CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS - Page 45

ardecila · #**881** Posted **May 3, 2015, 5:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

those horizontal lines / varying color changes are not ACTUAL changes in glass color...are they?

i hope not...i think this is more likely just a very bad rendering (ms paint?) and the color changes are meant to represent the projections and recession of the glass walls..and how this will create shadows / reflect light.

god i hope i'm right on this.

Yes, they are actual. Not changes in color per se, but changes in transparency, supposedly to control heat gain.

Cyprose · #**882** Posted **May 3, 2015, 7:41 PM**

Yeah, I think the goal of the changes in glass transparency is to make up a bit for the reduced frustrums. It might be an illusion that will work and look really cool, but I'm not sold on it yet.

Domer2019 · #**883** Posted **May 4, 2015, 4:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Sears and Trump have setbacks which help define shape. Hancock is obelisk like, which helps to define shape while the X-bracing defines texture. wanda has setbacks which will help define shape as well as frustums which will be unique and unlike what we have in our skyline. Can we please be patient and relax? Do you honestly think we're going to get a 1,150' piece of vertical shit designed by Gang

? Come one people... Chill!

I never said I wasn't chill - I don't think anyone here expects 3 slabs of steel and glass and a quick escape to China. But it never hurts to critique the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of art. Sure, the setbacks help differentiate the towers from each other, but they don't affect the shapes of the towers themselves. In my opinion, the frustums viewed from far away are not enough to greatly change the general form.

Look at it from a math perspective. When you integrate a curve (LRAM, RRAM), up close, it's all rough and right angle-y. But when you add sums or zoom out you get a curve by the human eye. What I'm saying is that the visual effect of the frustums gets weaker with distance and depending on the angle. For others like the Hancock, what is intended is what you get, over and over.

That said, I'm sure it will be breathtaking and I will enjoy marveling at it. Pointing out subjective issues with it doesn't take away from it is; I can't wait!

UPChicago · #**884** Posted **May 4, 2015, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Sears and Trump have setbacks which help define shape. Hancock is obelisk like, which helps to define shape while the X-bracing defines texture. wanda has setbacks which will help define shape as well as frustums which will be unique and unlike what we have in our skyline. Can we please be patient and relax? Do you honestly think we're going to get a 1,150' piece of vertical shit designed by Gang

? Come one people... Chill!

Yes

Busy Bee · #**885** Posted **May 4, 2015, 4:36 PM**

Maybe?

munchymunch · #**886** Posted **May 15, 2015, 3:48 AM**

I Don't remember this being posted...

Zapatan · #**887** Posted **May 15, 2015, 3:51 AM**

wow...

this can't start soon enough

aaron38 · #**888** Posted **May 15, 2015, 1:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch

So that's the termination of Upper Upper Wacker east of the driveway? It'll have a real nice view of the river.
But is there a design change there? The closeup shows that boardwalk coming straight out in front of the trapezoidal curtainwall section, almost to the property boundary. Whereas the distant view shows it being much more west.

Ned.B · #**889** Posted **May 15, 2015, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

So that's the termination of Upper Upper Wacker east of the driveway? It'll have a real nice view of the river.
But is there a design change there? The closeup shows that boardwalk coming straight out in front of the trapezoidal curtainwall section, almost to the property boundary. Whereas the distant view shows it being much more west.

I don't think the two are actually that different, there is just a trick of perspective going on in the far away view. Both Wanda and the building to the east are set back from the giant podium wall at Wacker. You can actually see this additional terrace space on the far right of the eye-level perspective.

munchymunch · #**890** Posted **May 18, 2015, 10:17 PM**

As expected...

https://twitter.com/BlairKamin/statu...15593275908097

1143'

Ryanrule · #**891** Posted **May 18, 2015, 10:22 PM**

whos that?

Koernerstr32 · #**892** Posted **May 18, 2015, 10:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

whos that?

Critic
Blair Kamin is the Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic of the Chicago Tribune, a post he has held since 1992. Kamin has held other jobs at the Tribune and previously worked for The Des Moines Register. Wikipedia

Zapatan · #**893** Posted **May 19, 2015, 12:08 AM**

What is it with Chicago and ~1150 foot buildings?

I'd almost prefer it 100 feet shorter just for some height variation, although being the same height as AON is obviously okay too. Can't actually complain about a building that size.

I guess my biggest fear now is that Related's Spire site project will also be in the ~1150 foot range and it will look weird.

Onn · #**894** Posted **May 19, 2015, 12:13 AM**

1143 feet is not too bad, I'm glad they raised the height so it won't look smashed down.

HomrQT · #**895** Posted **May 19, 2015, 12:40 AM**

Do we know the potential sqft on this thing? How does it stack up to something like the AON center or Sears Tower? I looked through a few pages but couldn't find it.

munchymunch · #**896** Posted **May 19, 2015, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Do we know the potential sqft on this thing? How does it stack up to something like the AON center or Sears Tower? I looked through a few pages but couldn't find it.

Wanda 1,800,000 sf

Aon 3,600.000 sf

Sears 4,560,000 sf

Trump 2,600,000 sf

Relatively small, especially at the top.

Zapatan · #**897** Posted **May 19, 2015, 2:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

1143 feet is not too bad, I'm glad they raised the height so it won't look smashed down.

It actually got shortened by 6 feet, it originally was 1149'

I think the proportions are really nice though.

HomrQT · #**898** Posted **May 20, 2015, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchymunch

Wanda 1,800,000 sf

Aon 3,600.000 sf

Sears 4,560,000 sf

Trump 2,600,000 sf

Relatively small, especially at the top.

Wow, that's HALF of AON. Holy crap. I'm surprised to see how little the Trump tower has in comparison as well. Thanks for providing the data.

munchymunch · #**899** Posted **Jun 10, 2015, 6:19 PM**

Wanda Vista Condo Sales Center on Its Way to Lakeshore East
Wednesday, June 10, 2015, by AJ LaTrace

Quote:

It's been a minute since there's been any updates on the proposed Wanda Vista supertall tower for the Lakeshore East community, however, a newly issued renovation permit indicates that a sales center for the project's condominiums is on its way. According to the permit, the new sales center will be located at the nearby Coast at Lakeshore East and will span approximately 10,000 square feet in size. In addition to offices and a reception area, the center will include kitchen and bathroom models for perspective buyers to scope out. The center will also feature promotional materials for the project's hotel. Designed by Chicago's Studio Gang Architects, as proposed, the high profile tower will stand at 93 stories tall and is expected to cost its developers nearly $1 billion to build.

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...les-center.php

jayden · #**900** Posted **Jun 10, 2015, 7:02 PM**

I'm sure this has been discussed numerous times, and I apologize for opening a can of worms, but whatever happened to what was supposed to be the Waterview Tower? Did they end up putting something there?