Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs (Post 9336016)

This is the "Fish Hatchery" section. Set aside to provide food and shelter for fish eggs under the vegetation on the right. The beds on the left are butterfly friendly plants. Joe Pye weed is the tall gray/purple flower, False sunflower is the yellow cluster in the back, lots of Aster which has yet to bloom and Cup plant is just peeking up and will get quite big with yellow blooms. All are butterfly, bee and other pollinator favorites.

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe (Post 9336814)

Comparing the quality and detailing of our white terra cotta masterpieces to the banal, AutoCAD-designed blue glass facades is a bit disingenuous if you ask me.

Yes there's beauty in both and impressive structural qualities of the newer towers that serve as talking points on architecture tours, but one is far superior in the minds of tourists, locals, and everyone in between and likely will be for another hundred years. Blue glass towers seem like late-stage capitalism answering the question of "how economic can we make a building," which others in this forum have debated Chicago's stance at the forefront of this area of construction/development whereas NY & other global cities are more about flashiness to draw tenants, residents, and tourists. More than that I view it as a selfish, more greedy shift in development philosophy which focuses on the floor-to-ceiling views that tenants/residents get, not so much that the public gets of the actual building. I'm fine with having economic towers that look sleek, but we're an architecture town. Extreme example but we don't want our new building philosophy to end up like Seoul where it looks like copy & pasted towers then some dramatic supertall(s). One of my favorite things about living here is the variety of architecture and how it often feels like an outdoor museum, but seeing 4-5 of these similar height econo-boxes in one prime location makes me a bit sad for what could've been.

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe (Post 9336814)

Comparing the quality and detailing of our white terra cotta masterpieces to the banal, AutoCAD-designed blue glass facades is a bit disingenuous if you ask me.

Yes there's beauty in both and impressive structural qualities of the newer towers that serve as talking points on architecture tours, but one is far superior in the minds of tourists, locals, and everyone in between and likely will be for another hundred years. Blue glass towers seem like late-stage capitalism answering the question of "how economic can we make a building," which others in this forum have debated Chicago's stance at the forefront of this area of construction/development whereas NY & other global cities are more about flashiness to draw tenants, residents, and tourists. More than that I view it as a selfish, more greedy shift in development philosophy which focuses on the floor-to-ceiling views that tenants/residents get, not so much that the public gets of the actual building. I'm fine with having economic towers that look sleek, but we're an architecture town. Extreme example but we don't want our new building philosophy to end up like Seoul where it looks like copy & pasted towers then some dramatic supertall(s). One of my favorite things about living here is the variety of architecture and how it often feels like an outdoor museum, but seeing 4-5 of these similar height econo-boxes in one prime location makes me a bit sad for what could've been.

Originally Posted by gandalf612 (Post 9338169)

Maybe it's because I'm an art student but the glass towers never looked too similar to me. 150 N Riverside has a ginormous cantilever and a distinct purple tint to its glass that clearly sets it apart. Riverpoint has giant parabolas. WPW is different from WPE and WPS and the two latter appear to be getting different shades of glass. Out of all of them, BoA and BMO are the most similar, but they're also 4 blocks apart and BMO isn't even on the river.

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy (Post 9336068)

Good point, and you will be able to tell what era it was built in also. We had tan buildings for a few years and blue glass is nice for now. Soon they will start doing more of other colors.

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe (Post 9336814)

Comparing the quality and detailing of our white terra cotta masterpieces to the banal, AutoCAD-designed blue glass facades is a bit disingenuous if you ask me.

Yes there's beauty in both and impressive structural qualities of the newer towers that serve as talking points on architecture tours, but one is far superior in the minds of tourists, locals, and everyone in between and likely will be for another hundred years. Blue glass towers seem like late-stage capitalism answering the question of "how economic can we make a building," which others in this forum have debated Chicago's stance at the forefront of this area of construction/development whereas NY & other global cities are more about flashiness to draw tenants, residents, and tourists. More than that I view it as a selfish, more greedy shift in development philosophy which focuses on the floor-to-ceiling views that tenants/residents get, not so much that the public gets of the actual building. I'm fine with having economic towers that look sleek, but we're an architecture town. Extreme example but we don't want our new building philosophy to end up like Seoul where it looks like copy & pasted towers then some dramatic supertall(s). One of my favorite things about living here is the variety of architecture and how it often feels like an outdoor museum, but seeing 4-5 of these similar height econo-boxes in one prime location makes me a bit sad for what could've been.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 9337378)

Are you aware of the fact that Terra Cotta was the "cheap alternative to stone driven by cost cutting capitalists" of it's day? Literally Terra Cotta was mass produced fireproofing that was lighter weight and less work than stone and brick.

It's like Victorian architecture. We often label anything victorian as if it's some sort of hand crafted masterpiece without realizing that the entire style was made possible by the advent of mass produced building materials in the UK during the 1800s. The relatively plain and geometric craftsman sytle was actually a rejection of these manufactured and overwrought styles. Simplicity isn't an analogue to cheap...

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 9347982)

I like this okay, but in hindsight I wonder what it might look like if it were tilted forward, with a cutting bow, as a tip to the bows of ships.

Originally Posted by Tombstoner (Post 9347910)

I'm not a height fetishist or knee-jerk loather of blue glass, but I have to admit to getting a bit tired of blue glass boxes that aren't making much effort. The quality of glass may be nice, the street/river-level engagement isn't bad, but for a PRIME location in Chicago, it strikes me as a wasted opportunity to make a statement other than "I'm not offensive" or "it could have been worse." In 5 years no one is going to be thinking about this building as an architectural accomplishment.

Originally Posted by Tombstoner (Post 9347910)

I'm not a height fetishist or knee-jerk loather of blue glass, but I have to admit to getting a bit tired of blue glass boxes that aren't making much effort. The quality of glass may be nice, the street/river-level engagement isn't bad, but for a PRIME location in Chicago, it strikes me as a wasted opportunity to make a statement other than "I'm not offensive" or "it could have been worse." In 5 years no one is going to be thinking about this building as an architectural accomplishment.

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker (Post 9348253)

We all feel this way more or less but I would love to talk to someone from Pelli or whoever is on this project to understand their constraints. I am sure the Pelli team is all skyscraper nerds and would love a 1000 ft+ tower, and they originally designed a much taller tower (though probably before digging into engineering details etc). But IIRC there is a two view corridor that must be preserved for the Apparel Center. So that leaves a relatively small footprint for the building. Being commercial, it needs a lot of elevators. As you can see the core is already 50%+ of the first 40 floors and the building is only 60 floors.

Given that towers are 'one way in one way out', things get much worse as you go higher. The only way it could have been supertall I think would maybe have been all residential which has a lower elevator ratio, which I think would have been a disappointment given the location. I'm still holding out for finding out the real reasons for the height reduction from a reputable source one of these days.