SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 195 N Columbus (LSE) | 502 FT | 47 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=213523)

Tom Servo Oct 24, 2014 8:42 PM

Um. Yes.

:slob::drooling::laugh::rock::banger::dissy::righton::boogy::asian::machinegun::handguns::thrasher:
:banana::awesome::dancing::cucumber::pepper::fruit::apple::tomato::dancinghotdog:
:banaride:

:yeahthat

I think I have a new favorite in LSE.

the urban politician Oct 24, 2014 9:02 PM

^. If this project passed the Tom Servo test, then even better

the urban politician Oct 24, 2014 9:05 PM

Sorry for ignorance but what does 'boh' stand for?

LouisVanDerWright Oct 24, 2014 9:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6781562)
that giant (but aging) Hyatt Regency across the street.
.

Funny you mention the Regency, that hotel just received a $168 Million renovation which I think turned out quite well. The building certainly can't be called "aging"anymore and is basically brand new at this point. I figure Tom might salivate at the way the formerly nasty 1980's style lobby turned out:

http://i.imgur.com/bysPtov.jpg

Obnoxiously large image here: http://www.bauerlatozastudio.com/wp-...303-1_0170.jpg

Big Bar is even better than it was before!

the urban politician Oct 24, 2014 10:06 PM

^. I had no idea. I definitely will have to pay a visit to check it out, post-renovation

wierdaaron Oct 24, 2014 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6781853)
Sorry for ignorance but what does 'boh' stand for?

"Back of House" is my guess, that's the terminology used at my sister's hotel. Areas not open to guests, like kitchen and mechanical.

LouisVanDerWright Oct 24, 2014 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6782006)
"Back of House" is my guess, that's the terminology used at my sister's hotel. Areas not open to guests, like kitchen and mechanical.

This is correct. Back of house. The biggest pain in the ass part of planning a hotel. This is an easy site to find a home for the BOH, try doing it on a 12,500 SF triangular lot surrounded on three sides by active roadways. Lol.

LouisVanDerWright Oct 24, 2014 11:40 PM

Is there a forum for hotels? I feel like there should be separate website dedicated to people who are super nerdy about hospitality like some are about architecture, cities, urban planning, fashion, airplanes, whatever, etc. out there somewhere.

dropdeaded209 Oct 25, 2014 9:26 AM

total yawn.

123fakestreet Oct 25, 2014 10:55 PM

...

Notyrview Oct 26, 2014 2:12 AM

Tom Servo, why do you like this bldg so much?

SamInTheLoop Oct 27, 2014 5:26 PM

^ I'm eager too to hear Tom Servo's explanation, as I'm sure we'd all like a better glimpse into the inner workings of his aesthetic rationale.....


In the meantime, if such a question were directed at me, I'd simply ask "what is not to like about this one?". I really think bKL has done pretty much everything right here.

bKL really does some refined work. If you think about it - the firm has only existed for what - about 3 years or so? Maybe 4 at the absolute most. And they have in this extraordinarily short time amassed such an impressive portfolio of work in Chicago (and elsewhere as well I understand). I think every completed, under construction and proposed local design of theirs has been very good to excellent.

wierdaaron Oct 27, 2014 6:33 PM

Yeah, bKL has 2 major towers u/c right now (Wolf Point West, 200 N) with hojo starting soon, too. They really hit the ground running. I think that despite being a new firm, the experience and connections the principal had them operating like an established firm since day one.

LouisVanDerWright Oct 27, 2014 7:31 PM

I haven't really shared my thoughts on this one yet because I didn't really know what to make of it at first. But it's been growing on my quickly. The base is really refined and has and abstract blocky quality composed of various insets and cantilevers. That subtle detailing of the massing continues up into the tower with the subtle setback and cantilevers at the transition from hotel to residential. The same blocky mass is also repeated in the macro as the facade seems to have separate patterns for each different use. Each hotel is wrapped in it's own unique glass pattern (this appears to be fritted glass like the stuff used on the Coast balconies) and the residential has it's own pattern as well. The base has yet another type of skin (which looks a lot like the glass from the original renderings of the coast).

The stacking plan is really what let me understand the design. Without knowing the different uses the facade seems arbitrary and random. Once you see the stacking plan it all makes sense. I'm really liking this take on the long tradition of formal modernism in Chicago. You don't really have a lot of options on a lot of this shape anyone so something minimal and subtle is the best option.

Ch.G, Ch.G Oct 27, 2014 8:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 6784488)
In the meantime, if such a question were directed at me, I'd simply ask "what is not to like about this one?". I really think bKL has done pretty much everything right here.

bKL really does some refined work. If you think about it - the firm has only existed for what - about 3 years or so? Maybe 4 at the absolute most. And they have in this extraordinarily short time amassed such an impressive portfolio of work in Chicago (and elsewhere as well I understand). I think every completed, under construction and proposed local design of theirs has been very good to excellent.

Completely, totally, 100% agree. My heart soars every time I see that they've landed a project, which they seem to do at a rate similar to SCB a few years ago. Speaking of which, I wonder what kind of overlap exists between their clients and whether or not bKL has taken a chunk out of SCB's business. I hope so, and not just because bKL produces superior work, but also because it might push SCB to do better. They're definitely capable of more; it just sorta seems like they started phoning it in at the height of their popularity.

wierdaaron Oct 27, 2014 8:09 PM

I don't know who bKL took business from, but they've kind of become the SOM for projects that could never afford SOM.

LouisVanDerWright Oct 27, 2014 8:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6784764)
I don't know who bKL took business from, but they've kind of become the SOM for projects that could never afford SOM.

Well I think bKL has been taking work from people as much as there was a complete reset in the marketplace after the crash that wiped out a bunch of firms or forced them to lay people off. It seems bKL has just been beating everyone to the punch because their patron, Lowemburg, happened to toally kill it at land his projects all at the right time before the boom. He either got lucky or timed it perfectly depending who you ask, but Aqua's development cycle was right on time. He was closing out Aqua right at the peak and was able to pocket much of that money right as the bottom was falling out. He's been far more active downtown as a developer than most have during this boom. Both of those towers in River North are Magellan and they are also in on the Wolf Point Development.

Everyone wants to be in bed with Magellan because Lake Shore East is one of already one of the most impressive development feats in American history on par with the immense scale of the Rockefeller Plaza. And, like Rockefeller Plaza, both turned out to be immensely successful from an economics standpoint right through the middle of a massive recession. So really what we are seeing is not so much bKL stealing business from everyone as it is Magellan running ramshod over the North half of downtown.

Another interesting implication of all this is what Magellan's presence in the Wolf Point Project means. They are clearly there because they know how to do a massive phased, mixed use, development project in Chicago better than anyone else. This makes me think that we can expect a similarly aggressive, but methodical, patient approach at Wolf Point as we've seen in LSE. You won't see them build all three towers overnight, but you will see them build them in succession one after another.

BVictor1 Oct 27, 2014 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6784764)
I don't know who bKL took business from, but they've kind of become the SOM for projects that could never afford SOM.

Well, the principle of bKL did used to work for SOM.

wierdaaron Oct 27, 2014 11:01 PM

Yeah, exactly. They took that SOM expertise with steel and glass at huge scale and offered it to a wider market. It seems like SOM is only interested in signature, world-class projects at this point, so bKL offers a very similar style and level of refinement to smaller (but still fairly large) projects.

Notyrview Oct 27, 2014 11:19 PM

Wait til bKL get lands its first 800 foot condo tower :slob:

Tom Servo Oct 28, 2014 1:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview (Post 6783021)
Tom Servo, why do you like this bldg so much?

I'll give you a short summarization of my thoughts:

The base is my favorite part. It's clean and sophisticated without exceeding a human scale. I like the airy, all glass aesthetic and how open it is to the street. I think it is important that buildings of this size don't overwhelm the human element as much as is possible; buildings of this size should be designed so as to minimize their size and immensity. Accordingly, I think it is exceedingly difficult to design tall buildings well, as is evident in far too many skyscrapers designs city-wide. This base does well to mitigate the hulking and dominating presence of a 600 foot tall tower and also serves well, visually, as an amenities block.

As a whole, I like the visual separation of the tower's program. The geometric break between its residential portion and both its hotel sections are well illustrated in three separate sections and then a fourth distinct visual break again at the bottom. I like this. I like how well defined the program is while maintaining a clean, cohesive look and feel. Form follows program, right? Isn't that the prevailing modernist design attitude today?

Anyway, I'm a fan of simplistic, modern design, and this is exactly that. I'm a fan of bKL's work, as I've said many times before. I except this building will maintain the details and execution we saw with 345. And if 345 E Wacker is evidence of bKL's simplistic mastery of material, then I except no less refined elegance in this tower.

the urban politician Oct 28, 2014 12:34 PM

^ Exactly what I thought... ;)

Anyhow, here's a question: what's wrong with overwhelming the pedestrian? There is always talk about having tall towers without "disrupting the human scale". Yes, I believe active street level activity is important (retail, for example), but beyond that, why is it wrong to have towers right up against the street?

Humans are feeble & whiny creatures. They are annoying, they are a distraction. They complain too much and talk too much about their feelings. They really don't deserve special consideration. Humans should be made to feel tiny & irrelevant. The greatest cities in the world always make people feel small. I want to feel small, because that makes me feel that the city I'm in has endless possibilities, and that I really have to strive to make it to the top. That's how one feels in Manhattan, and it works to that city's advantage.

LouisVanDerWright Oct 28, 2014 1:33 PM

Nothing is wrong with overwhelming the pedestrian, but if every building in the city did that the city would be a total mess. There's certainly a place for that when it comes to monumental designs like Aon Building where the entire point of the design is to be monolithic, but if all the buildings around Aon Building were similarly brutal to the pedestrian, the area would end up totally inhospitable. The best part about this design is that it looks like it will do a very good job of filling in the last gap in this area with something that will prevent this from feeling like an overgrown office park.

Notyrview Oct 28, 2014 2:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 6785088)
I'll give you a short summarization of my thoughts:

The base is my favorite part. It's clean and sophisticated without exceeding a human scale. I like the airy, all glass aesthetic and how open it is to the street. I think it is important that buildings of this size don't overwhelm the human element as much as is possible; buildings of this size should be designed so as to minimize their size and immensity. Accordingly, I think it is exceedingly difficult to design tall buildings well, as is evident in far too many skyscrapers designs city-wide. This base does well to mitigate the hulking and dominating presence of a 600 foot tall tower and also serves well, visually, as an amenities block.

As a whole, I like the visual separation of the tower's program. The geometric break between its residential portion and both its hotel sections are well illustrated in three separate sections and then a fourth distinct visual break again at the bottom. I like this. I like how well defined the program is while maintaining a clean, cohesive look and feel. Form follows program, right? Isn't that the prevailing modernist design attitude today?

Anyway, I'm a fan of simplistic, modern design, and this is exactly that. I'm a fan of bKL's work, as I've said many times before. I except this building will maintain the details and execution we saw with 345. And if 345 E Wacker is evidence of bKL's simplistic mastery of material, then I except no less refined elegance in this tower.

Thanks Tom, the visual separation argument you make is a good one. I'm still nonplussed about your take on aqua - i think it's view-maximizing balconies are essence of form follows function, too, in this work, eat, play, shop, shit world - but i'll leave it at that.

SamInTheLoop Oct 28, 2014 4:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6785343)
Humans are feeble & whiny creatures. They are annoying, they are a distraction. They complain too much and talk too much about their feelings. They really don't deserve special consideration. Humans should be made to feel tiny & irrelevant. The greatest cities in the world always make people feel small. I want to feel small, because that makes me feel that the city I'm in has endless possibilities, and that I really have to strive to make it to the top. That's how one feels in Manhattan, and it works to that city's advantage.


:haha:


Love this. Part of me agrees with it wholeheartedly. The remainder just thinks it's funny.

SamInTheLoop Oct 28, 2014 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6782070)
Is there a forum for hotels? I feel like there should be separate website dedicated to people who are super nerdy about hospitality like some are about architecture, cities, urban planning, fashion, airplanes, whatever, etc. out there somewhere.


Surely there must be a good one out there somewhere??

SamInTheLoop Oct 28, 2014 4:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6781522)
There are a lot of brands trolling for sites here, but even more existing brands with an extant presence here that are looking to cash in further on the Chicago hotel boom.


Very true. Just as an example, but maybe exhibit A is Hyatt. Despite some of Panderman O'Killian's most strident efforts to stymie multiple proposals that were/are to house them, they are certainly (and my guess is we're going to be in for yet more from them) expanding their downtown footprint....

rlw777 Oct 28, 2014 5:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6785343)
^ Exactly what I thought... ;)

Anyhow, here's a question: what's wrong with overwhelming the pedestrian? There is always talk about having tall towers without "disrupting the human scale". Yes, I believe active street level activity is important (retail, for example), but beyond that, why is it wrong to have towers right up against the street?

For the same reason that a bunch of retailers haven't joined billy goat tavern in setting up shop on the lower streets of Chicago.

It's not necessarily 'wrong' but just like when designing living and working spaces the intention is often toward creating open naturally lit welcoming spaces and building right up against the street doesn't necessarily facilitate that. If you think of any street in the loop compared to Michigan Ave. just in terms of the built environment I think the majority of people would say that Michigan Ave is much more warm / inviting and the loop is much more imposing.

SamInTheLoop Oct 28, 2014 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6785025)
Yeah, exactly. They took that SOM expertise with steel and glass at huge scale and offered it to a wider market. It seems like SOM is only interested in signature, world-class projects at this point, so bKL offers a very similar style and level of refinement to smaller (but still fairly large) projects.


Another important distinction though has to do with program/property type. bKL - although it is certainly getting into other programs such as hospitality, office and eductional, has I think it's pretty fair to state, done to-date primarily residential. SOM I'm sure does some residential, but I believe they are still - as they have always been - much more geared to office, with a propensity for larger, and of course in some cases, showpiece, commercial projects. Of course they engage in other program types as well....

Tom Servo Oct 28, 2014 8:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6785343)
what's wrong with overwhelming the pedestrian? There is always talk about having tall towers without "disrupting the human scale". Yes, I believe active street level activity is important (retail, for example), but beyond that, why is it wrong to have towers right up against the street?

http://chicago.peninsula.com/en/~/me...-1.ashx?mw=952
chicago.peninsula.com
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ater_Tower.jpg
wikimedia

Note the brutish and imposing size and scale of "Chicago Place" in relationship to its neighbors. Sitting next to the well designed Peninsula block and the old water tower, it looks cartoonish. What's worse, the feel of the building from the street is almost suffocating.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ture_room.jpeg
wikimedia

Here again, note the imposing and crude size disparity between a skyscraper designed in a computer and 19th century design by hand. Poorly designed towers like this smother everything around them and create an uninviting streetscape.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ower_Place.JPG
wikimedia

Across the street again. It's not just about height; it's everything to do with size and volumes. The Hancock Center is over 1,000 feet tall, and yet it feels far more inviting than the awful, forbidding block that the Water Tower tower sits atop.

http://meganandtimmy.com/wp-content/...er-address.jpg
meganandtimmy

It's hard to capture in a google image search, but its base does well to offset its imposing size as it's only a single story and visually separated from the rest of the tower. Also, the tower is set back into the center of the block and tapers in, which further helps offset its massive feel.

Anyway, my point is simply this. Poorly designed buildings do far more damage to cities than just look ugly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6785343)
Humans are feeble & whiny creatures. They are annoying, they are a distraction. They complain too much and talk too much about their feelings. They really don't deserve special consideration. Humans should be made to feel tiny & irrelevant. The greatest cities in the world always make people feel small. I want to feel small, because that makes me feel that the city I'm in has endless possibilities, and that I really have to strive to make it to the top. That's how one feels in Manhattan, and it works to that city's advantage.

:rolleyes:

Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6785343)
That's how one feels in Manhattan, and it works to that city's advantage.

Don't be so daft. Manhattan is one of the best designed urban centers in the world. They even realized the danger of canonizing their streets and killing the human scale that they passed a zoning law restricting the design of their skyscrapers. That was 100 years ago. Your entire post is just belligerently silly.

...

wierdaaron Oct 28, 2014 8:45 PM

Chicago Place is pomo junk and Water Tower Place is a war crime. No more "Place" places, please.

Tom Servo Oct 28, 2014 9:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6786020)
Chicago Place is pomo junk and Water Tower Place is a war crime. No more "Place" places, please.

I'm digging my own grave by saying this, but I wouldn't be opposed to completely covering the Water Tower's base in digital ads...

:stunned:

:runaway:
:goodnight:

wierdaaron Oct 28, 2014 10:40 PM

Maybe they can dress it up as a better building for Halloween.

ardecila Oct 29, 2014 1:53 AM

The human scale works in three dimensions, not just one... It's not all about making buildings shorter.

Bertrand Goldberg's Astor Tower is a great example... The open space at the bottom of the building is human scaled, even though the tower is ridiculously, beanpole-style tall for its tiny site. That tiny site is also human-scaled, and lends a fine-grained feel to the tower that helps it fit into the neighborhood.

http://bertrandgoldberg.org/wp-conte...11/07/ast9.jpg
src

Notyrview Oct 29, 2014 12:39 PM

^ Citicorp center too, right? I didn't even know about that tower's awesome cantilever until you mentioned it. I'm gonna take a trip to see it soon.

bcp Oct 29, 2014 8:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6785399)
Nothing is wrong with overwhelming the pedestrian, but if every building in the city did that the city would be a total mess. There's certainly a place for that when it comes to monumental designs like Aon Building where the entire point of the design is to be monolithic, but if all the buildings around Aon Building were similarly brutal to the pedestrian, the area would end up totally inhospitable. The best part about this design is that it looks like it will do a very good job of filling in the last gap in this area with something that will prevent this from feeling like an overgrown office park.


should we really design buildings to escape from...well, feeling like a building? zero lot lines is what makes the city feel like a city (granted, we don't want blank walls and zero activiation..)...we cannot out-suburb the suburbs...

when the city gets to be too much, there will always be a patch of shorter buildings...or a park for refuge.

r18tdi Oct 29, 2014 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6786020)
Chicago Place is pomo junk and Water Tower Place is a war crime. No more "Place" places, please.

Ontario Place is a pretty decent design, said no one ever.

rlw777 Oct 29, 2014 9:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 6787537)
should we really design buildings to escape from...well, feeling like a building? zero lot lines is what makes the city feel like a city (granted, we don't want blank walls and zero activiation..)...we cannot out-suburb the suburbs...

when the city gets to be too much, there will always be a patch of shorter buildings...or a park for refuge.

You mean should we really design buildings for humans? :)

LouisVanDerWright Oct 29, 2014 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 6787537)
should we really design buildings to escape from...well, feeling like a building? zero lot lines is what makes the city feel like a city (granted, we don't want blank walls and zero activiation..)...we cannot out-suburb the suburbs...

Maybe, but we can also build zero lot lines at ground level and then have set backs above.

Quote:

when the city gets to be too much, there will always be a patch of shorter buildings...or a park for refuge.
Tell that to NYC, Tokyo, or Shanghai. Chicago's downtown is rapidly headed towards a new reality where it will be a lot less like River North circa 2008 and a lot more like the Loop circa 2014. The patches of shorter buildings are dwindling and we aren't exactly adding many refuges. I'm all for as much density as possible, but we have to keep the bases of these buildings relatable to pedestrians or we risk building a giant version of Dubai's Marina: massive density, but completely sterile.

ardecila Oct 29, 2014 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview (Post 6786768)
^ Citicorp center too, right? I didn't even know about that tower's awesome cantilever until you mentioned it. I'm gonna take a trip to see it soon.

Yeah, I have a thing for this particular design strategy. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too: skyscrapers and much-needed public space.

bcp Oct 29, 2014 11:04 PM

^ this is where i just disagree...height has nothing do do with that...sterility / lack of relatability does not come from height or lack of setbacks - it comes from lack of density, unnecessary plazas, no articulation, no transparency in ground-level materials, and no activation.

parks and refuge? quality over quantity....chicago has quite a bit of green in my book. and it's not as if the city is THAT oppressive...i lived in NYC and whew...it can beat you down. I find walking by parking lots and massive setbacks much more exhausting than a busy, tall, no-setback street. let's let the city be the city...big and a bit messy.

HomrQT Oct 29, 2014 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 6786106)
I'm digging my own grave by saying this, but I wouldn't be opposed to completely covering the Water Tower's base in digital ads...

:stunned:

:runaway:
:goodnight:

I'm with you on that. Blank walls simply don't do anything for anyone. If they aren't going to be windows for someone to peer out of, then I agree they should be used for lights and screens that add some pizzazz to the area.

HomrQT Oct 30, 2014 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6785343)
^ Exactly what I thought... ;)

Anyhow, here's a question: what's wrong with overwhelming the pedestrian? There is always talk about having tall towers without "disrupting the human scale". Yes, I believe active street level activity is important (retail, for example), but beyond that, why is it wrong to have towers right up against the street?

Humans are feeble & whiny creatures. They are annoying, they are a distraction. They complain too much and talk too much about their feelings. They really don't deserve special consideration. Humans should be made to feel tiny & irrelevant. The greatest cities in the world always make people feel small. I want to feel small, because that makes me feel that the city I'm in has endless possibilities, and that I really have to strive to make it to the top. That's how one feels in Manhattan, and it works to that city's advantage.

I agree. Chicago should move forward and continue to awe and inspire and stop micro catering to the whims of the people in the immediate vicinity. This is a city striving for global excellence. As long as things are done intelligently with concern for street level access and activity, we should be building upwards and with density. If we don't continue to take those grand steps, we'll never truly compete with the global big dogs.

SamInTheLoop Oct 30, 2014 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 6787770)
^ this is where i just disagree...height has nothing do do with that...sterility / lack of relatability does not come from height or lack of setbacks - it comes from lack of density, unnecessary plazas, no articulation, no transparency in ground-level materials, and no activation.

parks and refuge? quality over quantity....chicago has quite a bit of green in my book. and it's not as if the city is THAT oppressive...i lived in NYC and whew...it can beat you down. I find walking by parking lots and massive setbacks much more exhausting than a busy, tall, no-setback street. let's let the city be the city...big and a bit messy.


This. All. Especially that last sentence....


^ And this. And TUP's.

LouisVanDerWright Oct 30, 2014 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 6787770)
^ this is where i just disagree...height has nothing do do with that...sterility / lack of relatability does not come from height or lack of setbacks - it comes from lack of density, unnecessary plazas, no articulation, no transparency in ground-level materials, and no activation.

parks and refuge? quality over quantity....chicago has quite a bit of green in my book. and it's not as if the city is THAT oppressive...i lived in NYC and whew...it can beat you down. I find walking by parking lots and massive setbacks much more exhausting than a busy, tall, no-setback street. let's let the city be the city...big and a bit messy.

I'm not saying there are some arbitrary height and setback requirements attached to making things human scaled. I'm saying a city consisting of entirely Aon buildings with plazas on every block would be absurdly sterile, just like the Marina is Dubai is. There is room for monumental architecture that overwhelms, but it doesn't work if the entire city consists of that style. We need a lot more of this:

http://studiogang.net/sites/default/...op2_BRIGHT.jpg
studiogang.net

It is still a very dense, sculptural building, but it has scale. It does not crush your soul. It doesn't really have setbacks, but it does have some more relatable details like the arcade and massing at ground level.

rlw777 Oct 30, 2014 8:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 6787770)
^ this is where i just disagree...height has nothing do do with that...sterility / lack of relatability does not come from height or lack of setbacks - it comes from lack of density, unnecessary plazas, no articulation, no transparency in ground-level materials, and no activation.

parks and refuge? quality over quantity....chicago has quite a bit of green in my book. and it's not as if the city is THAT oppressive...i lived in NYC and whew...it can beat you down. I find walking by parking lots and massive setbacks much more exhausting than a busy, tall, no-setback street. let's let the city be the city...big and a bit messy.

It seems like you're advocating poor design here simply because you like tall buildings squished together. I would suggest watching the following.

The Rookery: A Natural Light Challenge

wierdaaron Oct 30, 2014 8:45 PM

Soil trucks have been on-site every day this week. How long does that process take?

bcp Oct 31, 2014 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 6789050)
It seems like you're advocating poor design here simply because you like tall buildings squished together. I would suggest watching the following.

The Rookery: A Natural Light Challenge


That pic above is a great example...it's great because it has activity, transparency, articulation, and good materials. absolutely with you that a city full of Aon would be bad...i'm just arguing against plazas and setbacks just for the sake of them - it's the wrong fix. i'm all for open space, but quality over quantity (i'll take a small pocket park, or the highline canal over a huge new park that cuts the city off from the lake)

george Nov 25, 2014 1:19 AM

11/23

If it hasn't been mentioned already, I believe these trees are remnants from the driving range/golf course that once occupied the site.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/673/1X61zE.jpg

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/aSpMm2.jpg

munchymunch Jan 1, 2015 3:52 AM

Drawing by Koodoo

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=104525

Well done :multibow:


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.