I was literally just thinking about this and think it makes sense as currently depicted. There is a separation, but it's a separate building so there should be, the massing still works.

Same goes for the Regatta to the East which is about as tall as as the first setback of the building on it's west side. Separate building, but it nicely mirrors the massing of the first setback creating some symmetry. Obviously there is another gap here, but that gap is essnetially the same "negative" massing as the second (middle) tier of the building. If this was one building from Regatta to Gems, then you could have filled those gaps in making it one large symmetrical building, but, given the fact that there are three buildings, not one, it only makes sense that you delete where a single building would have connected these towers together and create a negative space.

If you study sculpture one of the latest developments in the Modern era of sculpture was the idea that negative space evokes mass as well and is just as much a part of the sculpture as the medium itself. I think the symmetry of neighboring building heights here evocatively reflects that theory to a degree. Whether or not it is intentional is a different story, but I assume it is to a degree and that concept is very "Henry Moore". Fitting for a building whose most stunning feature is that it straddles an active roadway.

The base details are thin since we only have one rendering, but it looks like the most interesting details of this building will be at the base and will possibly consist of more "negative" spaces. It looks like the spaces over the roadway will be very large atrium with more transparent glass which could be an attempt at creating a negative space at the base consisting of one frustum of extra clear glass filled with hotel conference facilities or a grand lobby. It would be cool if Gang had the budget to get even more aggressive and knock one of the frustums out in the middle of the building a la the old proposal with the hole for this site.


PS: I am also starting to see the genius of those odd glass patterns. It appears those might be variations in reflectivity more than color (see Aqua where the balconies are thin) which could result in some incredible effects on this building. Given the right contrast in reflectivity (and the balcony voids) this building will be lined with vertical stripes of negative space (the balconies), positive space (i.e. the base glass color), and essentially non-space (the extra reflective portions of glass which will reflect either the sky or cityscape depending on whether you are looking at a inverted or outverted frustum). When you think about the concept from that perspective, it is very intriguing. Gangs buildings can seem pretty basic on the surface when you first see the concept, but it's usually the subtleties you don't expect where she gets you and I think I can see what is going on here more and more.

^ I like the way you explain that. Some really good insight on this design. Upon further examination of the middle of the base it does look like a giant atrium of sorts. But like 8 stories tall! That's really big. How awesome that would be looking out over the river. With a direct view of the Hancock building. And if that open space went all the way through to the other side, that would just be totally awesome. The brand new number one spot in the city to host an event.

Go to Big Bar some time, you'll appreciate the view that atrium will have even more.

Well, LVDW, I attended the GSD with Gang and have worked with her, and if there was any substance to what you are saying in her mind or in this project at this date, I would give you more credit for attempting to give this project conceptual rigor. But the themes you mention, positive and negative space, etc., have had no conscious part of the development (or lack thereof) in this project.

I know that the beauty you see in this work is subjective and you, and many others, love it and read a lot into it, but architecturally, what you speak of, "there is no there, there".

Architecture, as I am sure you know, is not just sculpture, it is function and context. Creating a 'negative space' that is an awkward few feet between two adjacent highrises in downtown Chicago isn't art, it's just bad design and bad urbanism.

I know for a fact that Jeanne was handed the design of the 3 tubes and she simply applied the frustum idea totally arbitrarily - it certainly wasn't developed with a regard to relating to the neighboring buildings or their rooftops. (Again, her only substantial conceptual basis was 'green' in that the glass facing down would be shaded - what makes that laughable is that the glass facing up more then cancels out any benefit from the downward glass)

BTW, your suggestion that the frustum transitions were meant to relate to it's neighbors' roof would seem to contradict your thesis that the building was designed as a "separate building" and a stand alone sculpture.

Regardless, I agree that the greater massing of the building holds a lot of promise, particularly with the larger skyline views that some talented forumers produced (the first I had seen), it just doesn't excuse the problems with the lower half, the potential problems with the program/function of the building, and the apparent complete separation of the form and function of the building.

Look at most of the supertalls going up in NY. With the possible exception of Stern's, all those massing/forms/concepts were directly related to the structural and functional requirements of the building. Yet, uniqueness, beauty, and the continuation of the streetwall was achieved in every single example. Addressing that inherent complexity of the city is part of what makes great architecture, full of, if you all will, "complexity and contradiction".

It's been over a week and nobody's claiming it yet. Did Wanda fumble the ball or what?

Or maybe someone skilled in napkin drawing is also a semi skilled 3d render artist? Let the conspiracies begin! :shrug:

That's kinda the point, I don't think that designs need to be "justified" any more. I don't even care whether it was conscious choice by Gang to make the setbacks relate to neighboring buildings. The fact is the design DOES relate quite well to the surrounding buildings save for the fact that the GEMs school does not directly butt up against the building (which I am not entirely convinced is even an issue). If Gang really did just arbitrarily create this design, then it lends way more credence to the idea that this building should be viewed as sculpture. It doesn't look the way it does because of some function, it just looks like it does because she thought it looked cool. Isn't that essentially what sculpture is? Pure aesthetics?

Like I said in my last post: "Whether or not it is intentional is a different story". I don't care whether Gang's reasoning was the same as my critique above because, from aesthetic standpoint, I think it works whether the design comes from theory or just pure "ooo that will look pretty".

Is it not possible for a building to be a stand alone building yet still relate to it's surroundings to aesthetic reasons? But I never said that this building was "designed as a separate building", I said it IS a separate building. In other words, what else do you expect? This building to be psychically connected to every building around it? Gang didn't design every building in LSE so of course there will be gaps between this and the buildings around it because they are separate buildings with separate functions. Not having a gap between this and GEMs is not even an option so I don't see why you even bring that gap up. Now if there were a gap at street level, that'd be different, but there isn't, this is just how we build highrises in the modern era. No more party walls above the base.

Just to be clear, I am talking about the 'base', except in Jeanne's building, there isn't much of one as far as transitioning the building from the sky to the sidewalk. Which is fine, but not relating to the context is not.

If this was a graduate student project being critiqued, it would be blown out of the water.

I admire your steadfast defense of our resident genius, but 'it looks cool', by itself, has never been and, thankfully, will never be a criteria to evaluate great architecture.

BTW, I hope your perspective hasn't been skewed by you designing this first (with a little help)... ;)

But can we truly evaluate the base of the building from this one render? The detail of the base is so little that we don't truly see how the base meets Wacker or S Water.

Yeah, I probably have an advantage since I have copies of recent photos with the tower set within the model @bKL's offices.

oh come on! you are not allowed to say those things if you aren't going to post them..you know that!

Right. If you're seeing things we are not seeing it's not fair to belittle other people's opinions.

Also, when are we going to setup a wikileaks for architectural secrets!!!

Wait am I missing something? Also just forwarded this to BKL info email....:P



kidding

Come on, can you tell us more, is 1148 ft really the final height ?

^ No, according to the New Yorker just a few months back, it absolutely is not.

I believe that some of the information contained in Wanda's massively flubbed press release was relating to an earlier version of the project....Other information was even more out-of-date - how many decades has it been now since Los Angeles passed Chicago up in size. Amateur hour doesn't even begin to cover it....

I have no idea what those kind of details are going to be... I don't think Jeanne knows either...

http://240px-Taipei101_portrait_altonthompson

Interesting design. My first thought was Taipei 101, or Hearst Tower in Manhattan. (Don't know if the pic will show, but it's from Wiki-pedia)

I seem to like each of the three towers more individually than all three together. As stand alone towers I think they'd almost look better.

Meaning that Magellan doesn't actually yet know itself the final design to be submitted to the city (implying this design is less advanced than I think most of us have been assuming - eg, myself, my assumption was that the actual design was quite far along and perhaps close to final, just that the press release version was an earlier iteration), or that they do know which design they are going with, they just haven't communicated decision formally to Gang, or that they basically know what they want to present to the city, they just do not yet know if government or politics will demand it be changed (either administratively or if this in fact needs a PD amendment, a Reilly change order)....??

Do tell....