HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    150 North Riverside in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2081  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2017, 3:13 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
I thought the mechanical penthouse was supposed to be lit, maybe they just haven't gotten around to that lighting yet?
     
     
  #2082  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2017, 3:16 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Island City, NY
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielschell View Post
LOVING the vertical lighting.

Great pic, Schell! I work a few blocks south of this one and walk past it on my way home every day. I noticed the new lights a few weeks ago when it was cloudy. There was some strange lights in the low level clouds and I couldn't figure out the source until I got to Randolph.

Another thing to note, thought unrelated to 150 N Riverside: Workers installed new metal panels to the Riverwalk Ramp, seen in the foreground of the picture. It's like a sheath covering the exposed concrete. It's interesting if not all that remarkable. I wonder if they'll continue to improve the facade of the ramp in the spring.
     
     
  #2083  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2017, 11:13 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
Good light - is bad light

Feb 17
Lunchtime is when the waves show the best









It is also when the lobby light board show is less impressive.




__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
     
     
  #2084  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2017, 1:52 PM
teohwp85 teohwp85 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 56
February 18, 2017
     
     
  #2085  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2017, 3:58 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 886
You all will hate this...

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...

     
     
  #2086  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2017, 9:26 PM
Rocket49 Rocket49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 163
^^^ Saying the building reminds you of an old whore seems rather harsh.
     
     
  #2087  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2017, 11:06 PM
Clarkkent2420 Clarkkent2420 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 253
#

Last edited by Clarkkent2420; Sep 14, 2018 at 9:08 PM.
     
     
  #2088  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2017, 8:14 AM
jc5680's Avatar
jc5680 jc5680 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
OK, I know that I will be absolutely pilloried for the

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...

Agreed 100%.

The engineering is beyond impressive, but the details I find overwrought and often just plain distracting.

The entire treatment of the riverfront looks like the architectural designers never saw the site. It completely ignores context to a severity I don't think I have ever seen in this city.
     
     
  #2089  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2017, 3:54 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkkent2420 View Post
How does one come to possess an intimate knowledge of old whores, and once one possesses said knowledge, is it a contributing factor towards inanity such as the above critique?

Would you still actually deny that you're involved with this project in some way? There's no shame in saying so if that's the case.....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #2090  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2017, 3:56 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
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...


Your comments overall are pretty much spot-on. Pretty sharp assessment, this.

This design holds up much better the less poking around for detail conceptualization and execution one does.....


For me personally, I'd definitely give an overall higher grade to River Point (since it's such an obvious direct comparison for so many reasons) than 150.....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Feb 20, 2017 at 4:13 PM.
     
     
  #2091  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2017, 6:36 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
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...

I guess I'll take the bait then, this is a perfect example of why architectural elites don't have any alignment with popular opinion. I can agree with you on the removal of the variable shades of glass being dropped from the design, but I've come to appreciate the fluid nature of the design from a distance. Some times of the day it appears totally flat, mirror like and all relief disappears. Other times of the day, as Harry points out, the texture of the facade comes out full force. Perhaps it would have been nice to have the stripe massing of the sides more emphasized at a distance with some variation of glass color, but the end result has been pretty mesmorizing as well.

As far as the "waves" go, does that have to appear anywhere else? Since when do we do themed buildings? It's not enough for you that 75% of the exterior is clad in that "theme"?

Your comments about the lobby glass are downright perplexing. Why should they have some sort of theme to a space that they are trying to make feel as if it is totally indistinguishable from the outside? Why the hell would they do anything other than make it disappear to the best of their ability? The biggest "theme" of this project is it's structural acrobatics, why they hell would they do anything to distract from that in the grand entrance to the structure? Why does it matter if there are Western views from the lobby? That doesn't change the fact that there are train lines running beneath it.

You really can't see where the chamfering comes from? It's not like the entire base of the tower is in effect 'chamfered' or anything. How strange it is to echo 45 degree angles when the entire base is a giant 45 degree angle. You complain that there are no design themes in the detailing and then ask "where the hell did that come from" in regards to possibly the most obvious design theme in the whole structure.

Same goes for the louvers comment. Why should they replicate that design element elsewhere? What other inward sloping 45degree facade sections are there? There is, in fact, a section of louvered facade on the Mechanical floors on the West facade of the building, but why would they put it elsewhere? This building is all about the structure, why would they just toss louvers on spaces that don't require them? The base and the mid rise mech floors house the majority of the mechanical equipment that can't just vent to open air on the roof. It would be rediculous to just slap louvers on other parts of this design.

Then there's the "bow" comment. Do you really not get this? Have you actually gone there in person and stood on it? You first feel like you are hovering over the river and then look up to see this looming over you:


harry c

And this is where architectural acedemics lose the attention of the general public. Sure that little bump out isn't aesthetically perfect or a great contribution to the formal design of the plaza, but it's there for a reason. It's there for that stunning way of experiencing the structural insanity of the design. So what if there are no other "bows" elsewhere in the project?

Then there is this:

Quote:
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,
Where you are just incorrect. The tower is not symmetrical on the N/S axis. That's just false. The crown cuts away on the NE and SE corner and does not on the West elevations:


150nriverside.com

So first of all, your comment is just incorrect, the building does cut away more on the East facade than the West "acknolwedging that the space below the tower is totally open to the East and the River". Have you even looked at this tower? But I digress, I would argue again that it doesn't even matter anyhow. Who cares if the top of the building references the river at the base? So what if they went with a totally semetrical tower? This tower is highly visible from the N and S. Shouldn't the most visible elevation be emphasized? Shouldn't symmetry from those directions override some arbitrary desire to reference the location of the river at it's base?

And again, your comments about the views from the lobby are just nutty. Since when do we design lobbies based upon how far you can see in X direction. As you already admit, they placed the small parking component and lobby art in that direction since there really isn't anything to see. I just don't see why the lobby glass should also reflect that fact when really all it is doing is allowing in the light and views of the open sky made possible by the angle of the base.
     
     
  #2092  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 5:20 AM
Clarkkent2420 Clarkkent2420 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 253
#

Last edited by Clarkkent2420; Sep 14, 2018 at 9:08 PM.
     
     
  #2093  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 1:31 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 886
Ha! 'gobbledygook'! I stand corrected... this project is perfect.
     
     
  #2094  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 1:47 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
Ha! 'gobbledygook'! I stand corrected... this project is perfect.
No one is saying it is perfect, we are just saying that criticizing it for things like "the building is perfectly symmetrical on the N/S axis and therefore doesn't reference the river at the base" is gobblygook especially when the base statement "the building is perfectly symmetrical on the N/S axis" is patently false in a way that is easily observable by anyone with eyes.
     
     
  #2095  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 2:33 PM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
2/19- Got to see it up close this weekend. Looks great to me.














     
     
  #2096  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 2:44 PM
Kippis's Avatar
Kippis Kippis is offline
Chicagoland Runaway
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Winfield, IL
Posts: 238
Yep, no open judgement about some folks' feelings about how the plaza or certain elements of the building turned out.

It does seem like less effort was put in to read off the design language of the tower itself with regard to the plaza and riverwalk frontage (which is okay in my mind, as they are two entirely separate elements of the overall design), but as a package deal, the property looks incredible. It's hard to argue with how well the project panned out as a whole.
     
     
  #2097  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2017, 12:03 AM
2PRUROCKS!'s Avatar
2PRUROCKS! 2PRUROCKS! is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 515
I think many of Pilsenarch's criticisms of this building are valid however I do think he was overly harsh. Overall, if I were to assign a letter grade on the building architecture I would probably give it a B+ while I would give River Point an A. My biggest criticism would be the lack of any significant punctuation at the top of this building. This is now the tallest building west of the river and as such it should make a skyline statement. Instead it just kind of blends into the rest of the Loop highrises and is somewhat difficult to distinguish from the masses. Compare this to River Point nearby and slightly shorter that stands out on the skyline especially when viewed from the west and north. The way the necessary parabolic arch that was used at the base is then referenced in the crown really adds a satisfying flourish to River Point. The inward slope of the arch on the crown reflects light from a different angle really making it stand out further from the rest of the building's facade. 150 N. should have done something similar at the top by referencing the dramatic 45 degree slope of the base in the screening of the mechanical penthouse. I think the louvers at the base look great especially when back lit but I agree with Pilsenarch that they should be referenced again at the top not because they are necessary but because they would provide a design motif to help the crown stand out especially if lit up at night.

I am also disappointed that the two toned glass was not used on the north and south sides as depicted in the renderings. To me the north and south elevations look flat and I think the two toned glass would have really added to the slenderness of the building when viewed from the N-S and the drama of the cantilever. I also think the wavy fins should have been used on the N-S elevations instead of the straight fins.

The lobby is neat and the electronic art a very nice touch. However, due to the constraints of the site the lobby isn't as impressive as River Point's which has the most dramatic views of any lobby in the city. The lobby at 150 N is sunk below the plaza level to the west and just simply can't compete with the views afforded by River Point's lobby. That said I think the designers of 150 N did about as good as possible with the site constraints. I like the chamfered stone columns at the base. They seem to be a clear visual reference to the 45 degree cantilever above executed on a different plane.

I think the plaza will turn out very nice but be rather disjunct with the rest of the building design. Compare that with River Point which has a plaza that relates much better to the building and offers a public space with arguably the most impressive views of any public plaza in the city.

Overall River Point is a much more coherent and consistent project.

Last edited by 2PRUROCKS!; Feb 22, 2017 at 2:19 AM.
     
     
  #2098  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2017, 2:30 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
Feb 21
A rainy morning






__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
     
     
  #2099  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2017, 2:38 AM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,285
That last shot will look incredible if/when that general growth building goes up! Not that it doesn't already.....
     
     
  #2100  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2017, 7:32 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 View Post
That last shot will look incredible if/when that general growth building goes up! Not that it doesn't already.....
Wait for the foliage.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:06 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.