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

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

I have shared EVERYTHING I witnessed in a presentation that was made to potential middle eastern investors pre-Wanda that pertain to the concept. That is the point.

Really? Because what you've shared isn't much, certainly not enough to justify your animosity. And the way you've written about Gang honestly makes it sound like you've got some kind of vendetta against her.

[pilsenarch]

^^, and ^... obviously, you guys are not architects. Yes, Jeanne has the most influence over the 'decorating' and the massing, and the bustle...

My critique on the previous page speaks clearly for itself. I have juried competitions and thesis projects at the GSD at Harvard, UIC, and IIT and have also taught at all 3 of those schools among others - I think I can state with confidence that I know how to give a valid critique. If you all want to defend Ms. Gang's proposed tower, that's fine, but I would suggest you focus on the actual work, the shortcomings I have pointed out, and not on accusing me on being on some sort of silly vendetta...

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Really? Because what you've shared isn't much, certainly not enough to justify your animosity. And the way you've written about Gang honestly makes it sound like you've got some kind of vendetta against her.

^^^ THIS. It's not the critique itself, but the somewhat condescending tone.

[pilsenarch]

ok. fair enough. but you are proving my point... can you please repost my "somewhat condescending tone" remarks regarding the design?

[rlw777]

I am less concerned with the massing and more concerned with the way the building meets the street. A 'green' rationale for the frustum design is admittedly a poor justification but aesthetically speaking it is certainly an interesting and cohesive way to approach the site constraints. Creating some visual separation along the north and south face I think is essential due to the size of the site. The frustum columns create that separation quite well while still presenting as a unified whole with a logical progression both in the shifting of those columns and in their stepped variation. However it's quite obvious that all those odd angles and the shifting of each column is going to cause some odd spaces at the street and it will be interesting to see if some of that is resolved over the next year or so.

[N830MH]

Haven't they start construction yet?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by N830MH

Haven't they start construction yet?

no.

not even close.

construction isn't anticipated to start until october '16, according to the developer's timeline.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by bcp

wow, people are complaining about the remaining, windowless tetris shaped west-side of a different building as the major flaw of this one? jeez...i wonder if it was zero-lot-line on that side of people would complain that it was crowding and stealing that building's sunlight...

It's not zero-lot-line? Certainly looks like it. But to the contrary, when an existing building has a blank wall on the lot line, it's the duty of the next building to crowd it and steal the blank wall's sunlight.

And not a flaw of the building itself, just a failure to fully relate to it's surroundings. I still haven't seen the relation to LSE park, lower Wacker, or how pedestrian access from lower LSE to upper Wacker will be handled. That could end up being the least of the issues.

[bcp]

i see what you mean about "duty"..but this is not a fatal flaw...easy enough to fix after review, but we're really not talking about THAT much SF of blank wall remaining.

it's like blaming your grandfather for your bald spot. at some point, just have to accept it as not that big of a deal.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

ok. fair enough. but you are proving my point... can you please repost my "somewhat condescending tone" remarks regarding the design?

Happily. With added subtext.

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

I thought we were known for forward functional architecture... Like the new Roosevelt tower where at least there the 'bump-outs' identify the student lounges... can't wait to see the floor plans of this thing... will Jeanne just increase and decrease the square footage of living rooms? will she continue to claim it's green due to half of the glass facing down (ha, and the other half facing up totally eclipsing any savings)

SUBTEXT: I don't know why it looks like this, but I'm sure there's not a good reason for it.

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

IMO, the way it meets the ground (and the neighboring buildings) is by far the worst thing about it... which is saying a lot...

SUBTEXT: (To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. I don't think most people take issue with the base, so to assert that it's the "worst thing about it" is "saying a lot" because it means there's really not much wrong with it. Call me crazy, but I doubt that's what your implying. Semantically, though, the alternative doesn't make much sense, so we're left with what comes across as a vague but ill-expressed dig.)

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Finally, someone else sees a few of the most basic flaws in the design...

SUBTEXT: Finally, someone else with a valid opinion because it is like mine.

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

What I find amusing for all you tower enthusiasts, is your complete jetissing [sic] of any objective critique of this project.

SUBTEXT: Claiming that only unfavorable critiques of the design are objective allows me to cast its supporters as irrational and sycophantic.

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Every single significant tower in Chicago of any worth (I'm not including Aon, designed by a NY firm, BTW) derives its' overall massing from from either a structural system or functional use being expressed or both. Jeanne is not doing either. Is that by itself a problem? Not necessarily, but shouldn't she have some reason other than it looks cool? She would appear to agree based upon early presentations I have seen. Her only stated justification for the form that I have heard: It's 'green' due to shading of half of the glass. As I have pointed out a number of times on this thread, that is laughable and I would assume she has since dropped that justification. Meanwhile, does the program provide some need to expand the floor areas in this manner? No, it does not. As I've said before, I'm looking forward to how the floor plans are resolved. Maybe they will be splendid, but this will be solving a problem that did not exist. The other moves, the shifting of the 3 towers and the stepping-up away from the lake are both welcome moves appearing to provide both functionality and visual 'complexity' benefiting the design.

SUBTEXT: I am basing my opinions on assumptions, hearsay, and/or unrecorded presentations you must trust I am accurately and objectively recalling. I am trying to hide the fact that I don't know what her justification is for the form, but it doesn't matter because it's probably "another one-liner."

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

^^, and ^... obviously, you guys are not architects....

My critique on the previous page speaks clearly for itself. I have juried competitions and thesis projects at the GSD at Harvard, UIC, and IIT and have also taught at all 3 of those schools among others - I think I can state with confidence that I know how to give a valid critique. If you all want to defend Ms. Gang's proposed tower, that's fine, but I would suggest you focus on the actual work, the shortcomings I have pointed out, and not on accusing me on being on some sort of silly vendetta...

Your critique doesn't speak for itself. That's the problem. Also:



I've witnessed architects far more highly regarded than you participate in the masturbatory shitshow known as the "architecture critique," so don't try to trot out your pedigree as though it confers upon you a cloak of immunity. Take your own advice and allow your critique to speak for itself.

[Tom Servo]

Oh damn. ^^^

[pilsenarch]

seriously, no architectural work is beyond criticism, (I usually tell my students that the most damning critique of all is to say a project is beyond criticism)...

when you tire of attacking me personally, maybe you can take another look at this tower's design and find a justification other then it's cool and develop a dialogue on the concept (or lack thereof)...

One forumer mentioned that the interlocking frustums were successful in 'breaking-up' the wide lengths of the north and south elevations (one of the few critiques with some sort of rational), but the desire of this is debatable, and, of course, there are infinite ways of doing this if so desired.

So, why can't we have cool tower with unusual form making that somehow references something like:

structure
program
context
history
'green' design
or something else entirely, but something

this has nothing to do with Studio Gang or Jeanne personally, it has to do with architecture that has substance, validity, and as Venturi so clearly explained, complexity and contradiction...

(Ch.G., I eagerly await your subtext translation!)

[wierdaaron]

I hear she got the idea by holding some cigarettes in her hand on a table.

[pilsenarch]

only if she was sitting in bKL's offices at the time...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I hear she got the idea by holding some cigarettes in her hand on a table.

LOL! nice one.

i heard it was a late night at the studio gang offices during a deadline crunch and they ordered a whole mess of chinese food.

after the meal, someone started playing around with the empty food cartons.........

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I hear she got the idea by holding some cigarettes in her hand on a table.

look more like three white castle fries bitten at different lengths

[wierdaaron]

(reference)

[pilsenarch]

ahh, yes, LOL ^ sorry, I missed the reference... (everyone should click on this link who's interested in the design of Wanda)

[rlw777]

Looks like wanda vista is up on bidclerk