly NO uniformity at all. and what's up with those townhomes? ugh, just look at that site plan... it's a big jumbled mess! and has anyone tried to walk around over there? it's insane! i'm sorry, but looking at that site plan just really got me going...

Take a look at the existing buildings to the south and east of LSE. They pretty much block out the view of Grant Park. If the LSE high-rises don't have "park-views" then the price points take a huge hit. If LSE didn't have the (award-winning, if I'm not mistaken) park in the middle, the condos would command a lower price, and we'd get less height. It's either a big park in the middle surrounded by a gaggle of 800-1,000 foot buildings or a bunch of crap in the 35-40 story range.

brett7three · #**269** Posted **May 25, 2007, 1:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

Looking at Archytype's fine rendering, the Arquitectonica proposal being boxy, fits very well in the skyline with Aon, as well as with Watertower and IBM. From a structure/massing perspective it looks a lot like Watertower.
I think it looks fine there.

The Rendering is great!

I would really like to see some more variation than the "Box Type" buildings that we get too often. It's really time for Chicago to build more "Avante Garde" style buildings. It would be nice to see Chicago embrace more unique designs, or at least, embrace a higher percentage of unique designs.

trvlr70 · #**270** Posted **May 25, 2007, 1:39 PM**

[QUOTE=AdrianXSands;2856220this whole lse development REALLY gets to me: what's with all the excessive amount of landscaping; the whole development is right across the street from one of the biggest parks in the city, yet there's a MASSIVE park in the middle, and why does aqua need a forest around it?

It is exactly these open spaces that makes so Chicago both unique and livable and why it looks and feels so different from NYC or other great urban centers.

pilsenarch · #**271** Posted **May 25, 2007, 2:23 PM**

Based upon some of the previous designs with a similar vocabulary, I would suggest that this project will be all about the details, texture, and pattern-making.

It appears to me that the elevations will be a richly textured facade with significant shadow play....for example, has anyone else noticed that the balconies appear to be framed by large fins of glass?

If this project comes anywhere close to the level of novel detail I see in the rendering, it should truly be a ground-breaking project...perfect for Chicago and it Miesien history of celbrating the details....

BVictor1 · #**272** Posted **May 25, 2007, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

...oh well, so they aren't 1000', what's the big deal? bragging rights? huh...

this whole lse development REALLY gets to me: what's with all the excessive amount of landscaping; the whole development is right across the street from one of the biggest parks in the city, yet there's a MASSIVE park in the middle, and why does aqua need a forest around it? all around i think lse is kind of a planning nightmare. too much open space and all the buildings are just kinda randomly placed... there's absolutly NO uniformity at all. and what's up with those townhomes? ugh, just look at that site plan... it's a big jumbled mess! and has anyone tried to walk around over there? it's insane! i'm sorry, but looking at that site plan just really got me going...

Would you rather it be a concrete jungle or another Illinois Center? They've tried to make it inviting and intimate. I do agree that the sidewalks should be wider, and I think it will be more conjected than planned, but nothing's perfect.

wrab · #**273** Posted **May 25, 2007, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

.....It appears to me that the elevations will be a richly textured facade with significant shadow play....for example, has anyone else noticed that the balconies appear to be framed by large fins of glass?.....

Good shadow play can make an otherwise decent project into a very good project. Here, with a Southern face and lots of refracted lake light to the East, the opportunities are rich.

Must have more renders!

Tom In Chicago · #**274** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:20 PM**

neat. . .

Chicago103 · #**275** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:32 PM**

LSE=Hong Kong in America

And when I say that I am saying that it is a good thing

, in NIMBY circles it wouldnt be.

rgolch · #**276** Posted **May 25, 2007, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by archytype

This picture cinches it for me. If it has that look and height, it will look great in the skyline. I actually love it. Not sure why this one is hated by so many. There is nothing particularly offensive or ugly about it's design. It's a relatively ornate box with a large void at the top. What's to hate?

forumly_chgoman · #**277** Posted **May 25, 2007, 7:46 PM**

Is it me or is the "background photo" about a year old or so....basing on 340 development?? ALso I think there is more going on in Streeterville, trump area / river north, and along the river in LSE if the photo was current

Nice job though

forumly_chgoman · #**278** Posted **May 25, 2007, 7:52 PM**

If someone w/ photoshop magic could throw in CS, Trump, cityfront plaza buildings, 351 clark, the elysian, the Canyon Ranch proposal, Mandarin, the 40 story proposal for the Doral, the 50 story Arquitectonica hotel on Mich (problematic they may be no rendering), a couple of other west of michigan like the chestnut buidling, I think there is one on Ontario as well, as well (name currently escapes me) the Loyola tall old person's home

that would be stunning

BorisMolotov · #**279** Posted **May 25, 2007, 7:56 PM**

^ Sure let me pull that outta my ass for you.

No but seriously, that would be cool.

2PRUROCKS! · #**280** Posted **May 25, 2007, 8:41 PM**

In archytype's aerial view it looks like this building is definitely taller than Aqua, probably 850-900ft tall. This building is fine. I don't hate it, but it is nothing very spectacular.

I am a little sick of all the boxy, flat-topped buildings. Chicago had a history of these with Mies's modernism and the International style, and it seems that a lot of architects that do a building in Chicago think they have to fit this mold. When done well it can work and no doubt Chicago has many great boxy buildings, that is why a lot of people feel they have to do the to fit in and be contextual. But, I fear this can lead to Chicago being stuck in a rut. We need verity, and Chicago wasn't always defined by big boxy buildings. Pre 1950 most of the tallest towers were slender and had some sort of ornamentation on top. A lot of people nock the 80's and early 90's buildings, but buildings like 2Pru, 311, AT&T, 900 NM, and Chicago Title and Trust brought back a decorative flair to the pinnacle that had become lacking in modernism. Don't get me wrong I like modernism and prefer it overall to postmodernism, however I think Chicago needs to get more out of the box not back to it. That is why this tower disappoints me slightly, I felt this was the opportunity for something very unique and different for Chicago, but other than the void there really does not seem to be much "outside of the box" (pardon the pun). It detailed properly this building should turn out fine, but it will be nothing spectacular.

These are the reasons I love buildings like CS, Canyon Ranch, 200 N. Riverside, Aqua, TTC, and 1MP (Aqua is still rather boxy but it offers a very unique and interesting transition between boxy and more organic forms). They all break away from the boxyness in different ways and appear from what I can tell based on limited renderings so far to have much more appealing facade details. These buildings will hopefully spark a new tradition and era in Chicago architecture that can then be broken once it has come to fruition.

I was hoping this new LSE building would be more like 200 N. Riverside but it is still nice.