OK, I know that I will be absolutely pilloried for the following opinion, but here it goes:
I've been waiting until this project was substantially finished and I had a chance to walk through it to solidify my observations. The overall massing and the structural solution to the unique restraints of the site are certainly to be commended - even if it's not a totally novel solution, at least in this location it is directly a result of the site limitations.
Having said that, almost every design decision beyond the basic massing I would argue was wrongheaded.
Where to start? The lack of clarity regarding the fenestration - blurring rather than enhancing the shifting forms of the tower (check out earlier renderings vs what was built); the 'waves' appearing to be nothing more than a crowd pleaser and is a design theme that does not appear anywhere else in the vocabulary; the detailing of the glass enclosure of the lobby asks us to pretend to perceive it as if it wasn't there at all - forgiving them some awkward structural detailing while missing an opportunity to develop the architectural language so the lobby enclosure could reference something else in the project or 'transform' itself as it transitions into the west elevation of the tower; and many other awkward 'where the hell did that come from?' detailing: the chamfered corners and chamfered 'arches' of the stone at the elevator cores; the louver detail at the underside cantilevered portion of the tower - particularly on the open river side; the somewhat formal 'bow' at the river walk positioned at the center of the tower...
I guess all of my criticism is pointing to one of the most problematic things about this design: The tower itself is totally symmetrical about the N/S axis (meaning the east and west are mirror images of each other) making no gesture or vocabulary evolution of the tower itself to acknowledge that the space below the tower is totally open to the east and the Chicago River, but to the west is the grand lobby of the project, while appearing to be below grade when you are standing in it. This is a design opportunity and I guess you could say they addressed it somewhat successfully with the LED installation, but I still think it was a larger missed opportunity to develop the glass lobby enclosure with more of a presence. Not by necessarily de-emphasizing the awesome cantilever, but by acknowledging that the lobby really does not have any views to the west (except of the neighboring residential lofts) and is indeed 'sunken' so it already loses that totally 'open' feeling. I think the lobby side of the tower could have been enhanced by being more a part of or an evolution of the tower vocabulary (what if the 'waves' continued down to the lobby, became more 3-dimensional and formed a visually lightweight structural screen). Also, the same could be said about the identical detailing of the lighted louvers - somewhat successful on the lobby side and in the core - not so much on the river side. And where did this detail come from anyway? Why don't we see it reappear anywhere else in the project? Why couldn't we see similar detailing at the top, lit at night? What are the themes and where is the rigor?
The whole project looks to me like it is trying really hard to appear hip, utilizing the 'latest' in architectural details, but instead reads as an old whore drowning in too much random costume jewelry...
