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

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

The south face is the most important face of the building in the broader context of the skyline. If you're hanging out in Chicago's front yard you now have something deeply flawed to look at. I don't know how to make that feel like a win. I wish I did.

I love urban density, and I want Chicago to get more dense. But I'm not a supertall junkie. If a building is going to be a prominent addition to the skyline it's gotta work, compositionally and not have glaring offensive elements.

It is a beautiful building that most any city would sell their left n.t to have. I, for one, am glad that we have it. It is perfect? No. But is it unique, different and does it add something new and refreshing to our skyline? Absolutely. Overall, it is a huge win for this city.

Moreover, I would venture to say that roughly 80% of the people that view this tower (while in Chicago) never see or focus upon the few flaws that it has. SSP is a unique group of people (architectural “critics” basically) who pick apart and dissect towers in ways that the general public does not. IMO the general public primarily focuses upon the massing/glazing/color of towers. In that respect, this tower rates an A- to A.

[ChiTownWonder]

I'd argue that the north facade is the most important side in this case. The number of people seeing this building while on a river cruise or crossing the Michigan Ave bridge will be far greater than those seeing it from the parks.
Grant Park doesn't get too many visitors,
Millennium Park is tucked in the corner and therefore this tower is less prominent in the view,
and everyone at MDP is probably more invested in MDP itself rather than this tower.
At the end of the day while this building has its quirks i would bet almost no one would look at Vista and call it ugly, or a failure of a building. I'm happy to have it in the skyline.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder

I'd argue that the north facade is the most important side in this case. The number of people seeing this building while on a river cruise or crossing the Michigan Ave bridge will be far greater than those seeing it from the parks.
Grant Park doesn't get too many visitors,
Millennium Park is tucked in the corner and therefore this tower is less prominent in the view,
and everyone at MDP is probably more invested in MDP itself rather than this tower.
At the end of the day while this building has its quirks i would bet almost no one would look at Vista and call it ugly, or a failure of a building. I'm happy to have it in the skyline.

You are seriously underestimating the number of people that will look at something that is slightly different and immediately proclaim that they hate it. Of course, I don't really care about that. Vista is going to be incredibly prominent from LSD, Grant Park, the Museum Campus, and many other places that are filled with tourists, visitors, and even some locals.

I do agree that the best angles of the building will be from the north and east, from Navy Pier.

It is a stunning building and I enjoy its impact on the skyline as well as the shape of it.

[ChiTownWonder]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

You are seriously underestimating the number of people that will look at something that is slightly different and immediately proclaim that they hate it. Of course, I don't really care about that. Vista is going to be incredibly prominent from LSD, Grant Park, the Museum Campus, and many other places that are filled with tourists, visitors, and even some locals.

I do agree that the best angles of the building will be from the north and east, from Navy Pier.

It is a stunning building and I enjoy its impact on the skyline as well as the shape of it.

They built jutting glass boxes on the side of the 1450' sheer wall of the Sears Tower, They added a tilting glass wall on the angled wall of the John Hancock, do people think they are architectural failures now?

No doubt it will be prominant from those angles, Im saying more visitors would see it from the other angles. good point on LSD though I forgot about that...

[Bill_Ding]

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder

No doubt that most are probably disappointed about some of the executions of Vistas south facade, but also it is what it is. I also think that each individual on this forum feels differently about each aspect of unexpected elements on the south facade, which to me include:

1. The mechanical louvers at the first setback
2. The mechanical louvers at the second setback
3. And the blow through floor

Everyone will have a different opinion, but for me #2 is the biggest crime, and breaks the rules of the form of the tower. I know Chicago is a very pro "form follows function" city but this tower is all about its form, therefore its functional aspects (i.e. the blow through and louvers) need to follow the "rules" set by the form. I honestly believe the blow through floor is actually a positive addition because it follows the same rules of the form that the louvers at the first setback follow, and I believe it balances out the south facade adding a black visual band to the top of the tower like the one that occurs closer to the bottom. The other louvers make no sense but they are also the least visible of the three, so when it comes down to it the addition to the skyline, striking form and interesting glass gradients outweigh the one negative I see in the building.

The problem is that designers never properly account for the function of the building. They come up with these beautiful seamless renderings that don't show anything but glass. They need to start taking a more thoughtful approach to the design and incorporate these features from the beginning. When they get treated as an afterthought, the look like an afterthought.

[Bill_Ding]

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder

I'd argue that the north facade is the most important side in this case. The number of people seeing this building while on a river cruise or crossing the Michigan Ave bridge will be far greater than those seeing it from the parks.
Grant Park doesn't get too many visitors,
Millennium Park is tucked in the corner and therefore this tower is less prominent in the view,
and everyone at MDP is probably more invested in MDP itself rather than this tower.
At the end of the day while this building has its quirks i would bet almost no one would look at Vista and call it ugly, or a failure of a building. I'm happy to have it in the skyline.

The building can be seen from all sides folks. Arguing which side is more important is about as useful as a concrete parachute.

[bhawk66]

you guys need to get out more.


...no, wait....scratch that.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Bill_Ding

The problem is that designers never properly account for the function of the building. They come up with these beautiful seamless renderings that don't show anything but glass. They need to start taking a more thoughtful approach to the design and incorporate these features from the beginning. When they get treated as an afterthought, the look like an afterthought.

No, 'designers' and architects do account for functionality in almost every instance and in all renderings, particularly with supertalls... this design and this designer are unique in not accounting for structure and functionality when the frustum concept was born... every bad move since the frustum concept was adopted was an attempt to make the shape work at all costs...

[Bill_Ding]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

No, 'designers' and architects do account for functionality in almost every instance and in all renderings, particularly with supertalls... this design and this designer are unique in not accounting for structure and functionality when the frustum concept was born... every bad move since the frustum concept was adopted was an attempt to make the shape work at all costs...

Hasn't the building always been frustum shaped since the initial concept? If you look at the studio gang website they show a rendering from the apparently "less important" southern view with the current design and show absolutely no louvers at all. Just glass.

[Donnie77]

^^^said picture above was originally supposed to have the tallest tower to the east so in retrospect this pic is still looking at it from the north side

[Darude_Sandstorm]

Originally Posted by Bill_Ding

Hasn't the building always been frustum shaped since the initial concept? If you look at the studio gang website they show a rendering from the apparently "less important" southern view with the current design and show absolutely no louvers at all. Just glass.

The last thing I'll say about this--and for me, this is hugely important--is that right now no one involved in the development or design of this building has spoken on these louvers or taken any accountability for this failure. The design changes just quietly happened. I remember when it was first starting to dawn on people in this forum that this was how the south face was going to look. I don't recall anyone here who wasn't caught off guard. That's weird.

I would love to see Blair Kamin call for someone's head. At this point I just want someone to come out and say we fucked up, we're sorry, we've learned from this. Also, didn't someone say that Aqua had some comparable design issue that wasn't expected (some fin issue)?

[SpireGuy]

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

The last thing I'll say about this--and for me, this is hugely important--is that right now no one involved in the development or design of this building has spoken on these louvers or taken any accountability for this failure. The design changes just quietly happened. I remember when it was first starting to dawn on people in this forum that this was how the south face was going to look. I don't recall anyone here who wasn't caught off guard. That's weird.

I would love to see Blair Kamin call for someone's head. At this point I just want someone to come out and say we fucked up, we're sorry, we've learned from this. Also, didn't someone say that Aqua had some comparable design issue that wasn't expected (some fin issue)?

Your comments on this subject are 100% on point for me. The mechanical floors, especially the one towards the top that doesn't span the whole floor, are terrible. It's a massive scar on an otherwise beautiful tower. The black mechanical floors are so choppy and cheap looking. I have no issues with the blow through floor and actually kind of like it. I know we are nit-picky, but this is architecture and I give credit where it's due. The south face is pretty disappointing.

[gandalf612]

Honest question: What would you want them to do instead? The mechanicals need louvers to function properly. The way I see it black is the best possible color when you consider the fact that they can't match them to the color of the glass since that changes every day depending on lighting and weather. Painted metal wouldn't be able to match the shifting, so I'd personally much rather have consistent black louvers than blue louvers that are only matching the glass once a year.

[ChiTownWonder]

^ Gang should have designed the building with the mechanical floors and louvers in mind, so no one would have to argue what the best way to tack them on would be. At this point it is what it is which is why I'm not trying to be too negative about it.

[ChiTownWonder]

Like these any better?

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder

^ Gang should have designed the building with the mechanical floors and louvers in mind, so no one would have to argue what the best way to tack them on would be. At this point it is what it is which is why I'm not trying to be too negative about it.

^Well, this is exactly the point. No one should (and no one probably has until now) start any architectural project, much less a skyscraper, without a concept not just for the form, but the structure, the MEP (mech/elec/plumbing), and the program functioning in all of this. As far as I can tell, this project fails all of the above except for arguably achieving the 'form' goal...

We can argue endlessly about what would have been a better solution for the louvers or the blow-through, but it's a straw man that was created when all of these other design issues were ignored...

As far as the rendering of the south view of the tower, that indeed was/is the south view. The re-positioning of the tallest tower to the west occurred way before the latest iteration of the window wall vocabulary. That rendering just underscores a willful ignorance occurring in the architect's office with regard to the unpleasant or aesthetically awkward needs of the project...

[SIGSEGV]

[Skyguy_7]

^LOL

Originally Posted by gandalf612

Honest question: What would you want them to do instead? The mechanicals need louvers to function properly. The way I see it black is the best possible color when you consider the fact that they can't match them to the color of the glass since that changes every day depending on lighting and weather. Painted metal wouldn't be able to match the shifting, so I'd personally much rather have consistent black louvers than blue louvers that are only matching the glass once a year.

^ A shade of blue or green would have been far better than black. Hell, they could have used 7 separate tones of blue/green and it would have looked 10x better than the black!

[Bill_Ding]

I would love to see Blair Kamin call for someone's head. At this point I just want someone to come out and say we fucked up, we're sorry, we've learned from this. Also, didn't someone say that Aqua had some comparable design issue that wasn't expected (some fin issue)?[/QUOTE]

Isn't Blair Kamin a journalist or critic or something? How would he have any say in getting someone fired? That is just plain silly. Are you going to send him after Jeanne herself? I mean seriously.

[SIGSEGV]

From today:


Why doesn't the middle black area extend all the way across?