CHICAGO | Trump Tower | 1,389' Official / 1,198' Roof | 96 FLOORS

[Apex]

The most "iconic" thing about this building is that it is/will be the first big Chicago building to use the new super-reflective glass. So of course it'll produce all the oohs and aahs of the "general public", but as far as form or structure goes, I really can't foresee people looking up to it with the same regards as they do buildings like the Hancock or Sears. There's nothing about it that shouts, even speaks loudly, "I am the Trump Tower" like the Hancock's cross-bracings, the Sears Tower's step-like nature, the Spire's . . . um, well the whole damn thing is an icon (even if its detractors claim it doesn't "fit in", they really can't deny it'd certainly be iconic) . . . hell, even the Aon is monolithic (almost a sculpture), I'd call it an icon before a lot of other buildings, definitely Trump.

That said, Trump is certainly a pretty building.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Chi649

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this will be an architectural icon, where in 20 years it will be suprising to hear that people disliked TTC. That's just my opinion though.

I agree with you. I would hardly call TT boring. There is nothing boring about it actually. I wish we had this site in the 60s and 70s when Aon, Sears and Hancock were going up. I could only imagine all the people who complained about those buildings. They are long gone now and the Trump whiners will also be soon enough.

[denizen467]

To those who think it's boring - it just got a lot less boring.

There is a huge lobby on the SW corner of the first floor above the first setback that was illuminated tonight. I don't know if tonight was the first night, but it's the first I've seen it. It's a massive, double-height room with a prominent circular ceiling feature, and all of this is very visible both from Wacker as well as from other vantage points.

I didn't have time to look at it carefully but it looked mighty snazzy and sure animated the building, giving an idea of what it will be like once it's a living, breathing mini-city.

Looking forward to a photo of this being posted.

[Knightwing]

^Yep I saw that as well. Actually really nice looking. I almost crashed trying to be nosy.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Alliance

The problem I see with this is, the building doesn't really qualify as good architecture (therfore cannot be an icon). There is nothing revolutionary or even stimulating about it.

There are several U/C and proposed in Chicago that have balls (ie, this is not just an issue of the Spire). Trump is a eunuch with a spire to try and compensate.

I'm trying to stay away from this because I agree, it really is a dead horse.

In any case, Alliance, you know well that Smith is capable of doing just about whatever he pleases. The rather wild, eco designs he is proposing for other parts of Chicago did not just come out of thin air. I know you are not a big fan, but his designs can be in many different visual styles, many of them much more radical than this one.

I've said it many times over: This was an exercise in 1) dealing with a very problematic client, and 2) giving one's ego over to the power of the entire composition. I consider both to be quite admirable. This is one of the most awesome intersections in the nation, and the last thing we need here is a flashy, showy, overpowering thing that pays a lot of attention to itself and nothing to the surrounding neighborhood. On top of that, it's a very solid design, with clear reverence for the buildings around it, and attention to detailing that would make Mies proud.

Honestly, I wouldn't like the Chicago Spire very much if it were proposed for this site. Just consider that for a second.

The iconic part of this building is what it is going to do for access to the river, green space in the vicinity, connections from State to Michigan, activation of the area between the Wrigley buildings. That's the most contextual part and it will be well-loved for these things alone.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by honte

I know you are not a big fan, but his designs can be in many different visual styles, many of them much more radical than this one.

I agree. But when it comes to Trump, Burj Dubai, even the sears hotel, there is a lack of variation. (maybe its just my problem with modernism?) Some of his other works, Zero-E tower for example, really interesting...too bad its not an actual propsal yet. Maybe I should comb through his portfolio again, but I don't see him as a Gang or Nouvel. His towers may be good, but not icon material (I actually think he might be going for something different here).

Originally Posted by honte

Honestly, I wouldn't like the Chicago Spire very much if it were proposed for this site. Just consider that for a second..

I'd agree, but simply changing the stetch of the helix and you could probably claim the same degree of contextualism, at least in form, that Trump claims. Its roundness would "reference Marina city, etc blah" It would also need to be shorter.

Originally Posted by honte

The iconic part of this building is what it is going to do for access to the river, green space in the vicinity, connections from State to Michigan, activation of the area between the Wrigley buildings. That's the most contextual part and it will be well-loved for these things alone.

Maybe, but we won't know that until its open.

Thanks for being rational and making good points.

[Knightwing]

Originally Posted by honte

Honestly, I wouldn't like the Chicago Spire very much if it were proposed for this site. Just consider that for a second.

Could someone photoshop in a CS rendering in the Trump location and vice versa?

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Knightwing

Could someone photoshop in a CS rendering in the Trump location and vice versa?

Yeah, after my run.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Thanks for being rational and making good points.

these points have been made to you over and over again, just nothing gets through.

this was your reply when I said the Spire or Waterview wouldnt fit as well in that location....

Let not justify this building by saying randomly transposed buildings wouldn't fit either.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by denizen467

To those who think it's boring - it just got a lot less boring.

There is a huge lobby on the SW corner of the first floor above the first setback that was illuminated tonight. I don't know if tonight was the first night, but it's the first I've seen it. It's a massive, double-height room with a prominent circular ceiling feature, and all of this is very visible both from Wacker as well as from other vantage points.

I didn't have time to look at it carefully but it looked mighty snazzy and sure animated the building, giving an idea of what it will be like once it's a living, breathing mini-city.

Looking forward to a photo of this being posted.

I believe that's the ballroom while the restaurant is on the side of the tower where the setback is but on the same floor.

[harryc]

This is from Jan of 2006 - the base of one of the colums ( that is a piece of 2x4 sitting in the middle. Does anyone know what diameter this is (12 ' ? )

Are the columns smaller diameter after each set back ?

[Dr. Taco]

^ if thats a 2X4 (1.5X3.5), pixel count comparison comes out to an approximate 6' diameter

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Apex

That said, Trump is certainly a pretty building.

I think that statement sums up the project perfectly: Trump is a pretty building, period. Even if the argument for the setbacks rings a little... disingenuous, they still prevent it from turning into a Mid-Continental Plaza; and, as the photos of Trump in context with Marina City and IBM demonstrate, it does help create a pleasing textural sequence. Aside from a few surprising flourishes, the overall building, I would say, uses new technology in a way that's sensitive rather than innovative, and will, therefore, be pretty-- pleasing to the eye-- not iconic.

[Untitled]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

these points have been made to you over and over again, just nothing gets through.

Hey, no one's saying "People who like Trump Tower are dumb." This isn't personal. I think it's entirely reasonable for people to like it. It just doesn't work for me, and I have very concrete reasons for feeling that way.

Though I'm not in love with this tower, I'm OK with it being built because if everything were fascinating and groundbreaking you risk having a riot of conflicting visuals. Think of it as a visual palate cleanser.

But I'll always rank it behind Sears, AON, Hancock, the Spire, Aqua, W=A, OMP, etc. ... it's a design that doesn't know what it wants to say, except, "Look at me, I'm big and shiny!"

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Untitled

. ... it's a design that doesn't know what it wants to say, except, "Look at me, I'm big and shiny!"

Thats fine, but I think you understand that for the people who do like this tower see it as much more than just big and shiny, I dont think all of the TT haters understand that.

I think the tower compliments its neighbors, namely, Wrigley and IBM, very nicely. I also love how it respects the river with a park and riverwalk that will connect Michigan Ave with State St. I remember hearing Trump wanted to make the park a residents only park, that would have really pissed me off, but it will be open to all.

[Untitled]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

I think the tower compliments its neighbors, namely, Wrigley and IBM, very nicely.

I'll give you that, its neighbors look awesome next to TT. Kind of like the way my friends liked to use me as a wingman at the bar -- not ugly enough to hurt their chances with women, not handsome enough to steal women away from them.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Untitled

I'll give you that, its neighbors look awesome next to TT. Kind of like the way my friends liked to use me as a wingman at the bar -- not ugly enough to hurt their chances with women, not handsome enough to steal women away from them.

fair enough. Wrigley could be my favorite building in the city and in no way do I feel like TT overpowers it. I also like IBM and side by side I think they play off each other perfectly.....like in this photo i posted a few days ago...

[Knightwing]

I think that people for the most part have made up their minds about this building whichever view they hold. I'm not necessarily sure that any people are being persuaded one way or the other in regards to this building. It's great that people express their views but guys the constant trump bashing is overkill...

[Untitled]

^^ Sorry. I'm just a design geek and I enjoy debating it.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I believe that's the ballroom while the restaurant is on the side of the tower where the setback is but on the same floor.

Great; it will be as dramatic a ballroom as it would be a lobby (kinda nicer if it were the main hotel lobby, available for the enjoyment of all patrons). About the restaurant, yes, I remember about the terrace formed by the setback being planned for the restaurant. Alain Ducasse, right? It will be great for the city to have such a unique dining venue.