CHICAGO | 375 East Wacker (Arquitectonica LSE tower) | 840 FT / 256 M | 76 FLOORS - Page 2

colemonkee · #21 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 4:03 PM**

Chicago strikes again!! I really like the massing of this tower. It's very Chicago - tall, broad-shouldered, and conservative yet forward looking. Very classy. I think the colors and materials they use on the facade will make or break it.

VivaLFuego · #22 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 4:21 PM**

Yes, detailed renderings will give a better idea. The crown/top could have some great form and lighting effects.

A few things jump out:

1) complete symmetry accross the vertical axis.
2) The decreasing distance between horizontal bands in the middle-section as they rise from ground level

BayRidgeFever · #23 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 4:39 PM**

Man Chicago people, you have no idea how lucky you are. NY has not seen a 76 story (actual stories) building in nearly 4 decades now....and you have several taller ones u/c.

I'm sure the facade of this one is going to be top notch, and this will be yet another knockout. Incredible!

SevenSevenThree · #24 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:04 PM**

I dont wanna form any deep opinions on it just yet. I do think its a very solid design though. A conservative design which surprises me abit. The exterior materials, I think, will determine how I truly feel about the tower. Its seems to have great texture which is huge plus for me. Do any of the guys that saw renderings previously know what the primary exterior material is? That is, if there were those thats seen renderings before.

Scruffy · #25 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:11 PM**

Im usually a fan of arquitectonica but "eww" but it will come down to the details, with high class materials, this could be a pleasant surprise, any kind of cheap facade work or windows and this tower will blow. and it hurts me to say that about a 76 floor tower.

Busy Bee · #26 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:15 PM**

Current feeling: I still think I could have designed a better building for that site.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the site that aligns with Field Blvd. right? If so, just as i suspected, there is no arch element that would have been an amazing public space.

Saber925 · #27 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

So this pretty much seals the fate that the crappy/bland/undone look of the west side of the Regatta (to the east/left) in this rendering will stay very visible due to low rise portion of this structure's east side?

Guess that happens when you change the master plan mid stream, combining three tower sites into one.

I'm afraid so. On the other hand, I appreciate that Magellan has taken into consideration the views from the other high rises. One of the advantages of a planned community.

honte · #28 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Current feeling: I still think I could have designed a better building for that site.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the site that aligns with Field Blvd. right? If so, just as i suspected, there is no arch element that would have been an amazing public space.

Yep, very bummed about that. It could have been one of the most dramatic spots in the whole city if handled correctly.

Sketchy renders look decent, though. I will not be at all disappointed to see this one rise! I am really pleased that it's not that Times Square rubbish they produced.

As everyone has said, detailing and materials will make or break it.

X-fib · #29 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Current feeling: I still think I could have designed a better building for that site.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the site that aligns with Field Blvd. right? If so, just as i suspected, there is no arch element that would have been an amazing public space.

I noticed this too which makes me think its further to the east or else the street runs benneath to lower Wacker only??? An acrh stradling Field Blvd would have been interesting. Instead we have a big hole in the top half! Maybe Field Blvd travelers are expected to fly through!

Anyway, the design is vaguely similar to a sketch I did as in South Shore HS Art Major in 1969 Except in my concept the opening was on the bottom half.

chicubs111 · #30 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:26 PM**

Yeah...i thought the arched building was gonna be on the lower levels were people can actually walk underneath...is this that building?

Chicago Shawn · #31 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:27 PM**

Well I suppose I can start spilling the beans on this one now the that the can has been opened. The materials will be mostly glass with the vertical bands below the hole being limestone. Field Blvd will pass under the structure from the south, and the facade above the street will have LED lights which would cahnge colors with the seasons. That is what was orginally planned, I hope those elements are still part of the program.

EDDYC · #32 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:31 PM**

This building could be either really nice or really hideous depending on the quality of the glass.

Steely Dan · #33 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:33 PM**

^^ shawn, now that the cat is officially out of the bag, could you maybe let us know what you've heard regarding the actual height of this tower? it's clearly not a 1,000 footer, and the rendering makes it look like it won't even clear 900'. any info you feel comfortable divulging would be appreciated, but if you can't, i totally understand.

SevenSevenThree · #34 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Well I suppose I can start spilling the beans on this one now the that the can has been opened. The materials will be mostly glass with the vertical bands below the hole being limestone. Field Blvd will pass under the structure from the south, and the facade above the street will have LED lights which would cahnge colors with the seasons. That is what was orginally planned, I hope those elements are still part of the program.

Nice. Although Im afraid that the limestone wont end up on the final product. Im crossing my fingers. And some crown lighting would be nice as well. The top would be perfect for it.

Dream'n · #35 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:36 PM**

The design is pretty cool but the details could make it great. If the details are crappy, it should still look cool from a distance and it's certainly going to add some punch to the skyline.

djvandrake · #36 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:38 PM**

So they rotated the wider aspect of the buidling such that if faces North-South instead of the old plan that had the width facing East-West? It looks like they are taking a lot of primo riverfront real estate with this change.

I'm torn by the design. It will definitely be interesting and quite unique, but for some reason this is not was I was really expecting. I'll have to let this percolate for a while before forming much of an opinion. I am relieved that it's not some leaning, asymetric thing with a bright red stripe up the middle though!

GregBear24 · #37 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:48 PM**

This thing could actually be very nice, but I don't see much of a skyline impact happening, which disappoints me a bit. The height looks like in the 750-850 range tops. From a lot of angles, people won't get any sort of view of this tower, which is unfortunate. Plus, isn't there a really tall one possibly in the works for LSE along LSD and wacker? Plus aqua 2?

Saber925 · #38 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:50 PM**

Chicago Shawn, you wouldn't happen to have a nice color rendering would you?

djvandrake · #39 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:52 PM**

Last time I visited the sales center, the people there told me this one would be taller than Aqua. The wouldn't give much more detail than that.

Kngkyle · #40 Posted: **May 9, 2007, 5:55 PM**

Well look at it this way. If we judged the height of the Chicago Spire based on the renders we would be way way off. So I'd say just wait for the actual information before speculating what it will be.