CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS

[Notyrview]

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by rlw777

Caisson equipment on site. According to ChiArch. Time to move this one to U/C

Wait, so does that mean...

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I refuse to call this a boom until we at least have an 800 footer under construction.

...we can call it a boom now

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by 10023

The 3-4 story one or the really small one?

Both should be replaced by something as tall as the bases of the buildings that bookend that block (which look to be 8 or 9 stories).

It's the really small one for sale, and I agree. I'd like to see the 3-4 story garage replaced by 2-3 midrise buildings, to give the area more diversity of scale and more granular development.

[UPChicago]

So the building has its roots in the ground, can you people get over it now? Its happening....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm a big fan of Sterns work, and this is my favorite project right now for the area. Glad its moving along.

It has that old world charm. That Great Gatsby type of vibe.

The height is respectable as well. Had this been shorter, I don't think it would of looked as good. For some reason, these Central Park looking developments really shine when they are tall. Either way, I think its a great addition to the area.

Wow. Not only did you manage to lose all credibility with the first 7 words of your post, it was also all downhill from there......couldn't have been the easiest thing to pull off.....

[the urban politician]

^ I think NY/NJ people really dig their hometown hero, that's all...

Anyhow, whether you love or despise the design, I'm just glad we have a REAL skyscraper finally going up. Now we just need the Vista tower to break ground.

I'm the last person to focus on building height, but even I can't help but get tired of people from other cities coming in and say "awww....poor Chicago, getting left out of the highrise boom. Poor widdle Chicago, best days behind it....booohooo we feel so bad for you..." when we're still building way more highrises than nearly anyplace else in North America, it's just that they're just not all that tall.

[chris08876]

Why don't you guys like him? Its not like A.M. Stern is Peter Poon or Kaufman who actually ruins blocks with their work.

He's a good architect. I take it some of you don't like 99 Church or 520 Park Avenue either?

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think NY/NJ people really dig their hometown hero, that's all...

Exactly. But he's a good architect in all seriousness. Chicago is lucky to get such a tower. Some of you make it seem like its crap.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I take it some of you don't like 99 Church or 520 Park Avenue either?

Correct.

SSDD

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Some of you make it seem like its crap.

It is crap. There is absolutely nothing positive about it other than the fact that it will increase the tax base. It will be probably the worst skyscraper of it's height in the city when complete. I can't think of another 850'+ building in Chicago that even comes close to this except for Park Tower. Even 311 S Wacker is orders of magnitude less offensive.

[vandelay]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think NY/NJ people really dig their hometown hero, that's all...

It's more like some Chicagoans are being a little chauvinist (or provincial) and think that that the only real architecture out there has roots in Chicago or sophisticated Europe (especially post WWII). It's even worse that it's a New Yorker coming in. The allergic reaction to this innocuous building indicates an excessive sensitivity.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It is crap. There is absolutely nothing positive about it other than the fact that it will increase the tax base. It will be probably the worst skyscraper of it's height in the city when complete. I can't think of another 850'+ building in Chicago that even comes close to this except for Park Tower. Even 311 S Wacker is orders of magnitude less offensive.

O man.... we Tri-state area people definitely think differently. When I visited Chicago a couple of years ago, I adored the Park Tower. In fact, I stayed over at the Hilton next to the Hancock Center, and it was my second pic of my trip.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by vandelay

It's more like some Chicagoans are being a little chauvinist (or provincial) and think that that the only real architecture out there has roots in Chicago or sophisticated Europe (especially post WWII).

that's not true at all. 333 west wacker was designed by KPF of NYC, and it's one of the most admired and revered towers in town.

chicagoans appreciate good design, regardless of where it comes from.

this particular project simply isn't very good design.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by vandelay

It's more like some Chicagoans are being a little chauvinist (or provincial) and think that that the only real architecture out there has roots in Chicago or sophisticated Europe (especially post WWII). It's even worse that it's a New Yorker coming in. The allergic reaction to this innocuous building indicates an excessive sensitivity.

Meh I think it's just the usual irrational bias from a few folks toward anything that reminds them of a certain type of PoMo architecture. The only legit critiques I've read are concerns about materials and curb cuts. Nothing to see here

[vandelay]

333 West Wacker was built over 30 years ago, when KPF was young and relatively unknown with no national or international profile. Stern's brand is New York. KPF's brand is global--they're more known for what they've built outside of New York.

333 West Wacker is also what gave KPF national renown. They made their bones in Chicago. Like any transplant, not only does age help the building's local acceptance, being in a classic Chicago movie helps ("Ferris Bueller").

It's also apples and oranges to compare a hugely prominent, massive office development like 333 to a filler residential tower like 1 Bennett Park. The way people are acting here you'd think they tore down John Hancock to put up this Stern building.

[spyguy]

It's a little ridiculous to say that 850' is merely filler and I think it's much too simplistic to say that this is a NYC vs. Chicago thing. Certain people have a negative reaction (rightly so IMO) to these types of designs in 2016, whether it's coming from Stern or Lagrange.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's not true at all. 333 west wacker was designed by KPF of NYC, and it's one of the most admired and revered towers in town.

chicagoans appreciate good design, regardless of where it comes from.

this particular project simply isn't very good design.

Tribune Tower 1925- Howels & Hood of NYC

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by spyguy

It's a little ridiculous to say that 850' is merely filler and I think it's much too simplistic to say that this is a NYC vs. Chicago thing. Certain people have a negative reaction (rightly so IMO) to these types of designs in 2016, whether it's coming from Stern or Lagrange.

I agree it's too simplistic to say that this is a NYC vs. Chicago thing. However I don't understand the animosity here. If the critique is that it's not progressive enough. You will find no argument here it's obviously not a progressive design. I don't think that everything has to be progressive though. No matter the style I think the question should be is it good design.

In this case I think it is a pretty decent design. Ramsa is doing a lot of things quite well here. The building has nice massing it steps up away from the lake and steps back in a logical rhythm from the base. It's orientation avoids park shadows and avoids creating a block long wall to the lake. The design avoids the kitschy and ridiculous mashup of styles I generally associate with this family of PoMo design. (Stern hasn't taken the Lagrange route and created the skyscraper equivalent of the Disney version of Neuschwanstein Castle here) From what I can tell from the renderings it meets the street quite well apart from maybe one too many curb cuts. I do wish that it had limestone over precast but I understand that budgets are important and at the least still using limestone at the base shows some concern for quality materials and it's presentation at the street. My biggest concern is how the building connects with the park. I think there is a good chance here that the eastern end of the park will just be a couple limestone walls and a lot of dead space. I'm also not sold on the quality of RAMSA details after seeing their 30 park place tower but I can hold off on judgement until I see what they do here. All things considered I think it's gonna be a nice addition to the skyline.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by vandelay

333 West Wacker was built over 30 years ago, when KPF was young and relatively unknown with no national or international profile. Stern's brand is New York. KPF's brand is global--they're more known for what they've built outside of New York.

so what? they're still an outsider arch firm who designed a very handsome building here in chicago that most chicagoans unchauvinistically admire.

Originally Posted by vandelay

333 West Wacker is also what gave KPF national renown. They made their bones in Chicago. Like any transplant, not only does age help the building's local acceptance, being in a classic Chicago movie helps ("Ferris Bueller").

actually, what helps more than anything else is that it's a very good design, and above all, chicagoans appreciate good design.

Originally Posted by vandelay

It's also apples and oranges to compare a hugely prominent, massive office development like 333 to a filler residential tower like 1 Bennett Park.

i completely disagree, at 850' tall (nearly twice the height of 333 w wacker), and the 11th tallest building in the skyline at large, and the tallest buildings in its immediate streeterville surroundings, one bennett park is no mere filler residential building. this is a skyline-making tower, and it will be extremely prominent in its area of the city.

Originally Posted by vandelay

The way people are acting here you'd think they tore down John Hancock to put up this Stern building.

yes, some of the extremists in this thread go WAY overboard in their criticism of this tower, but it's not because it's designed by a new yorker or whatever silly little narrative you've invented in your own mind, it's because there is an obnoxiously loud contingent of chicago fourmers who just utterly and completely abhor anything that even hints at PoMo these days. if you think the criticism in this thread of stern is bad, you should read the disdainful contempt that gushes from their keyboards whenever the name lucien lagrange (a chicago architect mind you, not some NY outsider) is mentioned.

the issue here is design, not geography.

but please continue making up stories; they're cute.

[maru2501]

I still think it's slightly po-po-mo

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by vandelay

333 West Wacker was built over 30 years ago, when KPF was young and relatively unknown with no national or international profile. Stern's brand is New York. KPF's brand is global--they're more known for what they've built outside of New York.

333 West Wacker is also what gave KPF national renown. They made their bones in Chicago. Like any transplant, not only does age help the building's local acceptance, being in a classic Chicago movie helps ("Ferris Bueller").

It's also apples and oranges to compare a hugely prominent, massive office development like 333 to a filler residential tower like 1 Bennett Park. The way people are acting here you'd think they tore down John Hancock to put up this Stern building.

It sort of like calling Park Tower a filler. The majority of high rises in Chicago don't break 600' so anything above that will be pretty damn noticeable and impact the skyline, any tower that forces a redrawing of the skyline silhouette that is seen everywhere is not a filler. That said people do need to get over it at this point, it's happening and it's not going to ruin the skyline.