HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


    1000M in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #361  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 5:02 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
This is excruciatingly disappointing. The prior design was outstanding. This iteration is supremely inelegant. I really wish they could have approved the height for the old one. Damn, damn, damn...
Is it the height or the design that's irking you?
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #362  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 5:05 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,399
This is a definite downgrade over the previous design. I certainly hope there are future revisions because the base looks horrid and ruins the whole building. I don't understand how anyone can like this iteration over the previous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #363  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 5:06 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Is it the height or the design that's irking you?
The design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #364  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 5:18 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,514
Seems like there are more dislikes than likes.

Feel free...

info@jahn-us.com

312.427.7300
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #365  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 6:06 PM
LaSalle.St.Station's Avatar
LaSalle.St.Station LaSalle.St.Station is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 334
I love it. Gracefully sweeping. The first design seemed rather gimmicky with off center boxes. I thought the trend was away from starchitect gimmickery.

Adherence to Michigan ave street wall in design is a farce for anything south of the Hilton hotel, who cares if it doesn't mesh with its blah neighbor. Any chance for the same landmark street wall at the far south end of Boulevard Michigan was blown decades ago with the lowenburg 1100 s Mich ave structure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #366  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 6:15 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,399
Are those of you who like or love the re-design only looking at it from the 15th floor and above? 'graceful' and 'refined' are not adjectives that can be applied to the base of this tower by any stretch of the words.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #367  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 6:29 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,880
Yeah...not feeling this one anymore. Not a cohesive design, from top to bottom (and sides), and *now* it looks out of place on Michigan Avenue (so it's strange to hear minimal complaints at the meeting). Needs more revision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #368  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 6:33 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 4,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Are those of you who like or love the re-design only looking at it from the 15th floor and above? 'graceful' and 'refined' are not adjectives that can be applied to the base of this tower by any stretch of the words.
I like the building by itself, though I agree the base could use some work. It is not as bad as it could be though. I might like the base from the first iteration better, and the top section from the second iteration better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #369  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 6:39 PM
sox102 sox102 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 76
Unfortunately the owner probably won't have the budget for either exterior facade option. It will end up being another cheaply built high rise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #370  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 7:17 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
I love it. Gracefully sweeping. The first design seemed rather gimmicky with off center boxes. I thought the trend was away from starchitect gimmickery.
Huh? The new revision is the gimmicky one. It looks like two different buildings stacked atop each other, like something from Dubai that got squeezed between two older buildings.

The old design was unified from top to bottom, and the cantilevers were integrated with the design. It was extremely Chicago, muscular and sleek.

"[A skyscraper] must be every inch a proud and soaring thing, rising in sheer exultation that from bottom to top it is a unit without a single dissenting line." - Louis Sullivan
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #371  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 7:33 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The old design was unified from top to bottom, and the cantilevers were integrated with the design. It was extremely Chicago, muscular and sleek
Agreed.

That's one thing I really loved about the old design that I find the new one really lacks: the same bold, big-shouldered structural expression that Sears, Standard Oil, and Hancock all brought to the scene when they were new.

Subjective "elegance" is over-rated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #372  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 7:57 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,670
^ amen!

The first design was ALL chicago.

The redesign is far more generic.



It's sad that we'll never be able to walk down michigan, look up, and see this:

__________________
This one has purple in it. Purple is a fruit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #373  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 8:09 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 4,991
I like the cantilever of the old design, but for me it was too boxy. Again though, that's subjective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #374  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 8:28 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,514
A few more images...











__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #375  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2016, 11:48 PM
2PRUROCKS!'s Avatar
2PRUROCKS! 2PRUROCKS! is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 482
I like this design much better than the previous design. I like almost all of Jahn's stuff but the last design just seemed very clunky and not well thought out. It was too boxy and lacked elegance.

I much prefer this design. I like the curves in the façade and the corners. I like the cantilever much better in this design... you can actually see now how it has a purpose. I like how the tower seems to twist with alternating rounded and right angle corners. I like how the façade looks almost faceted on the south and north elevations. I like the crown and the x bracing. If the façade is similar to 50 West in New York this will be a stunner indeed.

It appears that there are two shades of glazing for the windows in some of the renders. The east and west volumes look like they have different tints in their glazing. Can anyone who was at the meeting last night shed more light on this?

My one concern is the base. The base does look a bit clunky and not well detailed. It also seems overly disjunct from the tower above. I think the two dark columns look somewhat cartoonish. Hopefully this will get refined. Part of the problem is the quality of renders we have seen so far. None of them are very well detailed and they are all somewhat cartoonish.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #376  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2016, 12:08 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 4,069
I like this design better, shorter but still tall and definitely better looking
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #377  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2016, 12:09 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS! View Post

It appears that there are two shades of glazing for the windows in some of the renders. The east and west volumes look like they have different tints in their glazing. Can anyone who was at the meeting last night shed more light on this?

My one concern is the base. The base does look a bit clunky and not well detailed. It also seems overly disjunct from the tower above. I think the two dark columns look somewhat cartoonish. Hopefully this will get refined. Part of the problem is the quality of renders we have seen so far. None of them are very well detailed and they are all somewhat cartoonish.
Shadows due to a slight "twist" in the floor plate.

It goes from rectangle to a parallelogram.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #378  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2016, 3:11 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,021
I guess its design fits in better with OMP and the Grant(if you like that), but it just looks rushed together and sloppily done.

Kind of hoping this building doesn't get funding so something better can come to fruition. That or a redesign that flows better than a dammed river
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #379  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2016, 4:39 AM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Agreed.

That's one thing I really loved about the old design that I find the new one really lacks: the same bold, big-shouldered structural expression that Sears, Standard Oil, and Hancock all brought to the scene when they were new.

Subjective "elegance" is over-rated.
Agree with these sentiments. The new tower design is definitely not bad (base needs work as others have said), but the old design was saying fuck you to gravity in true Chicago form.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #380  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2016, 8:10 AM
camdoodlebop's Avatar
camdoodlebop camdoodlebop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 32


a panorama pulled from curbed chicago
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:46 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.