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

[bcp]

wow, people are complaining about the remaining, windowless tetris shaped west-side of a different building as the major flaw of this one? jeez...i wonder if it was zero-lot-line on that side of people would complain that it was crowding and stealing that building's sunlight...

[Cyprose]

Originally Posted by le_brew

no argument on your point as you evidently know what i do not. but the website lists all their projects, even conceptual drawings, and no mention of this to date?
and gang stayed quiet on this one up to last week, and still said nada.

I think you are reading way to much into something as simple as when a website gets updated.

But of course gang was mum on this until last week. The earlier renders were released prematurely. Although we did have reports of thus design prior to the renders.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

IMO, Kamin's review is not his finest work. After his shameful aversion to the Lucas Museum, I'm growing a bit weary of his criticism. What, exactly, are his issues with the design? It seems like he devotes the majority of his review to the lack of emphasis on a connection between Wacker and Lakeshore East. To be fair, I, too, share his concern about just how compartmentalized and isolated the park is, and I agree that the dearth of renderings is surprising and disappointing. But that doesn't necessarily mean the design "needs work"; it means we need more information. And let's acknowledge some of the parameters: how many of us believe Magellan truly wants LSE to be easily accessible? My understanding is that the suburban nature of the site plan is intentional. Not that the city shouldn't push for something more integrated. It for sure should, and if the current design really does represent a missed opportunity (again, hard to tell based on what we have seen so far), then, yes, it would be smart for Rahm to leverage his influence over zoning to extract some concessions. Let's dispense, though, with the idea that this is a feature Studio Gang has much control over.

Moving from hypotheticals to the images he does have, he just confuses me. If the online rendering he mentions is indeed the one posted by Via Chicago, then I simply don't understand how he fails to recognize it as the same design. And what are these "graceful curves" he's referring to? Speaking of which, his insistence on fluidity and aversion to blockiness leads me to believe he isn't speaking metaphorically and would prefer a design that's literally rounder. I don't disagree that there's a frustrating sketchiness to the main rendering, but reverting to the organic language of Aqua's balconies is not the solution. (I can't help but feel he's suggesting as much with that reference to Mies.)

Lastly: Wanda's neighbors are "bland"? To the east, for sure, but did he forget about Coast, Swissotel, and the soon-to-be-constructed GEMS upper school? I certainly hope so, because that's otherwise a serious lapse in taste.

Tsk, tsk, Blair.

I agree 100%. I read this article as "the renderings I have seen don't show enough detail, therefore I am forced to assume this building has no detailing, but then again I just saw a rendering that shows the building slathered in rather nice detailing, but I for some reason can't assume that its the same design". The entire time I was reading it I kept thinking "there is literally no content to this editorial".

[pilsenarch]

What I find amusing for all you tower enthusiasts, is your complete jetissing of any objective critique of this project.

First, the massing and the 'frustums':

Every single significant tower in Chicago of any worth (I'm not including Aon, designed by a NY firm, BTW) derives its' overall massing from from either a structural system or functional use being expressed or both. Jeanne is not doing either. Is that by itself a problem? Not necessarily, but shouldn't she have some reason other than it looks cool? She would appear to agree based upon early presentations I have seen. Her only stated justification for the form that I have heard: It's 'green' due to shading of half of the glass. As I have pointed out a number of times on this thread, that is laughable and I would assume she has since dropped that justification. Meanwhile, does the program provide some need to expand the floor areas in this manner? No, it does not. As I've said before, I'm looking forward to how the floor plans are resolved. Maybe they will be splendid, but this will be solving a problem that did not exist. The other moves, the shifting of the 3 towers and the stepping-up away from the lake are both welcome moves appearing to provide both functionality and visual 'complexity' benefiting the design.

(Many of you probably do not realize that bKL did a design for this and established the concept of the '3 towers'. It was a very structurally expressive concept and the potential was incredibly exciting. Jeanne took this concept and applied the frustum and hid any structural expression.)

Second, the way the tower meet's the street and its' neighbors:

Yes, the renderings of this project and the relationship to the street and its' neighbors are inadequate to fully judge. But one thing is clear, Jeanne appears to have made a decision to leave the current design as just taking what appears to be a totally arbitrary massing decision and ram it straight down on to upper Wacker (with the exception of a bizarre little bustle on the east end, a truncated frustum if you will, a 4th 'tower', that awkwardly sidles up to the building to the east). The issue is the street wall. It's not just the meeting of the party wall to the east, but the future party wall of Gems II to the south. If you look at the rendering, it even appears that the west wall of Wanda is still angled in toward the east, feet or inches away, which would create some weird angled 'dead cat' space between Wanda and Gems.

Why can't this building be more than just another 'one-liner' conceptually? Why can't the massing be not just derived by being different, but somehow relate to the structure, program, and/or context? Even if one wants to accept this seemingly arbitrary massing as justified, why wouldn't working on developing the massing to evolve so it can relate to the Wacker street wall and its' neighbors and transition to meet the ground beneath this project not make a significantly better building? It's a level of 'complexity and contradiction' that this design appears to sorely need.

[le_brew]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

(Many of you probably do not realize that bKL did a design for this and established the concept of the '3 towers'. It was a very structurally expressive concept and the potential was incredibly exciting. Jeanne took this concept and applied the frustum and hid any structural expression.)

i am aware that she is a partnering with bkl. could it be that she is commissioned to refine a concept which was already developed in china? just asking?

this tower appears untrue to jeanne gang's work in that gang towers, to date, are environmentally sensitive and contextual. quotes from studio gang website:
the design introduces an evolution of the classic bay window, a familiar architectural feature of San Francisco’s early houses; designed to become a pedestrian-friendly hub that helps encourage the greater urban evolution of its neighborhood; using incident angles of the sun’s rays to sculpt building form; challenges the current notion of pure iconography and symbolism in tall buildings etc, etc.

i may be reading too much into it, but where is the environmental sensitivity in wanda tower? either way, i'm sure this will be a beautiful addition to chgo skyline if/when it gets built.

yet, am of the opinion that she has not yet managed to make this her own project and expect changes i can't wait to see. . . .

just my opinion no one asked for.

[pilsenarch]

^HA... maybe you can tell me what that quote from Studio Gang's website really means...

and no, the design originated only with bKL...

[le_brew]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

^HA... maybe you can tell me what that quote from Studio Gang's website really means...

and no, the design originated only with bKL...

those were several quotes from various projects. my interpretation is that the firm not only designs within environmental context, but with a positive mission: improvement to humanity/community

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

What I find amusing for all you tower enthusiasts, is your complete jetissing of any objective critique of this project.

First, the massing and the 'frustums':

Every single significant tower in Chicago of any worth (I'm not including Aon, designed by a NY firm, BTW) derives its' overall massing from from either a structural system or functional use being expressed or both. Jeanne is not doing either. Is that by itself a problem? Not necessarily, but shouldn't she have some reason other than it looks cool? She would appear to agree based upon early presentations I have seen. Her only stated justification for the form that I have heard: It's 'green' due to shading of half of the glass. As I have pointed out a number of times on this thread, that is laughable and I would assume she has since dropped that justification. Meanwhile, does the program provide some need to expand the floor areas in this manner? No, it does not. As I've said before, I'm looking forward to how the floor plans are resolved. Maybe they will be splendid, but this will be solving a problem that did not exist. The other moves, the shifting of the 3 towers and the stepping-up away from the lake are both welcome moves appearing to provide both functionality and visual 'complexity' benefiting the design.

(Many of you probably do not realize that bKL did a design for this and established the concept of the '3 towers'. It was a very structurally expressive concept and the potential was incredibly exciting. Jeanne took this concept and applied the frustum and hid any structural expression.)

Second, the way the tower meet's the street and its' neighbors:

Yes, the renderings of this project and the relationship to the street and its' neighbors are inadequate to fully judge. But one thing is clear, Jeanne appears to have made a decision to leave the current design as just taking what appears to be a totally arbitrary massing decision and ram it straight down on to upper Wacker (with the exception of a bizarre little bustle on the east end, a truncated frustum if you will, a 4th 'tower', that awkwardly sidles up to the building to the east). The issue is the street wall. It's not just the meeting of the party wall to the east, but the future party wall of Gems II to the south. If you look at the rendering, it even appears that the west wall of Wanda is still angled in toward the east, feet or inches away, which would create some weird angled 'dead cat' space between Wanda and Gems.

Why can't this building be more than just another 'one-liner' conceptually? Why can't the massing be not just derived by being different, but somehow relate to the structure, program, and/or context? Even if one wants to accept this seemingly arbitrary massing as justified, why wouldn't working on developing the massing to evolve so it can relate to the Wacker street wall and its' neighbors and transition to meet the ground beneath this project not make a significantly better building? It's a level of 'complexity and contradiction' that this design appears to sorely need.

And you've gathered that Gang has no other justification for this how? Through her lack of comment? I know you have inside information, but you sound just like Kamin to me: "I haven't heard enough from Gang, therefore the design is unrefined". Why don't you wait until we hear what she has to say before claiming she has nothing legitimate to say?

[Zapatan]

Thank God for this project, although there are a few highrises in the works I feel like Chicago is really falling behind in terms of skyscraper development which is such a shame for one of my favorite cities/skylines. Hopefully this is just a low point and that changes soon.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Thank God for this project, although there are a few highrises in the works I feel like Chicago is really falling behind in terms of skyscraper development which is such a shame for one of my favorite cities/skylines. Hopefully this is just a low point and that changes soon.

Cmon dude. Seriously?

I mean, if your only chasing supertalls, I get why your saying that. But as someone who doesn't live here, take my word for it that the city is in another urban transformation. Just wait to see what streeterville and river north are gonna look like 5-10 years from now. Its not only about supertalls.

[Dale]

It's just that Chicago seems snakebit regarding new tallest proposals. Otherwise, Chicago is going hammer and tongs.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

And you've gathered that Gang has no other justification for this how? Through her lack of comment? I know you have inside information, but you sound just like Kamin to me: "I haven't heard enough from Gang, therefore the design is unrefined". Why don't you wait until we hear what she has to say before claiming she has nothing legitimate to say?

LOL... of course my critique is based upon not just her "lack of comment", but rather on what her comments actually are (as you yourself mention, I HAVE heard from Ms. Gang)... AND, most importantly, on the published work...which in the end is all that matters, not what is said.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Cmon dude. Seriously?

I mean, if your only chasing supertalls, I get why your saying that. But as someone who doesn't live here, take my word for it that the city is in another urban transformation. Just wait to see what streeterville and river north are gonna look like 5-10 years from now. Its not only about supertalls.

I don't doubt you and that's great of course but yes I am referring to supertalls, or at least very tall buildings (>250m) since Chicago used to be/is a city defined by them. I know I might be obsessively comparing but I'm always proud the US has 2 of the top 5 skylines in the world, and in order to keep that up Chicago's gonna need to build more than it's building. For what it's worth, I hope the spire site and wolf point (And of course Wanda) provide some great buildings, I think that would help a lot.

[le_brew]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

(as you yourself mention, I HAVE heard from Ms. Gang)

what did she say to you? do share. . .

i have not seen one published statement from gang regarding this building. if i'm missing that, at least link me to it, please.

[pilsenarch]

I have shared EVERYTHING I witnessed in a presentation that was made to potential middle eastern investors pre-Wanda that pertain to the concept. That is the point.

But again, the work ultimately speaks for itself. I only bring up the statements by Jeanne (or lack thereof) to reinforce the critique of the the work. At this point, it doesn't matter what she has said or is going to say (or any 'insider' knowledge), the design now sits in front of us, such as it is. Obviously, she is not going to suddenly say the massing is derived from a structural or programmatic requirement or any contextual realtionships... because... it obviously is not.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Thank God for this project, although there are a few highrises in the works I feel like Chicago is really falling behind in terms of skyscraper development which is such a shame for one of my favorite cities/skylines. Hopefully this is just a low point and that changes soon.

I think this is a common misperception in these forums because Chicago is one of the few cities that does not have an individual thread for all of its highrise projects. It appears that Chicago is not building a lot when, in reality, the city is experiencing a lot of highrise construction

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think this is a common misperception in these forums because Chicago is one of the few cities that does not have an individual thread for all of its highrise projects. It appears that Chicago is not building a lot when, in reality, the city is experiencing a lot of highrise construction

True, and again that's good, but while filler buildings are great and in large numbers add density etc. to the city it takes buildings in the 3-400 meter range to really impact the skyline of a city like Chicago. I know it may not be realistic for me to wish for a ton of those but that's what would keep Chi-town in the big league.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

I have shared EVERYTHING I witnessed in a presentation that was made to potential middle eastern investors pre-Wanda that pertain to the concept. That is the point.

But again, the work ultimately speaks for itself. I only bring up the statements by Jeanne (or lack thereof) to reinforce the critique of the the work. At this point, it doesn't matter what she has said or is going to say (or any 'insider' knowledge), the design now sits in front of us, such as it is. Obviously, she is not going to suddenly say the massing is derived from a structural or programmatic requirement or any contextual realtionships... because... it obviously is not.

How is it obviously not though? Regardless of the origins of the three tower concept, it's quite clearly being done for structural reasons. Who cares how she dresses those three towers up?

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Who cares how she dresses those three towers up?

seriously?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

seriously?

Deadly serious. If we are talking about structure being the primary obligation for the design of a Chicago skyscraper, then as long as the three separate structures are expressed, the detailing hardly matters. As I understand it, you are calling for structural expression, this design does that regardless of whether it is Gang or bKL who came up with the idea. What other structure is there to express here? It's in all likelihood reinforced concrete meaning that you can essentially mold it into whatever shape you want. So why do we care (from a structural expression perspective) what other gimmicks she wants to apply as long as the triple tower trope is expressed?

I agree that the little orphan frustrum next door is somewhat awkward, but I highly doubt the architect has any say over that portion of the massing. That seems like a height and massing restraint imposed by Lowemburg so as not to encroach on the building next door. She probably only gets to determine the detailing, not the size.