CHICAGO | Wolf Point - West Tower | 493 FT | 48 FLOORS

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

I completely agree for supertalls, but most of the great design in NY, we should remember, isn't supertalls. BraveNewWorld pointed that out. Most of the great stuff in NY is midrise.

That's a valid point.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

Will the massive disapproval hurt this ? I heard that the Kennedys have the best lawyer's in Chicago so that could help

It may slow things down, but I seriously doubt they could stop it.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by rgolch

It may slow things down, but I seriously doubt they could stop it.

Ok. To all those idiots who are whining about their view, I say this... Get your own city. Seriously, Chicago has the 2nd biggest downtown in America, you probably should have lived in another city, not to mention these selfish people will still have great views.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

I think it is absolutely fair to say that Pelli "plays it safe" but I think the same could (and should) be said of BKL. This really isn't the place to get into such a discussion, but Chicago hasn't been the Vanguard of modern architecture for years and, as I live most of my time outside of Chicago, I will have you know that no one thinks of Chicago when they think of truly cutting edge architecture. For highrises, they think of NY or (more often) certain cities in Asia. And Gang's rise seems more questionable now than it did a few years ago. While Aqua was one of the best towers I have ever seen, people outside of Chicago simply don't talk about it all that much anymore. Moreover, some of her other things lack that ingenious simplicity that made Aqua so special imo. Plus, she really hasn't secured any commissions outside of the midwest either. We'll have to see if she really becomes the next big thing or is just a one trick pony.

One more thing:

BKL is safe, but it's a different kind of safe. A "box" is unpretentious. It's efficient. It's modular. It's quintessentially Chicago. Coast tweaks the formula in a meaningful but understated way. We might get the same thing at Wolf Point. We might not. Either way, it will be honest.

Pelli, on the other hand, has lately repackaged the kind of "organic" architecture popular 10-15 years ago and presented it as something novel and carefully considered. It's not. It's just as meaningless and derivative as his earlier work. But at least with his earlier stuff, he didn't pretend like it was anything more than a riff on a style. Wolf Point, like his other recent designs, leads you to believe there's a reason for the slight curves and bulges, when in fact they're frivolous.

[J_M_Tungsten]

I like the river guides idea for turning into 2 taller towers.

I guess there is a similarity between Devon and this, but it's still not horrendous. Well said about Pelli's current work Ch.G. And to Hayward's point, it should be a more progressive design, but what is considered progressive nowadays without being overly tacky or looking like you're trying to hard?

[BraveNewWorld]

This will look so good in real life...

Notice how their is a cut through the middle on both sides, looks incredible.




The front part looks like a taller,better, and thinner version of Devon Tower, which I love

[Vertigo]

My issue with this design isn't so much that its not progressive enough. Its the fact that it appears there was basically zero attempt to create something that reflected its surroundings and built upon that. That's why Aqua was such a great building. In contrast, these towers could have been designed for anywhere. They're too generic. Given the high profile location in such a high profile city for skyscrapers this is a disappointment.

[Zapatan]

As far as I've read, these are not the final design, why is everyone treating it like it is?

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I like the river guides idea for turning into 2 taller towers.
I guess there is a similarity between Devon and this, but it's still not horrendous. Well said about Pelli's current work Ch.G. And to Hayward's point, it should be a more progressive design, but what is considered progressive nowadays without being overly tacky or looking like you're trying to hard?

If that could happen I think we would all much prefer that, although we do get 3 skyscrapers in this plan.

[BraveNewWorld]

A 290 meter tower in a recession, and everyone is whining ? To get a tower this tall, with a design this good should make everyone ecstatic. Do Chicagoans have the world's highest expectations, or am I missing something ?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

Do Chicagoans have the world's highest expectations, or am I missing something ?

I just think its probably the most marquee spot in the city by a long shot, and has been since the founding of the city. Development has been been held off on the site for so long I think everyone just held out hope that it would be something absolutely mindblowing...a building that would eclipse the Sears or Hancock in terms of ground-breakingness for the skyline. We'll never get a second chance to do this spot right.

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

I like this a lot. I find that these are fitting for Chicago for a few reasons. First, Chicago is not Dubai, and I feel that if the design were overdramatic and obnoxious, it would look dreadfully out of place. If you look at the most beloved, iconic skyscrapers in this city: Sears (Willis), the John Hancock, the IBM Building, Marina City, even, say, 333 Wacker Drive...one theme prevails. Chicago's signature towers do a tremendous amount with simple designs and quality materials. This tower's design (speaking specifically about the 900-footer) is not complex, but it's size and simplicity is very, very Chicago.

In addition, I think these two Pelli towers, if they in fact have transparent glass, will bounce beautifully off 300 North LaSalle only a block to the east. Also, I feel like this tower and Trump will be the pair of iconic Chicago skyscrapers from the same era that Sears and John Hancock were in the late 60s-early 70s. They have my endorsement.

Plus, that riverwalk looks just friggin killer.

[markh9]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I like the river guides idea for turning into 2 taller towers.

Would be interesting, but the idea wasn't even acknowledged by any of the panel members. They just moved to the next NIMBY complaint.

Funny enough, when the tour guide started talking, he said something to the effect of 'I look at architecture all day, and these towers wouldn't be the best use for the area'. Immediate applause begins from the NIMBYs!! He turns around and says 'Hold your applause, 'cause you probably won't like what I have to say next...'. Strained laughter from the masses.

He then makes the case for 2 taller and denser towers, before segueing into a well-articulated - almost breathless - diatribe against the NIMBYs. "Chicago is the 3rd most populous city in the country with the 2nd largest CBD." and "There are train stations 3/4 of a mile from this site. How many of you guys drive? You complain about traffic, but you are the problem." Something along those lines.

He received the heartiest round of applause we pro-dev attendees could muster.

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

I completely agree for supertalls, but most of the great design in NY, we should remember, isn't supertalls. BraveNewWorld pointed that out. Most of the great stuff in NY is midrise.

That makes the new Waterview design an even tougher pill to swallow...hopefully the quality of Wolf Point and River Point will prompt Related to return to the drawing board.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by markh9

Would be interesting, but the idea wasn't even acknowledged by any of the panel members. They just moved to the next NIMBY complaint.

Funny enough, when the tour guide started talking, he said something to the effect of 'I look at architecture all day, and these towers wouldn't be the best use for the area'. Immediate applause begins from the NIMBYs!! He turns around and says 'Hold your applause, 'cause you probably won't like what I have to say next...'. Strained laughter from the masses.

He then makes the case for 2 taller and denser towers, before segueing into a well-articulated - almost breathless - diatribe against the NIMBYs. "Chicago is the 3rd most populous city in the country with the 2nd largest CBD." and "There are train stations 3/4 of a mile from this site. How many of you guys drive? You complain about traffic, but you are the problem." Something along those lines.

He received the heartiest round of applause we pro-dev attendees could muster.

I wanna buy him a drink.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by markh9

Would be interesting, but the idea wasn't even acknowledged by any of the panel members. They just moved to the next NIMBY complaint.

Funny enough, when the tour guide started talking, he said something to the effect of 'I look at architecture all day, and these towers wouldn't be the best use for the area'. Immediate applause begins from the NIMBYs!! He turns around and says 'Hold your applause, 'cause you probably won't like what I have to say next...'. Strained laughter from the masses.

He then makes the case for 2 taller and denser towers, before segueing into a well-articulated - almost breathless - diatribe against the NIMBYs. "Chicago is the 3rd most populous city in the country with the 2nd largest CBD." and "There are train stations 3/4 of a mile from this site. How many of you guys drive? You complain about traffic, but you are the problem." Something along those lines.

He received the heartiest round of applause we pro-dev attendees could muster.




That makes the new Waterview design an even tougher pill to swallow...hopefully the quality of Wolf Point and River Point will prompt Related to return to the drawing board.

I love these designs, and like the idea of 3 towers. After seeing the latest renders, I wouldn't change a thing, except maybe adding a spire. This will be Chicago's 7th or 8th tallest, and it is a billion dollar project. This is huge for Chicago, and people should be very excited.

Also, I loved waterview's avant garde design, but the newest thing we saw I dislike, hopefully it wasn't a serious design. There haven't been any real renders released except the avant garde one, so hopefully that will be the end result.

[2PRUROCKS!]

[QUOTE=markh9;5717050]Would be interesting, but the idea wasn't even acknowledged by any of the panel members. They just moved to the next NIMBY complaint.

Funny enough, when the tour guide started talking, he said something to the effect of 'I look at architecture all day, and these towers wouldn't be the best use for the area'. Immediate applause begins from the NIMBYs!! He turns around and says 'Hold your applause, 'cause you probably won't like what I have to say next...'. Strained laughter from the masses.

He then makes the case for 2 taller and denser towers, before segueing into a well-articulated - almost breathless - diatribe against the NIMBYs. "Chicago is the 3rd most populous city in the country with the 2nd largest CBD." and "There are train stations 3/4 of a mile from this site. How many of you guys drive? You complain about traffic, but you are the problem." Something along those lines.

He received the heartiest round of applause we pro-dev attendees could muster.



That's our Victor

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

A 290 meter tower in a recession, and everyone is whining ? To get a tower this tall, with a design this good should make everyone ecstatic. Do Chicagoans have the world's highest expectations, or am I missing something ?

It's not the only one though, Trump tower Chicago and Comcast Center were built during the worst part of the recession...

Chicago has high standards, it's skyline is the only one in the hemisphere that is arguably on par with NYC which now has nearly 20 possible supertalls in the near future.

But I don't think anyone in their right mind would complain about a 950 foot tower with two other skyscrapers, not every building can be a supertall, this is a good project for Chicago.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld

A 290 meter tower in a recession, and everyone is whining ? To get a tower this tall, with a design this good should make everyone ecstatic. Do Chicagoans have the world's highest expectations, or am I missing something ?

We have expectations and meter them to the surrounding architecture. Chicago has a lot very good buildings so this project has to hit a home run for such a fantastic location.

I realize you don't pass by buildings in Chicago daily, but you become very appreciative for what you have and what you could build.

I understand the renderings arent final, but the architectural spirit is lacking and it should carry through the design process.

Again, I find this proposal to be ok. By no means is it bad. Is it signature? In my opinion no, and I'm okay if people disagree with me on that.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by Hayward

We have expectations and meter them to the surrounding architecture. Chicago has a lot very good buildings so this project has to hit a home run for such a fantastic location.

I realize you don't pass by buildings in Chicago daily, but you become very appreciative for what you have and what you could build.

I understand the renderings arent final, but the architectural spirit is lacking and it should carry through the design process.

Again, I find this proposal to be ok. By no means is it bad. Is it signature? In my opinion no, and I'm okay if people disagree with me on that.

No I understand what you are saying. Chicago has possibly the best, and most diverse architecture in the world, so maybe you should have the highest expectations. I just like this design, but everyone deserves their own opinion.

[ChiTownCity]

Out of all the crappy glass towers being proposed in this city with big ass podiums, this would have been the best use of a podium, IMO. I was hoping to see something wrap around the curvature of the point kind of similar to the base of the Trump tower. Having all that space between each building with a park surrounding them just looks like a modern twist to the tower-in-a-park public housing to me. I would of liked to see a base connecting the three and incorporating a good riverwalk design.

Also, it would be a lot better if they would add some kind of setbacks/punctuation (or whatever the appropriate term is) to give more details rather than staring at a huge plain blue glass wall from that west view. How come the majority of these glass towers that I've seen being proposed have blandly flat walls? (aside from a little curvature here and there). I can think of some really nice modern towers that have well-defined punctuation in their glass facades that look spectacular.

P.S. - I know this is just the initial renderings and it'll most likely go through a lot of changes before the design is finalized. I'm just typing my initial underwhelmed reaction to this first glimpse of the project....

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

First of all, there have been plenty of great skyscraper designs over the past few years and, while popular, not many people believe that Aqua is "the best." Second, your belief that most of America's most important architecture is from Chicago Architects or in Chicago is not really true. This is a belief that I held when I lived full-time in Chicago, but have increasingly realized is untrue. If we look at current American Starchitects, almost all of them are in New York. And while SOM is important, so is KPF. The firt international style scraper in the US was in Philly. If we look back to the first Chicago school, Frank furness in Philly and Grahm Anderson Probst White in NY were equally influential and important in their domains. And later, Phillip Johnson, Lecourbusier, Walter Gropius etc. all designed modern buildings as important as Mies Van Der Rohe. The Glass House was built before the Farnsworth house, if only by a few years...

This is the last I will say about this because I feel I am wasting my time, but Chicago is an important architectural city, but we in Chicago tend to overvalue the city's worth.

Now back to the building. To whomever was saying that the style has no substance and the curves happen for no reason, I will say this: technically, Mies was right, Less is more when trying to find a particular purpose. But Venturi said less is a bore. They may not serve a purpose beyond aesthetics, but they break up the monotony of a square block but do it in a way that looks like a curvaceous face layered above a block tower.

The opinion of a city and its architecture changes a lot with location, people from where I live really admire Chicago. Also, I would say SOM is probably one of the most known, and best architects worldwide. I honestly haven't heard much of KPF. I didn't even recognize it at first.