CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS - Page 360

Bill_Ding · #**7181** Posted **May 28, 2020, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I'll make sure to tell my boss the next time we go over load balance on our servers that it wasn't a mistake it was part of a "progression".

There are processes in place to catch mistakes like this one. The project engineers didn't catch what the city engineers did.

The city engineers had absolutely nothing to do with the blow through floor.

HomrQT · #**7182** Posted **May 29, 2020, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill_Ding

The city engineers had absolutely nothing to do with the blow through floor.

Yes, they did.

chris08876 · #**7183** Posted **May 29, 2020, 4:06 AM**

Somebody had something to do with the blow through floor, otherwise, there wouldn't be a blow through floor. Regardless of who said what, there is a blow through floor in accordance with the laws of matter and energy, and IMO, I think it adds to this beauty.

I hope they keep that bluish light on that floor. Looks kinda nice. Blue or blueish green.

Hawkeye343 · #**7184** Posted **May 29, 2020, 4:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

interesting criticism.

of the maybe 50 towers this developer has built over the past 30 years, I'd say vista is by far the most interesting and unique.

I didn't make any criticism. The many flaws of this building have already been thoroughly detailed by other forum members.

Steely Dan · #**7185** Posted **May 29, 2020, 4:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye343

I didn't make any criticism.

The phrase "completely botched tower" falls into the criticism category, IMO.

Hawkeye343 · #**7186** Posted **May 29, 2020, 6:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The phrase "completely botched tower" falls into the criticism category, IMO.

No, it is just calling a thing what it is regardless of how the apologists feel. Personally, I would be fine with the blow though floor even though it looks like an afterthought compared to other examples around the world. Even 432 Park did a much more elegant job and personally I can't stand that tower. In my opinion, the worst aspect is the horrible state of the mechanical floors. Although Vista is not the only recent American skyscraper to horribly integrate them.

Steely Dan · #**7187** Posted **May 29, 2020, 11:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye343

No, it is just calling a thing what it is.

No it's not, it's simply your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

And if you can't grasp that distinction, you won't last here very long.

cozy · #**7188** Posted **May 29, 2020, 1:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

they did the glass gradient, not for any ecological reason or LEED reason, but simply because they wanted another gimmick to attach to the project to make it look cool...

it's actually a very simple concept:

cozy · #**7189** Posted **May 29, 2020, 1:57 PM**

from my friend's drone yesterday:

jc5680 · #**7190** Posted **May 29, 2020, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozy

it's actually a very simple concept:

There is a world of difference between design rational that can be plausibly be used in presentation and choices that were genuinely made to affect the performance of the building. As it's been pointed out before; Gang has a pretty consistent history of verbose design rationale in presentations that can tell an interesting (often environmental) story, but should very much not be taken all that literally.

Glibly sharing their material without actually understanding where it falls on that spectrum doesn't confirm anything other than you saw their presentation materials.

observer · #**7191** Posted **May 29, 2020, 4:02 PM**

The design description of the gradient glass is weak at best (in my opinion it is ridiculous).

The person who posted that it was just another 'gimmick' was correct. I wish architects had the courage to be honest more often. I think it was a bold, original, and successful aesthetic move (and no doubt other architect will be copy it, just like aspects of aqua have been copied the world over). That's what it is though...and to pretend otherwise is nonsense....and should be called out as such.

Aqua is a vastly more elegant and original building than Vista though. It's not even close. When you have to have completely crappy interior spaces as a result of the 'architecture' on the outside, you didn't really do your job as an architect. That is why buildings with floors that change every floor are best reserved for office program which can be very flexible, or if residential, have very large apartments that can handle the change in depth more elegantly. The lateral design diagram on Vista is a hot mess compared to the simplicity of the Aqua. Yes, tall towers have more issues with lateral design compared to even 800' tall towers, and that's the point. Understanding how to fold lateral design requirements into an overall design of a tall tower is part of the challenge of making an iconic building. Tall towers are not just another exercise in form making.

I remain a huge fan of the talented, dedicated, and hard working men and women at Studio Gang. I hope the short comings on Vista are just a small hick up in what otherwise has been a very successful run for Studio Gang.

pilsenarch · #**7192** Posted **May 29, 2020, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozy

it's actually a very simple concept:

^jc5680 made it pretty clear what I think about this rationale... I also think I made it clear that I understood the 'concept', it's just not backed up in reality by the fact that there are not significant changes in solar gain with the varying hues of the glass and if you look at their diagram, it's kinda a lie... the spaces inside the building are not all open... in reality the floors are cut into much smaller spaces adjacent to the glass exterior... this fact alone invalidates the whole concept...

pilsenarch · #**7193** Posted **May 29, 2020, 4:33 PM**

interesting article noting recent innovative solutions for addressing 'dampening' and shear forces...

https://archpaper.com/2020/05/facade...8fyeCOzLMe2-LI

HomrQT · #**7194** Posted **May 29, 2020, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by observer

just like aspects of aqua have been copied the world over

That's interesting, which buildings have copied aspects of Aqua?

Quote:

Originally Posted by observer

a small hick up

Sorry, that's just funny to me.

cozy · #**7195** Posted **May 29, 2020, 4:59 PM**

to each their own..

i'm stoked for this building to open. seems to stir up so much emotion, will likely become one of chicago's most recognizable buildings.

harryc · #**7196** Posted **May 30, 2020, 12:56 AM**

May 25

chris08876 · #**7197** Posted **Jun 1, 2020, 12:28 AM**

Credit: Erik Wolf

pianowizard · #**7198** Posted **Jun 1, 2020, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

I hope they keep that bluish light on that floor. Looks kinda nice. Blue or blueish green.

Apparently there are laws prohibiting lighting on the blow-through floor. The light we see now is probably allowed only for construction. But I agree the blow-through looks nice when lit at night.

cozy · #**7199** Posted **Jun 1, 2020, 6:47 PM**

beautiful pics

yeah iirc nobody can find a solid source for any real ordinance prohibiting a blow thru light but wont be surprised if it is prohibited somehow

all i've found is from chicagoarchitecture.org

chris08876 · #**7200** Posted **Jun 3, 2020, 4:38 AM**

I don't get the issue though with such lighting. Like what makes lighting on crows ok (or even occupied floors above it), but not on blow throughs. Surely would serve as a beacon should any aircraft fly by. I mean unless the luminosity is off the charts that it could blind pilots, I don't see what the problemo is with lighting on blow throughs.

Seems like a silly ordinance.