That tower looks miserable. The detail looks cool but the full-building render looks like a mess. People will make fun of it as being what a poorly built tower looks like after a San Andreas earthquake has hit it. Possibly this effect could be mitigated if it had a blank horizontal band 1/3 or 2/3 of the way up, as Aqua does (although there might be no mechanical or transfer floor in such a short building).

I'm curious what makes the rendering seem cheesy; is it the candycane-like stripes in various hues of blue? But if those are part of Gang's (purported) design, then is it just the general glossiness?

Most forumers here seem to be assuming that Wanda is in some way the operating developer here. I've seen nothing actually that suggests that the arrangement is anything other than Magellan being the developer and Wanda being the majority equity partner, an extremely typical arrangement. There's always a chance it could be different I suppose - for example Magellan brought LR Development (now Related Midwest) to actually develop 340 on the Park........but I really tend to doubt that's the case here (who has more experience and expertise developing in Chicago - Magellan or Wanda?) - it seems much, much more likely to me that Wanda is just the foreign equity that's overwhelmingly backing this project.


BTW, Wanda has indeed taken down the original press release that was linked to in this thread - surprise, surprise (well, not to me of course).

Ooops, I suppose.....

You know, that would explain a lot about this. Someone carried rough massing diagrams or a phone picture of a Studio Gang model back to Wuhan and turned it over to the staff "architects" there.

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense to me. Her firm would never release sky blue Dubai-esque renderings. It's just not their style. Many of us here reacted negatively at first to the rendering, and it was probably for good reason. The more time that goes on and we here nothing from Magellan and Gang the better. It lends credence to the idea that they're still finishing the design.

^I agree, it's pretty safe to assume Gang didn't draw this up.


Here are your more typical Gang renderings:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/binary/..._prentice.jpeg
http://www.dailytonic.com/wp-content.../06/aqua_4.jpg

Yea, something tells me this is going to be a developing story and we just need to stay tuned.

No offense, but I think it's rather hilarious you're just assuming this render was done by Chinese architects because it's some Chinese company. Not all Chinese companies are like that - yes they are more used to working with Chinese companies, but everything you wrote is 100% speculation.

Also, let's not forget that most Chinese companies prefer working with Western architects as evidenced by the fact that nearly all marquee projects in China are designed in the West. I'm not sure where the speculation is coming from, but it seems much more likely to me that Magellan and Gang were not ready to announce anything yet and Wanda jumped the gun. It seems likely to me that any changes to the design will be refinements, not major modifications. I also don't get how this rendering is "cheap" or "cheesy", it looks right about on par with most first round renderings we get and, in fact, kinda reminds me of the Solstice proposal Gang designed a while ago:

http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-conte...the-park-2.jpg
inhabitat.com

This rendering is much much higher quality than the ones she first released for that project.

Oh yeah. I have a friend at SOM who's designing something huge in China right now. I know a lot of them use some big American architects. I think the render isn't cheap - I just think there might be better HQ ones out there. There are definitely some "Solstice" elements in this.

Also, when I was in SE Asia last year (Malaysia and Singapore) I saw some super unique stuff that was both high rise and low rise. I know that not every single one of these projects was done by American architects. Some of the stuff I saw was rather awesome (and some was just out there and rather experimental). I wouldn't mind some of what I saw there in Chicago to be honest.

I'm pretty sure that is a Gang-sanctioned rendering. As far as details and refinement, there isn't much, huh? Particularly for a building that Gang's office has been working on for over a year...

The more I think about it the more I wonder if there even should be more detailing or "refinement". Isn't that kinda of the point of Modernism, Less is More. This building is kinda a one trick pony, but does it even need to be more than that? Also, we should remember that this is a rendering of a 1,150' building, I know it's been a while since we've seen one of those, but it's pretty difficult to show fine grained detail when you are this zoomed out. I remember the Trump Tower renderings, for example, were not all that detailed. If they go with some high quality glass here, I am not sure it even needs anything more than butt glazed glass. This building could have some pretty awesome shadowing and mirroring effects because of all the facets, so hell, let the glass just be glass.

I've been withholding an opinion on this building, waiting to see how it felt after some time. I can't say I instantly loved it and I haven't really warmed to it. I appreciate the daring design, but there's just something about the balconies that kills it for me. To me, there's just too much balcony, I mean, they are on every side, and something bothers me about their non-uniform size (I know Aqua was the epitome of this). I'd like to see more uninterrupted glass to let the shape of the building "breath". I'm also not realy digging lighter blue glass flanking the balconies, kinda reminds me of the lapels of a cheap tux. I WANT to like this building, because I love Studio Gang, but...

Again, my assumption here seems to be different than that of most - I think the developer is likely to still be Magellan, and the majority equity investor is Wanda (as well as possible other involvement with the hotel). The relationship between the developer and equity investor might not be all that different here from the typical case (in the vast majority of cases, it's only the developer itself that is dealing with the design stuff). Remember - some developers do, but the overwhelming majoirty do not build with anything but a mimimum amount of their own money, - on the equity side alone - and of course, when you add in the debt, it's even a much, much smaller proportion of the overall project cost.

Yeah, your right, 'detail' is not the appropriate term... I should have said 'refinement', both conceptually and contextually. The conceptual part is based upon insider info, but the contextual part - the way the building relates to the program, the site, neighboring buildings, the ground, etc.

Would someone mind educating me and tell me how this rendering in contextually not right? I'm honestly curious because I don't think I understand that exactly. It does appear to me that the Gems high school appears a bit too tall next to the western most part of the proposed tower. Is that what you mean?

No, I'm assuming the renderer was Chinese because the artistic style is cartoonish, it's super-saturated with a blue sky, faded context, obvious stock entourages (people, cars, trees).

I worked at an (American) firm doing Chinese hotels and our renderings often looked like this - they were outsourced to a Chinese graphics team. These can range from awesome to mediocre, depending on how much you pay.

http://www.china-render.com/exterior-works/

Sure, I'll explain a little further my thinking: Your suggestion that Phase II of Gems "appears a bit too tall" is right on the money. Jeanne came up with this frustum idea but apparently does not have the skill and/or desire to refine it to address the existing condition of the neighboring building or the ground plane. Why does the form of the building need to be SO relentless? Can't the form deviate just a little to respect the context? Couldn't additional volumes at the base or some kind of overlapping volumetric logic help with the varying uses and context?

Frankly, I was shocked that after a year of working on this building that these issues had not been addressed. I was also surprised that the programming of the project also didn't at least massage the form somewhat.

Regardless, with any project that is to be built, a final verdict must wait. I guess I belong in the camp of most of the existing great towers of Chicago that ultimately were based upon Form Follows Function (Sears, Hancock, First National, Marina City). As some of these examples attest to, this doesn't have to mean a boring orthogonal internationalist box. The challenge with creating an unique form isn't to arbitrarily select it and force the program and structure into it, but create an unique form that is inherently tied to the function of the building and it's context. IMHO.

I don't think the Gems school looks too tall. It is almost exactly the height of a two frustum unit in the new Gang design so it steps up perfectly almost like it is a part of the new tower. This is going to be an excellently modern stretch of the riverwall between Swisshotel, Coast, Gems, and this new tower.

My only gripe is the car ramp on the east side, just seems like it is thrown on as an afterthought and not really incorporated into the overall design well.

maybe, but what to do with the 12-story sliver of an alley between the two, for example? and your not suggesting that Jeanne actually intended for those two to have any relationship whatsoever?