It's quite interesting to me, and this comes from a purely objective standpoint, that New York and Chicago have such different ideas of what's considered good architecture and just generally a good building.
In New York, Robert A.M. Stern is considered a superhero lately for all the revival art-deco-style, limestone or high-quality precast towers that are now either approved or under construction, which likely speaks to the fact that New York's image was shaped by such towers as the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings.
However in Chicago, a city who's heritage is built on modernists ahead of their time like Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies, as well as planners like Daniel Burnham, who praised clean, straight lines and grids, many of you view a similar RAMS building to the ones rising in New York as frivolous and clunky. Whereas one could also consider how buildings like 12 East Roosevelt (which I think is fantastic for Chicago) might be viewed as plain, dated or unimaginative in New York.
Neither perspectives are necessarily right or wrong, but I think it speaks to the fact that the two cities are far more dissimilar than many of us even realize. I personally think this building will likely turn out great, if 15 Central Park West and 30 Park Place are any indication, so I would encourage you guys to not worry. I also think it'll inject a much-needed shaking up in the midst of the uninterrupted glassitecture that is Streeterville. However I understand where all the haters are coming from, and it's quite interesting to me the difference in perspectives. I mean, I may get burned at the stake for this, but from the perspective of a native New Yorker, I don't fully detest Lucien LaGrange's buildings...it's all a matter of perspectives.
Food for thought