Chicago's Aqua wins Emporis' 2009 skyscraper of the year award

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Who cares if certain design elements serve some practical function or not? Inspiring design can be considered a practical function in and of itself. Whether or not elements of a building's form are what one considers to be purely decorative, rather than functional as well, is a irrelevant. Is the Chrysler Building made worse by that silly, non-functional spire, or its deco hubcap crown, or those useless hood ornament gargoyles? So should the Beekman's curves be required to serve as rainwater channels, besides their purpose of providing a dramatic, undulating form which changes in appearance with changing light? Aqua's integration of design and practicality is innovative... and I think I'd still like it just as much if its balconies were designed like that only for aesthetic purposes.

Different cities = different building archetypes. . . Chicago is a much more practical city when it comes to design. . . engineering expression has always been a part of Chicago's design aesthetic and Aqua's minimalism certainly adheres to those principals (less is more). . . that said I think you'd find Aqua more at home in Chicago than in New York (maybe even more at home in Miami, sure, I'll agree with that). . . New York City buildings tend to have a lot of flair/bling/whatever that is a rare exception in Chicago. . . Beekman is certainly more of a New York building and would look out of place here. . .

. . .

[Steely Dan]

aqua is a magnificent skyscraper, easily one of my favorite skyscrapers ever built in chicago, and while there may be a variety of reasons to admire this fine structure, the one that stands out most to me is that it so aptly teaches the lesson that high design doesn't necessarily need to cost an arm and a leg, very similar to its predecessor marina city in that way. creative architects can bring incredible beauty into existence while still allowing the developer to make some money. that's a type of genius that i respect a lot more than "art museum architecture" where bloated budgets allow for wild extravagance that could never be supported by the cold hard capitalism of the free market.

anyone who feels that Aqua's balconies are merely decoration obviously doesn't know what the term "balcony" means. they function as balconies first and foremost, not decoration, and jeanne then found a creative and cost effective solution to sculpt them into the architecture of the tower itself (again, much like marina city) as opposed to just tacking on little "smokers ledges" as we see time and time again in the residential highrise building form.

and for those still complaining about the overall box form of the building, i guess i'll just go back and quote myself form 4 years ago when this building was first proposed:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

don't let the boxy form trick you. boxes are good. boxes are true. boxes are CHICAGO. it's what's done with the box that differentiates the magical from the banal, and this project appears poised to become one of the most elite boxes in the world.

i still stand by what i said 100%.

over this past building boom in chicago (one that has been HEAVILY tilted towards bland, uninspired residential highrises), this city has not erected a great many buildings that have something to say to the wider world of architecture, but aqua is one of the exceptions, and one entirely deserving of this honor in my opinion. kudos to studio gang architecture for imagining such a beautiful structure, and thank you, magellan, for not VE-ing the ever living hell out the thing during the construction process

[Dac150]

If you’re going to compare Aqua to a ‘box’ then you’d be comparing it to say a Water Tower Place. I see no similarities between the two.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Dac150

If you’re going to compare Aqua to a ‘box’ then you’d be comparing it to say a Water Tower Place. I see no similarities between the two.

well i definitely see similarities between the two in terms of their overall form and proportions.


source:http://www.chicago.hu/index.php?menu=3&lang=2


source: torsodog @ SSP

[Dac150]

No argument there, but the Aqua takes the ‘box’ concept to a new level which isn’t replicated by any other residential building in Chicago. It goes the extra mile for lack of better terminology. It’s interesting also, just from personal perception, that Chicago is really the only American city (besides Miami) that can host the building in a way which makes it fit right in. Those aspects in addition to the technical aspects are what I believe landed this building in the number one ranking.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Different cities = different building archetypes. . . Chicago is a much more practical city when it comes to design. . . engineering expression has always been a part of Chicago's design aesthetic and Aqua's minimalism certainly adheres to those principals (less is more). . . that said I think you'd find Aqua more at home in Chicago than in New York (maybe even more at home in Miami, sure, I'll agree with that). . . New York City buildings tend to have a lot of flair/bling/whatever that is a rare exception in Chicago. . . Beekman is certainly more of a New York building and would look out of place here. . .

. . .

Yeah, I know what you're saying about Chicago style design, and I agree that Aqua likely fits better in Chicago than in NYC. Though if I saw it on the Manhattan skyline, I don't think it would surprise me too much. Similarly, I think Chicago has such an impressive skyline that I think Chicago can hold pretty much any building and Beekman wouldn't be too out of place.

I just used the Chrysler Bldg. as the ultimate example of deco flair for the sake of flair. There are obviously scores of classic buildings which have adornment just for the sake of adornment. And Chicago certainly has some beautiful examples. 35 Wacker comes to mind with its domes and turrets... Wrigley Buidling, Hotel Intercontinental (Medinah), etc. Obviously, those styles of buildings with their intricately-detailed brick and stone work are works of a bygone era, but I think that we can see an evolution of that decorative design philosophy in new buildings like Aqua, Beekman.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Aleks

too bad aquas practicality and beauty can't make up for that hideous base and that cheap looking concrete.

^ Funny that you say that.

Having walked around and seen the base in person from pretty much every perspective (street level, under, around, and from the townhome side in the sunken Lakeshore East neighborhood) I have come to appreciate the base and I actually think it integrates very well with both the building and the neighborhood around it. I can't think of a lot of more contextually sensitive bases built in Chicago during this last boom.

I guess if I were just looking at this building in pictures I would assume the same thing. But if you ever visit this structure in person and walk around it, you might come to a different conclusion.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Have you ever actually seen the base of the tower? Have you seen the two amazing staircases it encompasses that completely open up the neighborhood by connecting the top level of the three story streets in the area with the park level? Have you seen the gigantic rooftop park that is on top of the base? Have you seen the enormous hotel ballroom that makes up most of the base and has soaring windows? I see absolutely nothing wrong with the base unless you are either A. afraid of squared corners or B. afraid of white stucco.

Also, how is that concrete any cheaper looking than any other concrete anywhere else in the world? Or should all buildings be 100% covered in glass and steel?

never even been to chicago, but that doesn't i can't dislike something. chicago's my favorite city (well, one of the few dozens) and if i could afford to go i would. till then i'm stuck with pictures and videos, and from what i've seen, i dislike more things than i thought i would.

that concrete spiral stair case is hideous imo. does absolutely nothing for me. and the zig-zag one isn't amazing either. although i like it more than the average staircase.

i don't have a problem with the park. never said i did. i'm actually all for green roofs.

i never said i had a problem with the windows, or the ballrooms. just the base design in general. it just doesn't compare to the towers design.

afraid of corners? lol. and white stucco isn't bad.

never said i wanted aqua to be glass and steel. never said i disliked the fact that it has painted conrete (o-14 has painted concrete also but i like the result more than aqua's). the concrete isn't as smooth and well rounded as i expected it to be.

i don't hate aqua, i actually love the design. i don't hate the boxyness, or the waves, i just don't think the base is worthy of the main tower design, which is amazing. or the concrete's smoothness. plus popcorn ceilings are ugly imo.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

That's just ignorant. Have you bothered to even look at the program? http://www.studiogang.net/projects_e1.htm

What exactly does the formula used to create the balconies design have anything to do with it? It's interesting but mostly makes great sales tactics.

Jeez, perhaps decoration was too strong a word for this crowd. All I'm suggesting is the design element of the balconies supercedes their practicality...y'know, 4 sides with 90 degrees being the most efficient layout.

Again, This building should be commended for thinking outside the box but, I'm sorry, the effect simply doesn't work for me from most angles. And, no , I don't like Beaver House but, c'mon, Aqua has international sized dimensions without the balconies . (which from a distance appear as no more than the 7ish inch concrete floor slab)

[philiboy]

It is difficult to understand why so many people like this building. I do like a few of Studio Gang's other projects and can appreciate their design approach but this one is quite ugly especially from afar which ruins the urban landscape. Window wall looks very cheap too. It does have a striking appearance (like a human anatomy model) seen from within five block radius but beyond that, it looks not so much different from simple, cheap, concrete condo boxes.

[modkris]

Sorry Aleks, you may have thousands of posts but in this case you don't know what you're talking about. Everyone that hasn't seen it in person, doesn't understand the complexity of the location or the inspiration behind the design needs to stop hating. If this building was built in your city you would be worshipping it!

[Steely Dan]

^ there's no need to get so defensive. This building, just as with any building, is going to be liked by some and disliked by others. there would be no point in having this discussion forum if people aren't free to express their opinions about works of architecture without being told that they "don't have any idea what they're talking about."

If aleks doesn't like the base, then he doesn't like the base. He's entirely free to hold that opinion. Might his opinion change if he saw the building in person? Maybe, but it's not realistic to expect every person on this forum to visit every city on the planet so that we will all have first hand informed opinions on every building on the globe. As this is an international forum, we have to allow others to form some opinions from photographs alone. Yes, a first hand informed opinion will always count for more, but even then Tom, who lives and works within the shadow of Aqua, has told us that he's not terribly impressed with building.

It's a work of architecture, and one that breaks new ground at that, so of course opinions will be varied. It's all good.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

All I'm suggesting is the design element of the balconies supercedes their practicality...y'know, 4 sides with 90 degrees being the most efficient layout.

maybe I'm biased because I live in marina city, but I completely disagree with that opinion. the balconies on aqua are functional balconies first and foremost. The way studio gang then sculpted the balconies into the sinuous trademark waves was secondary to the mission of providing outdoor living space for the building's residents. marina city's balconies are not "4 sides with 90 degrees" (in fact nothing in marina city is ), but they are still entirely efficient, practical, functional balconies.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

but, c'mon, Aqua has international sized dimensions without the balconies .

What does that sentence mean?

[wrab]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

What exactly does the formula used to create the balconies design have anything to do with it? It's interesting but mostly makes great sales tactics.

Jeez, perhaps decoration was too strong a word for this crowd. All I'm suggesting is the design element of the balconies supercedes their practicality...y'know, 4 sides with 90 degrees being the most efficient layout.....

S/G mapped out the view corridors of the tower very early on in the project, using city models and string to determine the primary and secondary sightlines and then sculpting the balconies accordingly. The balconies really do bump out the footprints of the units.

For instance, a south-facing unit on the 60th floor that would otherwise only allow views of the BCBS tower in front of it might now gain a view of Grant Park or of the Lake. The balconies have been placed to allow sightlines between buildings and/or at oblique & right angles. "4 sides with 90 degrees", as you put it above, doesn't get you there.

One does of course need to be on the balcony to get the privileged views.

Not the best example, but this pic from S/G shows how a south-facing unit might gain a view through adjacent buildings to the East and the Lake:


http://www.studiogang.net/projects_e1.htm

-----

In addition to bumping out the building's footprint to take advantage of otherwise unobtainable views, the balconies are arranged (in conjunction with glazing) to provide solar shading in the Summer.

A third benefit of the balcony arrangement on Aqua - and I'm not sure if this was intentional or just happy serendipity - is that is breaks up what would otherwise be very strong wind currents.

-----

The Third School
A new kind of skyscraper heralds a new kind of Chicago architecture.
By Lynn Becker
The Chicago Reader

.....Developers want views, and Gang intended to offer as many compelling ones as possible. "Views are easy to get from the top," she says. "But from the lower and middle floors you look between this dense forest of high-rises." The Studio/Gang team constructed a supersize model of that dense forest, then used lengths of string to plot the endpoints of the views from Aqua's units. Gang discovered that by adding terraces that swept in and out along the perimeter of the tower, she could create views that wouldn't exist in a rectangular building. Where one terrace bumped outward you suddenly could see Millennium Park's Bean pop out past the edge of the Aon Center. Other terraces created views of Michigan Avenue, the lake, or Frank Gehry's winding BP bridge. Aqua, says Gang, "starts with these really strong connections to the different points of view in the city." And 80 percent of the units--some part of a hotel, the rest rental apartments or condos--will have terraces.

After deciding where to put all the bumps, Gang's team studied how the sun would hit each apartment so they could determine the size and shape the terraces would have to be to also provide adequate shade. So they not only curve in and out along the edges of the floor plates, but each one is slightly smaller or larger--up to 18 feet deep--than the ones immediately above and below it, creating swells and valleys along the facades.....

"The first time I showed the model to the contractors they were looking at me like I was nuts," says Gang. "This curvy thing? They were just like--Whoa! I think Jim was the one who made them calm down. 'Look, you guys, it's very simple.' He rationalized it so they could understand it." (Loewenberg remains the architect of record for the project.)

"In some ways it's easier to build because it's not a continuous system on the outside of the structure," says Schendel. "It's easy for the contractor to think of it as a unitized thing, like a brick. You bring in bay SR1 and put it there. SR2.1, put it there. It becomes a logical thing for them--check the floor that they're on, they know that they've got to put this series of bays in. And the window manufacturers will make them in packages of four floors at a time. They bring them out, and if it's in the right order it should go up effortlessly, flawlessly....."


Read full article at http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...ent?oid=921989

[BVictor1]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...eder24.article

Aqua makes waves as world's best
REAL ESTATE | Stunner named 2009 Skyscraper of the Year

February 24, 2010

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

The lady trumped The Donald. Jeanne Gang, founder of Studio Gang Architects, designed a residential building called the Aqua at 225 N. Columbus. Aqua was named Tuesday as the 2009 Skyscraper of the Year, an annual award issued by Emporis, a company that sells data about tall buildings. With it comes a Top 10 list of the new buildings Emporis judges best in a calendar year.

For 2009, Aqua was ranked first in balloting by the award's jury, Emporis' senior editors. Chicago's Trump International Hotel & Tower finished fifth.

Aqua has garnered Gang reams of praise since it began taking shape in the Lakeshore East development north of Grant Park. It also was a breakthrough assignment for Gang and her firm. She opened it in 1997 and started with a focus on interiors and small-scale projects. Gang executed them with flair and attention to the environment that brought her to the attention of James Loewenberg, co-chief executive of Magellan Development Group LLC, developer of Lakeshore East.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by modkris

Sorry Aleks, you may have thousands of posts but in this case you don't know what you're talking about. Everyone that hasn't seen it in person, doesn't understand the complexity of the location or the inspiration behind the design needs to stop hating. If this building was built in your city you would be worshipping it!

this has nothing to do with number of posts. i dont see those who post more as smarter or better.

and like i said, i'm not hating. i just said i love the main towers design in my last post. plus if this was in seattle i wouldn't worship it because there is nowhere in the city where it could be placed. it would look out of place on so many levels. this building was designed for chicago (although i could see it working in other cities, but nothing like seattle)

[ChiPsy]

...

[Nowhereman1280]

I just like Jeanne's attitude in this quote:

"I just think it's great for Chicago to have two buildings in a ranking like this. Think of all the great buildings done last year all over the world. It shows we're still relevant," she said.

Just thinking about Chicago and its continued relevance in the world of architecture. We love you Jeanne!!! (shes been know to read these forums).

[wrab]

The New York Times
The Nifty 50 | Jeanne Gang, Architect
By PILAR VILADAS
JANUARY 25, 2010, 9:00 AM

This month, T celebrates the Nifty 50: America’s up-and-coming talent.

When the innovative 82-story Aqua residential tower — with its curving concrete floor slabs that incorporate balconies with enhanced views and double as passive solar shading — opened recently in Chicago, articles on the project noted that it was the tallest skyscraper ever designed by a woman. But even more impressive is the fact that the woman in question, Jeanne Gang, is a mere 45 years old (a youngster by architects’ standards) and founded her office, Studio Gang, in Chicago only 13 years ago — a point at which many architects are still doing apartment renovations. The Illinois-born daughter of a civil engineer and her 35-person office have quickly amassed a portfolio of projects that address the issues of materials, process and community context with equal amounts of boldness and common sense.

Aqua’s unusual floor slabs would have been impossible without today’s digital design technology. But Gang’s decision to make them user- and energy-friendly, rather than just formal devices, reveals her interest in making tall buildings better citizens.....

Read full article at: http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2...%20aqua&st=cse