HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #841  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 1:53 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
It is impossible to build anything in a “traditional style” today. The skills and labor don’t exist, nor will they spend sufficiently on materials, nor will the methods be right. So what you will get is some god awful post-modernism. It’s best not to even try.
Just to clarify before LVDW beats me to it:

The skills and labor DO exist and the methods may or may not be the same, but they exist in such a manner to create a totally satisfying and true 'traditional' example if so desired...

You are right that it is the high cost of doing so that is keeping projects like OBP from using limestone, bronze, more traditional detailing, etc. and that is really the only reason by far and away why we don't see more traditionally detailed and built 'traditional' examples... (way behind cost being the number one reason, is a lack of desire in general for historic vocabulary followed by a lack of skill and training among architects to produce those designs properly)...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #842  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 1:59 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
Just to clarify before LVDW beats me to it:

The skills and labor DO exist and the methods may or may not be the same, but they exist in such a manner to create a totally satisfying and true 'traditional' example if so desired...

You are right that it is the high cost of doing so that is keeping projects like OBP from using limestone, bronze, more traditional detailing, etc. and that is really the only reason by far and away why we don't see more traditionally detailed and built 'traditional' examples... (way behind cost being the number one reason, is a lack of desire in general for historic vocabulary followed by a lack of skill and training among architects to produce those designs properly)...
This is basically semantics. Ok, so the labor and skills “exist”, but they’re in such short supply as to make this uneconomical. You’d basically need to fly people over from Europe whose normal job is working on historical restorations. And I don’t think the price per square foot in Chicago would justify the cost, even if there was interest. Maybe in Manhattan.

A fully modern design is miles better than more crap like Park Towerr or the Fordham. That’s what you get from “traditional” design these days. OBP is probably the best we’re going to get, especially at Chicago’s real estate values.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #843  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 5:46 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 977
^ Did this dude just call Park Tower crap? Another horrible take by Anglophile troll that is 10023
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #844  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 6:24 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire View Post
^ Did this dude just call Park Tower crap? Another horrible take by Anglophile troll that is 10023
I did.

I know everyone was very excited when it was built because it was tall and thin, but it is not good architecture or a passable facsimile of the Art Deco towers that it attempts to emulate.

It is not particularly offensive by Lucien Lagrange standards (he has obviously done much, much worse), but it’s not winning any awards, and a good example of modernism is always going to be better than traditionalist architecture if Park Tower is the standard that one is trying to achieve.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #845  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 6:29 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 5,417
Gonna have to go with 10023 on this one. Park Tower is impressive because of how tall it is and how tall it was when it was built and little more. It doesn't read as offensive, don't get me wrong, but stylistically it feels like hunter green and polished brass.
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener. <><><><><><>IMPEACHMENT NOW!

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #846  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 6:51 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,150
park tower is his best work... which isn't saying a ton but it's ok
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #847  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 6:56 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Coast to Cali
Posts: 3,437
Park tower is okay. But I'd cringe if a 1,400+ foot version of that was built here. I'd much rather have something modern like the current design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #848  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 7:58 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is online now
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
To each their own but personally I like (or at least don't mind) the mix of new and old. Would you prefer an art deco knock off like One Bennet Park? I'm not sure how much I like the buildings that try to be 1930's.

It does look a bit Chinese (like KK tower in Shenzhen) but I don't think that's a bad thing. I generally like Chinese buildings (although some are tacky). Some of NYC's towers like the WTC and Hudson Yards also look a bit Asian to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
It is impossible to build anything in a “traditional style” today. The skills and labor don’t exist, nor will they spend sufficiently on materials, nor will the methods be right. So what you will get is some god awful post-modernism. It’s best not to even try.
One Chicago Square and 400 LSD both are doing designs with features of Art Deco and doing a good job at it. I would have loved to see something like 9 Dekalb in Brooklyn paired with the Tribune Tower. Something with deco and/or gothic elements.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #849  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 8:05 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Coast to Cali
Posts: 3,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
One Chicago Square and 400 LSD both are doing designs with features of Art Deco and doing a good job at it. I would have loved to see something like 9 Dekalb in Brooklyn paired with the Tribune Tower. Something with deco and/or gothic elements.
One Chicago Square? Art Deco? How? Maybe the shape

400LSD did an amazing job at that I agree. Hopefully they keep that design in the revision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #850  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 11:01 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,661
Park Tower is better then OBP IMO because it tries less to mimick a style and is more in the realm of earlier Pomo where the point wasn't replicate, but to evoke. It matches the fanciful Cheesecake Factory in the base of the Hancock wonderfully. No one is meant to believe Cheesecake Factory is an old Victorian era restaurant, it's just a design theme used in an almost fanciful way. That's what Park Tower is, in what world does a French Second Empire roof belong on top of a soaring art Deco skyscraper?

It also has merit from an engineering perspective both in it's design and how early it was for buildings of a similar style. It was the first use of a tuned mass damper and the form is actually somewhat structurally expressive with much of the deco massing consisting of concrete sheer walls there to stiffen such a tall and narrow building. Speaking of which, it was really one of the first very tall and narrow concrete towers which now dominate the world of super tall design. The mansard roof even serves a purpose concealing the aforementioned damper penthouse.

Also, the materials here are significantly higher quality than other recent Pomo towers. The mansard crown is entirely clad in copper which is finally starting to patina. Once it's really well aged it will really soften even the unfortune precast concrete.

Here's Blair Kaman' s take on it from 2000:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...144-story.html

Some interesting quotes:

Quote:
It's big, all right, but is it beautiful?

At 844 feet, the new Park Tower is the tenth tallest building in Chicago and one of the 60 tallest buildings in the world. It also is more than five times the height of its newly dwarfed neighbor, the old, 154-foot Chicago Water Tower.
I particularly like this Oscar Wilde quote, being offended by the "ye olde castle" aesthetic is not something new to our era, but age tends to improve the character of any building...

Quote:
Located on the northwest corner of Michigan and Chicago Avenues, the Park Tower sits just west of one Chicago's most important public spaces, Water Tower Park, and the park's namesake, a quirky tower of yellow Joliet limestone that Oscar Wilde once called a "monstrosity with salt and pepper boxes stuck all over it."

Quote:
Initially, the Park Tower was designed by the project team, which includes Lagrange and structural engineers Chris Stefanos Associates of Oak Lawn, to be roughly 650 feet tall.

Yet the tower grew by nearly 200 feet, according to those involved in the project. Why? Because the Pritzker's Hyatt Development Corp., which had overall responsibility for Park Tower, and the developers of the condos, an affiliate of LR Development Co. of Chicago, allowed the ceiling height of the condos to increase by roughly a foot and a half. That change made the expensive units seem more spacious -- and thus more marketable.

But the shift also required a structural rejiggering, largely because wind tunnel tests showed that the newly extended tower would be swaying too perceptibly as gusts blew in from Lake Michigan and bounced off the nearby John Hancock Center and Water Tower Place.

As a result, the engineers bulked up the Park Tower's steel-reinforced concrete frame, particularly the north- and south-facing walls that act, with the building's centrally located elevator core, to brace the building against the wind.

They also introduced a 400-ton pendulum, which is suspended from steel cables tucked beneath the tower's top and is known as a "tuned mass damper" because it reduces -- or damps -- the swaying caused by the wind. (This marks the first time in the United States that a tuned mass damper has been designed into a new building. Others have been installed, as at New York's Citicorp Center, to correct structural problems after the fact.) In simplest terms, when the Park Tower moves in one direction, the damper moves in the other, cutting down on sway. "The chandeliers will still be swinging," said engineer Chris Stefanos, "but at a lower rate."

Last edited by LouisVanDerWright; Nov 19, 2018 at 3:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #851  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2018, 11:09 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is online now
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
One Chicago Square? Art Deco? How? Maybe the shape
The massing is clearly inspired by art deco in my opinion.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.