CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS

[TallBob]

It appears taller than 850'!

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Ugh...

[BVictor1]

^Lost the battle on the one man. Stop dwelling. Go focus on the renderings in the Vista thread to bring a smile to your face.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

I'm curious though how they plan to achieve that "brick by brick" limestone effect clearly visible at the crown, using precast?

If you want a good idea of what the facade is going to look like I suggest looking at 30 park place in NYC. Same architect with similar precast facade.

30 Park Place image 1 | 30 Park Place image 2 | 30 Park Place image 3

The detail on the facade doesn't actually look that bad. The faux seams work alright except for on the large continuous surfaces where the real seams in the precast become very apparent. Also the bay windows on this one look terrible the coloring looks like a failed attempt at match the color of the precast. I'm glad they seem to have chosen not to match the precast with details on One Bennett Park.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by rlw777

If you want a good idea of what the facade is going to look like I suggest looking at 30 park place in NYC. Same architect with similar precast facade.

30 Park Place image 1 | 30 Park Place image 2 | 30 Park Place image 3

The detail on the facade doesn't actually look that bad. The faux seams work alright except for on the large continuous surfaces where the real seams in the precast become very apparent. Also the bay windows on this one look terrible the coloring looks like a failed attempt at match the color of the precast. I'm glad they seem to have chosen not to match the precast with details on One Bennett Park.

The massing on park place isn't bad, but that precast - woof.
Looks like the AMLI base without the weird accent details.

[vandelay]

The average pedestrian would not know the difference between a real stone facade and precast with 30 Park Place. Some might even consider the consistent color and weathering of the facade vs limestone as a plus.

There is nothing redeeming about AMLI, however.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yes because it's super tough to tell the difference between this:

flickr, posted above

and this:


wikipedia


The only people who can't see the difference are people who probably aren't actually looking anyhow. I can see people who just glance at the building as they walk by not knowing any better, but if you actually look at it and care about what you are looking at it's flagrant.

[rlw777]

^ That's a fairly misleading comparison. ESB has 85 years of patina on that limestone. I think it might be worth looking at 15 Central Park West for a better comparison with a limestone facade.

15 Central Park West facade

[the urban politician]

^ I'll never quite understand the mindset of a society (or an architect, for that matter) that thinks it is completely normal to build something the likes of the Verizon building

[UPChicago]

The precast facade on One Bennet Park will look fine if the window detailing is as rendered and the precast is the same as 30 Park Place. 30 Park Place looks fine, it would look better with One Bennet Park's detailing. I also agree with rlw777, an aged limestone building isn't a good comparison. 15 West Central Park is a better comparison and 30 Park Place isn't too far off, although it has far less color variation.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yes because it's super tough to tell the difference between this:

flickr, posted above

and this:


wikipedia


The only people who can't see the difference are people who probably aren't actually looking anyhow. I can see people who just glance at the building as they walk by not knowing any better, but if you actually look at it and care about what you are looking at it's flagrant.

As someone pointed out, they will be very different. Limestone takes on a nice patina look because of the porosity and material composition. Precast will just streak and stain with darker spots because of its surface treatment and different porosity. While precast is less maintenance, it's often the lack of maintenance which separates the naturally "aged" facades from the neglected and dirty facades.

[jbermingham123]

delete

[ungerdog]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

That mindset would be called capitalism. in our society, buildings are designed for and by teams of people trying to make money (aka. companies). This means that functionality and low cost are the main goals in the design of almost every building. Any beauty in modern architecture is thus the result of a deliberate sacrifice of one or both of those goals.

Why these goals are sacrificed so often is something i do not understand. It actually really surprises me how many beautiful buildings there are in spite of this depressing reality. In a world of perfect capitalism, every building on Earth would look like the Verizon building or 1 Liberty Plaza or the Rockefeller center expansion buildings.. in that sense, the Verizon building is actually completely normal, and really we have just been spoiled by buildings with pretty designs.

It is generally a more refreshing conversation when the topic remains on architecture and isn't used as an outlet to whine about what ails someone on that particular day. A counter point to your argument would be a further deviation from the topic, so your diatribe just hangs on the board regardless of how void of fact it may be.

With that being said, I do like building proposals that give us something other than pure glass facades to break the monotony and keep us from seeing nothing but reflections and reminds us of being in a fun house at the carnival. I certainly wouldn't want these breaks from the glass to come at all cost and would need to be constructed of a material that would age well and not end up looking cheap.

[Notyrview]

It's going to be so hideous.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

I'm gonna remain the lone optimist here since everyone else hates this building. I think it should turn out fine as long as the prefab shit attempts to vary in color slightly throughout and isn't one set color in order to mimic stone better. The renderings imply that the coloration isn't completely bland. That should be a saving grace

[maru2501]

and it will be surrounded mostly by glass

[Jibba]

For me, it's not going to be inherently "bad-looking", but its presence will bring to mind the conceit of the whole thing, which will effectively make it a tall, widely visible beacon of regressive-ness.

[MakeChicagoGreatAgai]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

I'm gonna remain the lone optimist here since everyone else hates this building. I think it should turn out fine as long as the prefab shit attempts to vary in color slightly throughout and isn't one set color in order to mimic stone better. The renderings imply that the coloration isn't completely bland. That should be a saving grace

I think it looks great. I would buy a unit if it were cheaper.

[jbermingham123]

delete

[Swicago Swi Sox]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

That mindset would be called capitalism. in our society, buildings are designed for and by teams of people trying to make money (aka. companies). This means that functionality and low cost are the main goals in the design of almost every building. Any beauty in modern architecture is thus the result of a sacrifice of one or both of those goals.

Why these goals are sacrificed so often is something i do not understand. It actually really surprises me how many beautiful buildings there are in spite of this reality. In a world of perfect capitalism, every building on Earth would look like the Verizon building or 1 Liberty Plaza or the Rockefeller center expansion buildings.. in that sense, the Verizon building is actually completely normal, and really we have just been spoiled by buildings with pretty designs.

I disagree that beauty in a building is only because the owner chose to sacrifice functionality or cost. People will pay more to live in a beautiful building versus an ugly one. People prefer to shop in nicer or more beautiful stores. A Hospital may be regarded as offering better care based on its exterior appearance.

It is true that a building owner needs to weigh design with cost, but it never makes sense to completely throw it out the window, because the earning potential of the building long term will be compromised.