CHICAGO | Aqua | 858 FT / 262 M | 87 FLOORS - Page 270

emathias · #**5381** Posted **Dec 10, 2009, 6:09 PM**

From NoPromiseOfSafety.com - You've GOT to click through and see his other photo-realistic illustrations. They made me want to move into Aqua like, TODAY

george · #**5382** Posted **Dec 11, 2009, 3:46 PM**

^I've done some dumb shit, foolish, jackass stunts in my life, but this has me beat.^

trickykid · #**5383** Posted **Dec 11, 2009, 4:14 PM**

Thats a neat shot but i'd be more impressed if he was on a unicycle.

rapid_business · #**5384** Posted **Dec 11, 2009, 4:16 PM**

^ the picture on their site with their legs hanging over the edge... holy sh*t!

a chicago bearcat · #**5385** Posted **Dec 12, 2009, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveve

Oh.... srry for my little mistake...

I still would have preferred a blueish colour for the balcony undersides...

Oh well.... still a magnificent skyscraper

that definitely would have taken away from the unique visual effect of the contrast between those parts of the building w/ and w/o balconies.

I would love to have seen the original exterior curtains Jeanne Gang had proposed for the balconies as an optional upgrade. Just to see how it would have filled the gap between the balconies variably.

Rizzo · #**5386** Posted **Dec 12, 2009, 6:03 AM**

I just spent alot of time looking at that site. They actually scaled my office building. Now I know why we must never keep the fire escape doors propped open!! I was impressed with their photos, despite that it appears they broke quite a few laws

uliveandyouburn · #**5387** Posted **Dec 14, 2009, 4:19 PM**

Thanks guys,

heres a video:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xacjp5_climbin_travel

of course this video and those photos are fake, we were never actually up there...

Dr. Taco · #**5388** Posted **Dec 14, 2009, 5:57 PM**

^ unfrickinbelievable. you guys have elephant balls

sentinel · #**5389** Posted **Dec 14, 2009, 6:22 PM**

^^..elephant balls or mice-sized brains, can't tell which

photos are stunning uliveandyouburn, but not not sure I can condone how their acheived..granted, this coming from someone who is terrified of heights lol!

Mojava · #**5390** Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 5:14 PM**

Has anyone seen pictures of the interiors of the condo units. I'm curious about the finishes and quality as I wasn't blown away by the rentals.

Northwest · #**5391** Posted **Dec 15, 2009, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

...not not sure I can condone how their acheived...

Ha ha yeah I found this stunt to be rather stunning... reminds me of the forumer who got banned for trespassing on the Spire site to take photos down the cassion sleeves...
In any case, wow! I hope Magellen doesnt track you down...

EarlyBuyer · #**5392** Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 2:59 PM**

The CTBUH has updated their stats for Aqua.

Previously, the buildings height had been measured from upper Columbus Drive, however is now measured from the park level (East side of the tower podium).

The new digits are: 87 stories; 262 meters/858 feet

See #39 on this listing:
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Talle...stConcrete.pdf

Can we get this thread's title updated?

sentinel · #**5393** Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 3:15 PM**

^^ Nice! I had a sneaking suspicion that since they changed the criteria for Trump tower last month that it was only a matter of time before they would also do the same for Aqua and the townhomes below.

Tom In Chicago · #**5394** Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 4:30 PM**

Updated thread. . . but wondering why it's still in the U/C section. . . are we waiting for full occupancy or is there a tiny corner of the building waiting for a dollop of paint???

. . .

BVictor1 · #**5395** Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer

The CTBUH has updated their stats for Aqua.

Previously, the buildings height had been measured from upper Columbus Drive, however is now measured from the park level (East side of the tower podium).

The new digits are: 87 stories; 262 meters/858 feet

See #39 on this listing:
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Talle...stConcrete.pdf

Can we get this thread's title updated?

I honestly don't think that we should change the height of this thread to reflect CTBUH numbers. The pask level doesn't have a main pedestrain entrance does it?

I would keep the measurements from upper Columbus.

And the 87 floos includes the 5 parking levels in the base behind the townhomes.

Tom In Chicago · #**5396** Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 5:03 PM**

I'm fine with changing it to the CTBUH numbers. . . but more concerned as to why it's still in the P/C thread. . .

Steely Dan · #**5397** Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

I'm fine with changing it to the CTBUH numbers. . . but more concerned as to why it's still in the P/C thread. . .

yeah, i'm fine with the change to the CTBUH's numbers as well.

tom, you live across the park from aqua, if you think it's done, go ahead and move the thread to the completed projects archive.

EarlyBuyer · #**5398** Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Updated thread. . . but wondering why it's still in the U/C section. . . are we waiting for full occupancy or is there a tiny corner of the building waiting for a dollop of paint???

. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, i'm fine with the change to the CTBUH's numbers as well.

tom, you live across the park from aqua, if you think it's done, go ahead and move the thread to the completed projects archive.

A reminder that the 15 floors for the future hotel are still essentially raw space. The CTBUH definition of "completed" does fit Aqua at this time however (see footnote #2) in the link I'd provided above.

EarlyBuyer · #**5399** Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 6:49 PM**

Chicks with Bricks: The World's Tallest Female Designed Skyscraper
Fast Company

"The tower's signature feature are the undulating balconies, which because of their curving, bulging shapes, cantilever anywhere from 2 to 12 feet outwards, thus affording city views that would otherwise have been impossible to appreciate. They cost a scant 1.5% of the building's $325 million construction cost...And that, above all else, makes Studio Gang worth watching: Architectural flamboyance at a reasonable price is always a rarity; flamboyance that increases the bottom line is almost unheard of."

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/clif...ned-skyscraper

EarlyBuyer · #**5400** Posted **Dec 17, 2009, 6:53 PM**

Honorable Mention from Architect Magazine

"...The judges were impressed by both the simplicity of the concept and the achieved effect—Ralph Johnson called it “super clever"..."

http://www.architectmagazine.com/mul...1132-aqua.aspx