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

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by sentinel

The fact that you're diminishing Gang's work, who IS an experienced 'skyscraper designer', or rather, 'architect', if you're familiar with the term, with multiple built projects before and after this as reference, shows that you have some sort of agenda against her, which you've demonstrated time and time again in the forum.

IF there was any sort of wind tunnel testing, or any kind of stress modeling done to see what the wind loads would be on this project, it's the structural engineer's responsibility to validate that either way. Whether or not the structural consultant is under Gang's contract with the owner, or if they had a separate agreement directly with the developer, I do not know. However, the direct fault lies in the structural engineer not anticipating the need for a blow-through floor to mitigate wind load. And even then, a number of other factors may have played into why this wasn't added until well into the design development process of the project: 1. Initial modeling may have shown incorrectly there was no need to provide a blow through floor 2. The owner/developer may have cheapened out and initially decided against it, until their legal department laid bare the potential liability issues associated with not having it, because 3. even with modeling/testing, blow through requirements may have seemed unnecessary if swaying was deemed within acceptable limits, but someone (correctly) thought that it should still be incorporated because no one living in a luxury megatall highrise would want to feel ANY swaying.

Moral of the story, don't blame the architect for decisions they may have no control over.

He might be Helmut Jahn, still pissed he missed out on the O'Hare contract

[woodrow]

Can someone with mad photoshop skills show the building with a 70 ft to 90 ft floor plate difference? Would be interesting to see an approximation. I have no skills

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by sentinel

The fact that you're diminishing Gang's work, who IS an experienced 'skyscraper designer', or rather, 'architect', if you're familiar with the term, with multiple built projects before and after this as reference, shows that you have some sort of agenda against her, which you've demonstrated time and time again in the forum.

IF there was any sort of wind tunnel testing, or any kind of stress modeling done to see what the wind loads would be on this project, it's the structural engineer's responsibility to validate that either way. Whether or not the structural consultant is under Gang's contract with the owner, or if they had a separate agreement directly with the developer, I do not know. However, the direct fault lies in the structural engineer not anticipating the need for a blow-through floor to mitigate wind load. And even then, a number of other factors may have played into why this wasn't added until well into the design development process of the project: 1. Initial modeling may have shown incorrectly there was no need to provide a blow through floor 2. The owner/developer may have cheapened out and initially decided against it, until their legal department laid bare the potential liability issues associated with not having it, because 3. even with modeling/testing, blow through requirements may have seemed unnecessary if swaying was deemed within acceptable limits, but someone (correctly) thought that it should still be incorporated because no one living in a luxury megatall highrise would want to feel ANY swaying.

Moral of the story, don't blame the architect for decisions they may have no control over.

Not sure how Jeanne Gang could be labeled an "experienced" skyscraper designer. Especially not in 2015. Even now. Correct me if I am wrong but had she not done just ONE other up to that point? Her first and only being Aqua? Which by thew way sways a great deal. I know of someone who lived there and not soon after renting the place moved out because the swaying on the upper floors was too much for her to handle. Btw, I think JG is brilliant.

[pilsenarch]

I also think Jeanne is a brilliant designer and has done some sublime work.

This, however, is not one of them.

Fun Fact: Benjamin Romano, designer of Torre Reforma (Building of the Year 2020 by Arch Daily) https://www.archdaily.com/792721/tor...rma-lbr-plus-a, is an educator as well. He takes his students on trips around the world to study both good and bad examples of design and I am afraid he took his students on a tour of Vista last year as an example of how to absolutely not design a skyscraper.

I know everyone wants to love this new tall tower.

You can all have your opinions about the building as a sculpture, but when you critique this design from a strictly functional and/or structural perspective, it is quite simply a failure.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

from a structural perspective, it is quite simply a failure.

the only way that any structure can be deemed a structural failure, in any objective sense, is if it in fact fails (ie. falls down)

short of that, any other judgement will be chock-full of all kinds of subjective criteria.

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Fun Fact: Benjamin Romano, designer of Torre Reforma (Building of the Year 2020 by Arch Daily) https://www.archdaily.com/792721/tor...rma-lbr-plus-a, is an educator as well. He takes his students on trips around the world to study both good and bad examples of design and I am afraid he took his students on a tour of Vista last year as an example of how to absolutely not design a skyscraper.

Fun fact Gang teaches at Harvard's Graduate School of Design. Being an educator does not automatically endow one's OPINIONS with infallibility.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the only way that any structure can be deemed a structural failure, in any objective sense, is if it in fact fails (ie. falls down)

short of that, any other judgement will be chock-full of all kinds of subjective criteria.

of course, you are right... as far as a structural 'failure', I was referring to the efficiencies (or the extreme lack there of) of Vista's structural design...

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

of course, you are right... as far as a structural 'failure', I was referring to the efficiencies (or the extreme lack there of) of Vista's structural design...

The only time structural inefficiencies matter is when they turn into economic ones. . .

. . .

[ChiTownWonder]

Originally Posted by gandalf612

Fun fact Gang teaches at Harvard's Graduate School of Design. Being an educator does not automatically endow one's OPINIONS with infallibility.

In the world of architecture schools, I'd argue otherwise (speaking from experience). Architecture is wildly subjective, where success is based on image and having the "correct" opinions.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Not sure how Jeanne Gang could be labeled an "experienced" skyscraper designer. Especially not in 2015. Even now. Correct me if I am wrong but had she not done just ONE other up to that point? Her first and only being Aqua? Which by thew way sways a great deal. I know of someone who lived there and not soon after renting the place moved out because the swaying on the upper floors was too much for her to handle. Btw, I think JG is brilliant.

Really? Well, let's see:

- Vista Tower
- Solstice on the Park
- City Hyde Park
- 40 Tenth Avenue/NYC
- 100 Hundred condos/St. Louis
- MIRA condos/San Francisco
- 11 Hoyt/NYC

Those are currently under construction. The following are in on the boards:

- Mission Rock building/San Francisco
- Q Residences/Amsterdam
- One Delisle/Toronto

Plus a number of other designs that perhaps never went anywhere past the design development phase. Regardless, a majority of the list above were planned or started construction before 2015 (which is an arbitrary date that you picked). Again, I don't think it is accurate to claim that she's not an 'experienced' skyscraper designer...and considering her portfolio, she's probably producing far more interesting and unique works than other male contemporaries.

[SolarWind]

February 10, 2020

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Really? Well, let's see:

- Vista Tower
- Solstice on the Park
- City Hyde Park
- 40 Tenth Avenue/NYC
- 100 Hundred condos/St. Louis
- MIRA condos/San Francisco
- 11 Hoyt/NYC

Those are currently under construction. The following are in on the boards:

- Mission Rock building/San Francisco
- Q Residences/Amsterdam
- One Delisle/Toronto

skyscraper

[kolchak]

Certainly this building, like Gang's other Lakeshore East tower Aqua, looks better when viewed from nearby. Its hardly offensive, though, when viewed from far away. I think our OCD has been triggered by staring at it for so long lol

[Skyguy_7]

It appears there are a few miscellaneous black panels on the east and west sides of the final setback level. Maybe, just maybe all those panels on that level are temporary and we will be pleasantly surprised.

[Lincolnlover2005]

Come on guys, can’t we all just admit that a few mistakes were made but in the end, Chicago finally got ANOTHER SUPERTALL?

[Donnie77]

Originally Posted by Lincolnlover2005

Come on guys, can’t we all just admit that a few mistakes were made but in the end, Chicago finally got ANOTHER SUPERTALL?

Says the guy who's avatar is the very example of a 4 billion dollar mistake....

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Donnie77

Says the guy who's avatar is the very example of a 4 billion dollar mistake....

If the spire/rings were clad 1WTC would actually be a pretty cool building. He's right too, Chicago was overdue for another supertall and for all its flaws Vista is a pretty unique and nice looking one. Pretty happy with this one.

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

If the spire/rings were clad 1WTC would actually be a pretty cool building. He's right too, Chicago was overdue for another supertall and for all its flaws Vista is a pretty unique and nice looking one. Pretty happy with this one.

Do you even know what the "rings" are for? They can't be "clad" and still do their job of supporting telecom gear.

[Goose Island Guru]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

The only time structural inefficiencies matter is when they turn into economic ones. . .

. . .

Paying a premium for something (a structure) the end user can't see or doesn't care about is, by definition, economically inefficient.

[Goose Island Guru]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Really? Well, let's see:

- Vista Tower
- Solstice on the Park
- City Hyde Park
- 40 Tenth Avenue/NYC
- 100 Hundred condos/St. Louis
- MIRA condos/San Francisco
- 11 Hoyt/NYC

Those are currently under construction. The following are in on the boards:

- Mission Rock building/San Francisco
- Q Residences/Amsterdam
- One Delisle/Toronto

Plus a number of other designs that perhaps never went anywhere past the design development phase. Regardless, a majority of the list above were planned or started construction before 2015 (which is an arbitrary date that you picked). Again, I don't think it is accurate to claim that she's not an 'experienced' skyscraper designer...and considering her portfolio, she's probably producing far more interesting and unique works than other male contemporaries.

She's got another on the boards, or perhaps now under construction, in Honolulu - called Ko'ula.