CHICAGO | OneEleven - 111 West Wacker | 630 FT | 59 FLOORS | COM - Page 62

JDMChicago · #**1221** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 5:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

What a careless project. Not only do they not give a shit about the blatant alignment detail failure, but they get two entirely different windows swapped. Let's see if they change this one out.

Bad habits are hard to break. Remember 500 LSD?
They're probably just waiting until it warms up outside.

Tom Servo · #**1222** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 5:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Yeah, that stacked cantilevered design was awesome, but what we ended up with is still so much better than the initial Waterview design.

Agreed.

BVictor1 · #**1223** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 2:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago

While I'm still disappointed this isn't the original Waterview Tower, I'm very happy it's turning out better than the renders!

It really hasn't.

The nearly finished product is just as flat and uninspiring as the renderings.

UPChicago · #**1224** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It really hasn't.

The nearly finished product is just as flat and uninspiring as the renderings.

I'm trying to put a positive spin on this BS, don't kill my vibe!

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**1225** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Today

You really don't think this is going to be a powerful image once the building is finished?

Tectonic · #**1226** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 9:22 PM**

The original design was more interesting I think.

jc5680 · #**1227** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 10:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

You really don't think this is going to be a powerful image once the building is finished?

I don't. It's bland, clunky and has any arbitrary swoosh through it.

Notyrview · #**1228** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 10:49 PM**

i don't see anything powerful about that image.

TexasRE · #**1229** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 11:05 PM**

Good to see this project progressing. Many in the RE business were disappointed that the original design was never built. It was a beauty! This new design seems to work well though. Wish it all the success, a great deal of money is at stake here. When the original Waterview tower site was on hold & going through bankruptcy, I tried to convince an investor from Minneapolis to acquire it. He has the resources, expertise & wherewithall to finish the original design. He declined because he wanted to retire from major investments like this project would have been.

the urban politician · #**1230** Posted **Jan 4, 2014, 11:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview

i don't see anything powerful about that image.

^ You would if you had the perspective of how this view would have looked 7 or 8 years ago.

The shorter glassy office tower on the right (the one that says 'Salesforce' on it) wasn't there, neither was the Amli tower, 353 N Clark, 300 N Lasalle, or the tri-hotels and, most recently, 111 W Wacker.

A same view down this corridor back then was far, far, far less impressive

ChiTownCity · #**1231** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

You really don't think this is going to be a powerful image once the building is finished?

The only thing that I'm hoping for is that they install some blue LED lights inside the "arbitrary swoosh" area (as jc5680) called it. During the day it's pretty hard not to look at it as nothing more than a blue glass box, but at night it could be kinda cool with some good lighting. Is lighting that area up even in the plans?

Mr Downtown · #**1232** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 12:12 AM**

One-trick pony. No one will ever say "God is in the details" about this.

As for LED lighting in the reveals, I think that's a real long shot. Remember those are residential windows. Besides, the world already has one Dallas skyline.

chicagogreg · #**1233** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 12:46 AM**

What's disappointing is an uninspired design in a very prominent location. I think this building fits that bill.

chi-arch · #**1234** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 1:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It really hasn't.

The nearly finished product is just as flat and uninspiring as the renderings.

Completely agree. Retaining the curve at the lower floors doesn't feel right and the height reduction from the original Waterview Tower is not successful.
Pretty much an uninspired flop. I was looking forward to living in the original with a beautiful hotel and great amenities. Progress, I guess.

emathias · #**1235** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 3:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

I don't. It's bland, clunky and has any arbitrary swoosh through it.

The "swoosh", if you mean the recessed parts, is not arbitrary, but reflects the heights of the surrounding buildings - or in the case of the western face, the setback of the tower portion of the adjacent building.

I think the "swoosh" is one of the best features, even though it's obviously misunderstood.

Tom Servo · #**1236** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 6:00 AM**

Why do I get the feeling that most of you guys are dissing this building because it isn't 1000 feet tall?

I don't particularly like this building, but it's much better than the original Waterview tower design and infinitely better than looking at a decaying concrete shell. In a perfect world, everything should've been torn down and the entire thing redesigned from the ground up. But this is a salvage job, and I think they did a pretty good job saving this thing given circumstances. No sense in complaining.

Tom Servo · #**1237** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 6:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

One-trick pony. No one will ever say "God is in the details" about this.

As for LED lighting in the reveals, I think that's a real long shot. Remember those are residential windows. Besides, the world already has one Dallas skyline.

For sure. And nice one. Pretty funny.

Chi-Sky21 · #**1238** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 2:15 PM**

Well it may not be some grandiose design, it is not horrible. And 1 million times better than a 15 story uncompleted concrete shell. Not that we should accept anything just because it completed an abandoned project....BUT we could have been left with A LOT worse.

jc5680 · #**1239** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

The "swoosh", if you mean the recessed parts, is not arbitrary, but reflects the heights of the surrounding buildings - or in the case of the western face, the setback of the tower portion of the adjacent building.

I think the "swoosh" is one of the best features, even though it's obviously misunderstood.

It is entirely arbitrary.

C'mon. The rational was added to the swoosh. The swoosh wasn't added because of any real rationale. It is a design crutch added to try and distract from the utterly squat massing and otherwise dull curtain wall. It is clunky and looks like an afterthought. It is the same type of shallow design thinking that got us the waves on the pre-cast wall that faces lake street on River Point.

emathias · #**1240** Posted **Jan 5, 2014, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

It is entirely arbitrary.

C'mon. The rational was added to the swoosh. The swoosh wasn't added because of any real rationale. It is a design crutch added to try and distract from the utterly squat massing and otherwise dull curtain wall. It is clunky and looks like an afterthought. It is the same type of shallow design thinking that got us the waves on the pre-cast wall that faces lake street on River Point.

I think your disdain of a feature that is in no way the same as precast along a sidewalk is, well, counterproductive, in that it discourages even marginally better design. And the glass with a "swoosh" is much more than just marginally better than pre-cast against a sidewalk.