CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS - Page 30

chris11 · #**581** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 3:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i think i might have found a new rendering of the redesign.

Is that the correct design without Gems? Not completely sure which lot its on

Ahh its 375, rip

sentinel · #**582** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 3:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i think i might have found a new rendering of the redesign.

That's funny

Zapatan · #**583** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

being at the top of your industry rarely correlates with massive amounts of competence.

Sadly this is true but there's not being competent and then there's releasing a design for a building to the public and realizing it's almost double your budget.

It's almost as bad as the time they forgot to add an elevator to a 47 story building in Benidorm, Spain.

Ryanrule · #**584** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 6:40 AM**

nyc is a special case.

Mr Downtown · #**585** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It's almost as bad as the time they forgot to add an elevator to a 47 story building in Benidorm, Spain.

Which didn't happen.

joeg1985 · #**586** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 3:19 PM**

This other rendering would be a huge disappointment. The original one at least made people oooooo and ahhh (at least it did with my friends). Throwing up some more super tall rectangles into the air is just so blah. Hopefully the materials would exude something of significance.

Steely Dan · #**587** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 3:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeg1985

This other rendering would be a huge disappointment.

the "other rendering" i posted is not a thing.

i did a quick photoshop of the old arquitectonica proposal for this site with something approximating the general massing of the gang design for a laugh.

it was just a joke. not real in any way, shape, or form.

UPChicago · #**588** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeg1985

This other rendering would be a huge disappointment. The original one at least made people oooooo and ahhh (at least it did with my friends). Throwing up some more super tall rectangles into the air is just so blah. Hopefully the materials would exude something of significance.

This is why I'm not a fan of Sears......

Anyways we could have dodged a bullet maybe they will now design a nice looking, none gimmicky, building. If you're going to go with gimmick at least make it something like the Chicago.

joeg1985 · #**589** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 3:50 PM**

Sorry Steely. Not to crush on your rendering skills. It would be a lovely proposal in and of itself, not replacing the Gang proposal.

Pilton · #**590** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 4:37 PM**

Value engineering?

yaletown_fella · #**591** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 8:48 PM**

While I wasnt a fan of the overly garish original design, this looks like a case of The Cheapening™

sentinel · #**592** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

While I wasnt a fan of the overly garish original design, this looks like a case of The Cheapening™

Please refer to post #587 in this thread.

Zapatan · #**593** Posted **Feb 28, 2015, 1:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

Please refer to post #587 in this thread.

Yea it's a good thing that isn't real.

I know they won't rebuild the Waldorf Astoria but I would love to see something similar to that here. I did think this was a pretty cool design though. 1150' is a great height and it is unique looking, almost Taipei 101-ish.

Plus this site is/was our only hope for another Chi-town supertall besides Wolf Point or the spire site, neither of which are certain to pass 300m.

LouisVanDerWright · #**594** Posted **Mar 24, 2015, 3:56 AM**

A friend who lives in LSE said there was some kind of survey crew out on the site again all week last week. Wonder how much "recalculating" is going on behind the scenes right now if they really are having such budgeting issues.

pilsenarch · #**595** Posted **Mar 24, 2015, 2:01 PM**

AFAIK, solutions involve 'shallowing' the frustums so they will allow the structure to run vertically and just cantilevering the floors rather than the structure following the envelope in and out as was priced (so, essentially the same structural solution as in Aqua), and "trying to stuff more program into the building"... not sure how you do that with hotel rooms, reducing the size of condos I can see and maybe lowering floor to floor heights... but the big 'concept', 3 frustum towers, remains

still not sure why 3 beautifully detailed, thin boxes that met the ground and their neighbors well wouldn't be better... painful to see this amount of cost-cutting so early in the design process...

bcp · #**596** Posted **Mar 24, 2015, 2:11 PM**

^ that's because it's not your $$$

the architects have to be reigned in sometimes...this will still be a killer building based on the detailing we saw...they can't go too cheap, the long term cost of maintaining it would be astronomical at that size.

pilsenarch · #**597** Posted **Mar 24, 2015, 2:39 PM**

^there is not necessarily a direct correlation between cheap or expensive detailing and cost of maintenance...

Steely Dan · #**598** Posted **Mar 24, 2015, 3:04 PM**

^ pilsenarch, thank you for your continued insider tid bits.

Zapatan · #**599** Posted **Mar 24, 2015, 3:17 PM**

If it ends up a box with curvy walls like aqua at 1100+ feet I think it'll still be a decent project.

rlw777 · #**600** Posted **Mar 24, 2015, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

AFAIK, solutions involve 'shallowing' the frustums so they will allow the structure to run vertically and just cantilevering the floors rather than the structure following the envelope in and out as was priced (so, essentially the same structural solution as in Aqua), and "trying to stuff more program into the building"... not sure how you do that with hotel rooms, reducing the size of condos I can see and maybe lowering floor to floor heights... but the big 'concept', 3 frustum towers, remains

still not sure why 3 beautifully detailed, thin boxes that met the ground and their neighbors will wouldn't be better... painful to see this amount of cost-cutting so early in the design process...

Responding to constraints in my experience is a positive thing for design. Not to be confused with value engineering.