SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   CHICAGO | Essex on the Park | 607 FT | 56 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=225358)

SolarWind Nov 14, 2017 2:02 AM

November 13, 2017










BVictor1 Nov 14, 2017 3:17 AM

Climbing fast...

KWillChicago Nov 14, 2017 9:41 AM

That winter garden/pool deck is going to look stunning at night a year from now.

Bombardier Nov 14, 2017 10:40 AM

I heard the crane is being jumped this weekend. Also from here on out the concrete cycle is one floor every 3 days.

left of center Nov 14, 2017 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bombardier (Post 7985216)
I heard the crane is being jumped this weekend. Also from here on out the concrete cycle is one floor every 3 days.

Holy crap that's wicked fast. Small floor plates will do that...

BVictor1 Nov 17, 2017 5:43 AM

11/16/17

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...897236/enhance

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...897312/enhance

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...897240/enhance

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...897205/enhance

UPChicago Nov 17, 2017 2:45 PM

Now that looks awesome

harryc Nov 21, 2017 2:19 AM

Nov 20










Northwest Nov 21, 2017 12:08 PM

Already fitting into the streetwall nicely. Its looking great so far, to be honest I like this version much more than the original proposal with the slanted criss-crossing columns in the winter garden space. Here it would look like a gimmick, save that for where it is needed, such as 110 N Wacker. That location gives them purpose, but not here.

Bombardier Nov 21, 2017 4:14 PM

^The purpose here was to allow the hotel occupants on those floors views of the lake and to stiffen the building laterally. They were not just a gimmick, even if that is what it looked like. The watered down landmarks version costs considerably more with the added glass and the shearwall that had to be added to stiffen the building.

Le Baron Nov 25, 2017 4:11 PM

11/25/2017
 
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4543/3...07deda15_b.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4520/3...87d2f9b9_b.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4548/2...469e9387_b.jpg

KWillChicago Nov 25, 2017 6:23 PM

Hilton and best western need to build towers on their sites. Just try to keep boxing in grant park with towers like central park.

donnie Nov 25, 2017 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWillChicago (Post 7997365)
Hilton and best western need to build towers on their sites. Just try to keep boxing in grant park with towers like central park.

As long as they're not anorexic looking towers i agree!

Those things are hideous.....

Domer2019 Nov 26, 2017 2:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie (Post 7997568)
As long as they're not anorexic looking towers i agree!

Those things are hideous.....

It's hard to hate 111 W 57th. Really hard.

HomrQT Nov 26, 2017 5:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019 (Post 7997669)
It's hard to hate 111 W 57th. Really hard.

Setbacks really add a classy feel to a building when done right.

Kumdogmillionaire Nov 26, 2017 7:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019 (Post 7997669)
It's hard to hate 111 W 57th. Really hard.

I wouldn't say I hate that building, but i definitely think supertall and skinny buildings would look stupid in Chicago.

Halsted & Villagio Nov 26, 2017 9:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019 (Post 7997669)
It's hard to hate 111 W 57th. Really hard.

I saw a list recently that was taken by one of the NY magazines or newspapers (I have forgotten which one - you can look it up) that listed something like the 15 greatest eyesores in NY city.... that building made the list.

I agree with you though... I don't think it is too bad... (even though it offers little in the way of architectural interest and was designed after a trash can)... still, if given a choice of take it or leave it... I would take it.

.

Domer2019 Nov 26, 2017 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio (Post 7998098)
I saw a list recently that was taken by one of the NY magazines or newspapers (I have forgotten which one - you can look it up) that listed something like the 15 greatest eyesores in NY city.... that building made the list.

I agree with you though... I don't think it is too bad... (even though it offers little in the way of architectural interest and was designed after a trash can)... still, if given a choice of take it or leave it... I would take it.

.

But it's nowhere near completed... do they just consider any ongoing construction an "eyesore"? The facade is world class, at least.

https://images.datahubus.com/59d267f...w-57th-st_.jpg

https://www.elegran.com/nyc/building...st-57th-street

Anyway, there are some examples of incongruous designs like Spire v1.0 that make me cringe, but I think smaller dimensions that still present Chicago style architecture/massing can make sense in context. Legacy fits the bill viewed straight-on. Essex in the same respect. Mostly, I think ultra-slim just serves to fill in gaps (e.g. LondonHouse, if that even counts) when it comes to Chicago, not so much as anchor supertalls, because of the buyers and the value of land. Maybe in 25-50 years?

Halsted & Villagio Nov 27, 2017 12:03 AM

[QUOTE=Domer2019;7998117]But it's nowhere near completed... do they just consider any ongoing construction an "eyesore"? The facade is world class, at least.


My bad. I got this one mixed up with the other tall pencil thin building over NY - 432 Park.

432 Park is the one that made the list of eyesores.

.

KWillChicago Nov 27, 2017 9:18 AM

So who picks up the bill for painting the north side of the jet building after essex is completed? I would imagine essex would want it done by move in day but after construction? Or do you think they will keep it as is?


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.