Here's all of the slides:

http://i.imgur.com/mALeBXLl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/yQC0C8ml.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/00uoBDsl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/APnrJKjl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8jqdEKul.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Fzf0KVQl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/N5hvqPUl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/R39DfYGl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NqwHdAjl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/AuZQohIl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/nwxvE5Sl.jpg

Please read this post at Curbed so people can't say I'm leeching traffic: 76-Story Rafael Viñoly Tower Would Be Tallest in South Loop

I think most people here would agree that "bulky and boxy" are complimentary qualities for Chicago architecture. And how many buildings can truly be characterized as "ground-breaking"? Like, made a noticeable impact on all architecture to follow? Among everything ever built-- even among only the buildings we praise? Not many. Much more often than not, in any field, progress occurs incrementally, and the contribution of a single actor is minimal. I don't think that's a bad thing. Not that we shouldn't all, you know, shoot for the stars (or whatever hackneyed metaphor you want to use), but I think too often, and especially in architecture, saying that something is "ground-breaking" is really just another way of saying that it's novel, which is itself often just shorthand for "look at all those zany shapes!"

So that doesn't bother me much.

I'm with you on twins, though. I hate twin towers. The only exceptions I can think of are Mies' LSD apartments. But like others have said I doubt that one will get built anytime soon, and, when it does, I'm sure the design will have changed.

what, no love for goldberg's masterful marina city twins?

Oh man... this side-by-side is just embarrassing.

yeah, talk about a dodged bullet.

we were very fortunate that the great recession stopped P/H from having exclusive design control of the entire south wall.

:duh Of course I'd forget the even more obvious example...

Anyone with concerns about this tower's design looking "70s" or whatever needs to go take a look at 432 Park Avenue in New York City. It's really beautiful. Or go take a look at the buildings they've done down in Hyde Park at the University.

Vinoly does solid work.

http://www.rvapc.com/images-producti...29_tmp19BE.jpg
www.rvapc.com

That being said, I'm looking at this gigantic twin tower design and thinking, no way. No fucking way. I just don't see it ever happening. Not in Chicago. Not in the South Loop with all those NIMBY blowhards that will kill this thing... but here's to hoping! :cheers:

I'd bet they get the first one done and then the market conditions will change and phase 2 will get delayed for another 10 years and then taken on by some other group with a different design. Phase 2s have a way of not happening.

Not a bad design. The details will really make or break, but the impact will be amazing no matter what.


How dare someone build a big skyscraper in downtown Chicago. Think of all the traffic problems it will cause for it's neighbors :)


And it will block the lakefront view from the south on Michigan Avenue.

If the project fails it won't be due to NIMBYism

I'd be interested in seeing one of the twins flipped on the N-S axis to reveal more of the bundled tubes to the north and provide more depth on the Roosevelt street wall, as well as more variation in the base.

Given the address on Park Avenue and the prices units get in NYC, there's no way anything that looks like that will be built in Chicago. The PPSQ must be through the roof.

Very cool design here, looks like 60-80s style boxes that have been modernized

I don't know what's going to happen with Phase 2, but let's also keep in mind that Crescent Heights isn't a small, inexperienced developer.

Not going to be a problem with Vinoly: Exhibits A and B :cool:

And yes we definitely dodged a bullet with that gimmicky P/H design.

Those office towers look kinda hack to me. A bunch of design gizmos thrown onto otherwise ordinary boxes with Lego block proportions. Not a lot of harmony there. The facade treatment of the tower in the foreground is nice enough. Wish it wasn't broken up so coarsely with those reveals. Makes me wary of the treatment of the terraces and parking garage for the Grant Park towers.

The U of C business school is great, though. And it's a nice nod to Robie House, intentionally or not.

But good riddance to that P/H pile of nonsense.

I don't think shadows over the park will be an issue. The sun would be north of it for most of the year.

God. No fucking shit. :cool: :cheers:

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

Oh, I just noticed: more bars in more places?
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/f...7/morebars.jpg

lol

The design is certianly interesting. However, I have mixed feeling with Chicago adding all of those tall buildings along the lakefront. I especially think the view to the north coming from the south has been messed up with the addition of the BlueCross Blue Shield and the apartment buildings built in the early 2000's.

:shrug: Views aren't guaranteed, how many times must it be said?? I swear sometimes I think people just want the city to be frozen in time at the absolute moment they bought their condo.

I suppose any tower on Grant Park is prominent, but it feels to me like a twin tower would work better asthetically alongside the Park rather than at a corner - somewhat like The Eldorado on Central Park West feels 'centered.' It might be better if the second tower was build first to ensure that the corner of the park is 'anchored' with an important building.