CHICAGO | Aqua | 858 FT / 262 M | 87 FLOORS - Page 245

SolarWind · #**4881** Posted **May 10, 2009, 8:43 AM**

May 8, 2009

wrab · #**4882** Posted **May 10, 2009, 12:49 PM**

^ Love the oculus.

the urban politician · #**4883** Posted **May 10, 2009, 3:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

^ That is TOTALLY my new desktop

EarlyBuyer · #**4884** Posted **May 10, 2009, 3:29 PM**

Great shots as always wrabbit, hydrogen and solar!

EarlyBuyer · #**4885** Posted **May 10, 2009, 4:23 PM**

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 5/10/09

EarlyBuyer · #**4886** Posted **May 10, 2009, 4:40 PM**

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 5/10/09

EarlyBuyer · #**4887** Posted **May 10, 2009, 4:55 PM**

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 5/10/09

viewguysf · #**4888** Posted **May 10, 2009, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ I think a Grand Hyatt could be doable at only 215 keys. It's in the luxury tier. Not sure if there are facilities a Grand Hyatt usually requires that would be unavailable at Aqua though.

Incidentally, just because Strategic might sell the property does not mean the flag has to change. It could and may well remain a Fairmont.

Grand Hyatt is definitely not in the luxury tier, Park Hyatt is. The Grand Hyatt here in San Francisco is a dump (having been Pritzger family owned no less), the one in NYC is a convention hotel and there are a number of others that aren't so great either.

Fairmont is a growing brand with much potential and a large number of beautiful, classic properties. "The Fairmont", the original one built by the Fair sisters in honor of their father, is here atop Nob Hill. The main building is still a stunning landmark both inside and out.

wrab · #**4889** Posted **May 10, 2009, 8:44 PM**

First-rate site tour, EB.

denizen467 · #**4890** Posted **May 11, 2009, 8:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Grand Hyatt is definitely not in the luxury tier, Park Hyatt is. The Grand Hyatt here in San Francisco is a dump (having been Pritzger family owned no less), the one in NYC is a convention hotel and there are a number of others that aren't so great either.

Fairmont is a growing brand with much potential and a large number of beautiful, classic properties.

The word "luxury" was not meant in the narrow sense of referring only to 5 star flags; the point was that Grand Hyatt is not purely a volume brand like the Hyatt Regency across the street (being 3 stars), but rather a brand (4 stars) whose selling points include luxury, exclusivity, and/or uniqueness. Ergo, a unique building like Aqua, though with only 215 rooms, might not be impossible as a lesser-sized Grand Hyatt. (Although Hyatt Corp may well want instead to leave open the chance to build an absolutely huge Grand Hyatt in Chicago some day in the future.)

Also it is not helpful to use SF or NY as comparisons; those are markets where mediocre services can be sold to visitors who are star stricken by the overrated nature of those cities and don't mind, or maybe even get a thrill from, lousy quality at world-city high prices. I know both of those Grand Hyatts and they are embarrassing compared with Grand Hyatts overseas. Jin Mao, anyone?

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**4891** Posted **May 11, 2009, 9:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467

Also it is not helpful to use SF or NY as comparisons; those are markets where mediocre services can be sold to visitors who are star stricken by the overrated nature of those cities and don't mind, or maybe even get a thrill from, lousy quality at world-city high prices. I know both of those Grand Hyatts and they are embarrassing compared with Grand Hyatts overseas. Jin Mao, anyone?

It's funny: I would use that same description for the Fairmont on Nob Hill. I spent eight nights there several years ago and was unimpressed. A beautiful building in a beautiful neighborhood, certainly, but the quality in no way justified the exorbitant costs. It was "luxury" for people who don't know the first thing about it.

tintinex · #**4892** Posted **May 11, 2009, 1:06 PM**

From the John Hancock observatory yesterday.

harryc · #**4893** Posted **May 11, 2009, 5:03 PM**

From Daley Plaza

From Trump Plaza

chex · #**4894** Posted **May 12, 2009, 3:52 AM**

wow! i thought it was less the diference between aqua and john hancock! from that angle seems a big the difference!

J_M_Tungsten · #**4895** Posted **May 12, 2009, 10:13 PM**

May 7

J_M_Tungsten · #**4896** Posted **May 12, 2009, 10:14 PM**

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/...754e9b.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/...203906.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/...b2303e.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/...459539.jpg?v=0

harryc · #**4897** Posted **May 12, 2009, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

You pasted as links instead of photos - worth fixing.
#2 is an angle/composition I haven't seen captured here before (no small feat).

J_M_Tungsten · #**4898** Posted **May 13, 2009, 12:02 AM**

Thank you harry for fixing my pics, and also on the picture compliments. I'm new to the site, so expect more pics to come!

dropdeaded209 · #**4899** Posted **May 14, 2009, 1:28 PM**

hands down the best photo i've seen of aqua. from R.L. Siegel on flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4014245...60964/sizes/l/

djvandrake · #**4900** Posted **May 14, 2009, 5:23 PM**

Am I the only one who has a Love - Hate view of this building?

*ducks*

Seriously. From some angles it looks fantastic, and from others it looks messy and dark. The balconies in some areas terminate so sharply or the curvature changes quickly and it looks like it's incomplete. The floors that are double height without the balcony totally destroy the flow of the pattern too.

It all depends on the angle you look at it I suppose, and wether or not the glass catches the light.

I know it's not finished yet, but I think enough of it is completed that we're getting a good sense of the finished product.