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

[Randomguy34]

^^^ Just the post's bold text alone wins everything

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by chiphile

Let me put the whole Frustum thing to rest.

the entire Hancock is one fucking frustum.

OK. talk about something else now folks.

I wonder, if the hancock were proposed today, how much "arbitrary" bullshit we would hear about the necessity of the higher floor plates being smaller than the lower floors? The only reason no one is questioning the Hancock's shape is because it's old and considered the classic symbol of Chicago. Build wanda in 1960 and it would've been, perhaps not the best skyscraper, but it would've been considered classic Chicago.

I like the Wanda design but this is a poor comparison. The Hancock frustrum fits the program of the building. Larger floor plates for offices smaller floor plates for residences. And aesthetically emphasizes the buildings height so from the base it looks like its even taller than it actually is it also communicates stability and strength. Not to mention the structural purpose of the shape and benefit of smaller lighter floors as the building ascends

[ardecila]

Except that the Hancock is almost 100% rationalist.

Office uses demand larger floorplates than residential - you can be far from a window in an office, but in a condo unit it would suck hugely. Parking wants even bigger floorplates, because with a given number of spaces, bigger floorplates means fewer levels and fewer ramps to drive up. The mixed-use proforma for the building wants three differently-sized floorplates.

The most logical form here is a tower with two setbacks at the transition from parking to office and office to residential. But setbacks are odd (who gets to use the roof space?) and sometimes require costly transfer floors. A tapering form/frustum solved the problem, just like it did at First National/Chase Plaza. I've also heard that the taper reduced problems with wind loading at the uppermost levels.

[Zapatan]

Man people are making such a big deal out of nothing, it doesn't even taper in and out *that* much.

I find it unique and appealing, and it'll be quite tall to boot, can't we just be happy this is probably getting built in Chicago?

[Zapatan]

I'm just going to post this picture again to show how ridiculous any complaints are... if it's not your cup of tea that's okay. But this building, unique, colorful and tall is being built in Chicago, it's another supertall on one of the world's best skylines.

[wierdaaron]

If you want to be mad about something, be mad that only millionaires will ever be inside of it. Or you could be like the cranky neighbors of this building and be mad about motorcycle noise.

[FlashingLights]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Except that the Hancock is almost 100% rationalist.

Office uses demand larger floorplates than residential - you can be far from a window in an office, but in a condo unit it would suck hugely. Parking wants even bigger floorplates, because with a given number of spaces, bigger floorplates means fewer levels and fewer ramps to drive up. The mixed-use proforma for the building wants three differently-sized floorplates.

The most logical form here is a tower with two setbacks at the transition from parking to office and office to residential. But setbacks are odd (who gets to use the roof space?) and sometimes require costly transfer floors. A tapering form/frustum solved the problem, just like it did at First National/Chase Plaza. I've also heard that the taper reduced problems with wind loading at the uppermost levels.

Bingo the hancock was designed for structural/functional reasons to be the shape it is. This is designed with form & design reasons. Absolutely TERRIBLE comparison. Embarrassing that he even tried to make this comparison.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I'm just going to post this picture again to show how ridiculous any complaints are... if it's not your cup of tea that's okay. But this building, unique, colorful and tall is being built in Chicago, it's another supertall on one of the world's best skylines.

amen, looks killer, can't wait

[rigby]

I might be late , but what is the schedule for this project getting started ?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by rigby

I might be late , but what is the schedule for this project getting started ?

Next year I believe.


To me this building sort of seems like a distant cousin of Taipei 101, probably a mix of the color and vague chinese take-out box shapes, except these would be stacked differently.

I say this as a good thing, I'm a fan of that building.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

If you want to be mad about something, be mad that only millionaires will ever be inside of it. Or you could be like the cranky neighbors of this building and be mad about motorcycle noise.

You can save up for a stay in the hotel or have a bite in the restaurant. In that case, not only millionaires will ever be inside.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by rigby

I might be late , but what is the schedule for this project getting started ?

i remember reading somewhere that the developer is anticipating to start construction in Q3 of 2016.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

If you want to be mad about something, be mad that only millionaires will ever be inside of it. Or you could be like the cranky neighbors of this building and be mad about motorcycle noise.

One thing I've learned about Americans over my life is that they LOVE hanging around millionaires.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

You can save up for a stay in the hotel or have a bit in the restaurant. In that case, not only millionaires will ever be inside.

You could also work as a nanny or private chef

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by gttx

You could also work as a nanny or private chef

You see, now you're thinking

[pilsenarch]

From the 130 N Franklin thread:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

But that's literally the same logic for Wanda, Gang herself made no secret that a huge part of the design was trying to create more views (or "a bit of delight" as you put it) for the residents. She just started with a shape and decided to create a more geometric version of what K+S is doing here.

Both towers are sculptural and don't rely on form follows function, that's where architecture is at these days. I just see your response as "Wanda is too abstract, but not abstract enough".

Lou, 'delight' is not the same as 'views'... I think we have pretty much all established that the 'view' justification is total BS, as is many other justifications... (and I don't think the frustums are imparting much delight to the interiors of this tower)...
K+S is saying only that they are, in fact, making sculpture and a fairly decent job of it with an otherwise pretty dumb program that doesn't ask too much...

Gang is not saying that she is making sculpture, and, if she was, it is having a somewhat detrimental effect on the cost/function/context of the project, unlike 130 N Franklin...

I thought that this was beginning to sink in with you...

I think it is important to discuss form-making by our architects on these threads, hold them to high standards, and, as someone already pointed out, it would be kinda hard for any decent architect not to create something spectacular at 1200’ at this site with two roads going through it...

in most design schools, any critic and any student who justifies their design solely because they 'like it' will be crucified and for good reason...

design can be subjective, so in order to discuss it rationally with a student or critic or an architect, one has to explain the polemics behind it, otherwise it would be like arguing that my favorite color green is vastly superior to your favorite color blue...

so that is why in an earlier post I attempted to explain why all of the other great Chicago towers look the way they do...

that doesn't mean that form follows function will always result, or even be biased toward conventional forms...

a more recent local example is the Roosevelt U tower whose form was derived from the programmatic function of requiring common lounges every so many floors and a response to its' specific site (generating the black precast portions)...

as I mentioned before, OMA's work, most of which is comprised of highly unique forms, are usually a direct result of the function of the building and a direct representation of its' structural solution...

I like Gang's '2nd vocabulary' as a way to respond to context... now if only the overall form (arbitrarily selected frustums) and cladding (the gradients in tint) had a legitimate justification rather than 'I think my favorite color, green (or blue, or pink, or whatever), is cool!', then maybe they would appear more organic, and intrinsic to the design of a beautiful tower...

[Chi-Sky21]

Good god this is getting tiresome! How about i get it over with and be the blasphemer..i do not really care weather form follows function. With stronger and stronger construction material we can design more interesting things than just a box nowadays....so why not get creative now and then!

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

From the 130 N Franklin thread:


Lou, 'delight' is not the same as 'views'... I think we have pretty much all established that the 'view' justification is total BS, as is many other justifications... (and I don't think the frustums are imparting much delight to the interiors of this tower)...
K+S is saying only that they are, in fact, making sculpture and a fairly decent job of it with an otherwise pretty dumb program that doesn't ask too much...

Gang is not saying that she is making sculpture, and, if she was, it is having a somewhat detrimental effect on the cost/function/context of the project, unlike 130 N Franklin...

I thought that this was beginning to sink in with you...

I think it is important to discuss form-making by our architects on these threads, hold them to high standards, and, as someone already pointed out, it would be kinda hard for any decent architect not to create something spectacular at 1200’ at this site with two roads going through it...

in most design schools, any critic and any student who justifies their design solely because they 'like it' will be crucified and for good reason...

design can be subjective, so in order to discuss it rationally with a student or critic or an architect, one has to explain the polemics behind it, otherwise it would be like arguing that my favorite color green is vastly superior to your favorite color blue...

so that is why in an earlier post I attempted to explain why all of the other great Chicago towers look the way they do...

that doesn't mean that form follows function will always result, or even be biased toward conventional forms...

a more recent local example is the Roosevelt U tower whose form was derived from the programmatic function of requiring common lounges every so many floors and a response to its' specific site (generating the black precast portions)...

as I mentioned before, OMA's work, most of which is comprised of highly unique forms, are usually a direct result of the function of the building and a direct representation of its' structural solution...

I like Gang's '2nd vocabulary' as a way to respond to context... now if only the overall form (arbitrarily selected frustums) and cladding (the gradients in tint) had a legitimate justification rather than 'I think my favorite color, green (or blue, or pink, or whatever), is cool!', then maybe they would appear more organic, and intrinsic to the design of a beautiful tower...

This reminds me of invited design studio critics I had in school that seemed to do nothing other than talk to themselves in order to try and internally rationalize their own convoluted point of view; point being: eventually the point rationalizes itself into irrelevancy.

[Zapatan]

I feel like this thread should be closed until more real news honestly...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I feel like this thread should be closed until more real news honestly...

we've only closed threads in the past because of endless, mindless, baseless, speculation.

discussion of the architectural merits of a particular design is in no way a proper basis for closing a thread.

this is a discussion forum, so discuss. if you just can't handle the fact that some forumers hold opinions that differ from yours, then you are in the wrong place.