SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 130 N Franklin | 751 FT | 51 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199537)

intrepidDesign Apr 21, 2015 8:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 6998878)
Then you'd just have more NIMBYs complaining that the new buildings are stealing their views, too much noise, traffic, crowding, etc; And voting in alderman to squash them.
Chicago has plenty of land, no need to force residential into the commercial core. If it comes so be it, but no need to ask for it when we know what comes with it.


Wait what?? First off, I don't think anyone (much less me) has the ability to force residential into the commercial core. There's also condos very close by behind 150 N Riverside so it's not like this area is (almost) a residential ghost town. Lastly, why would you ever say, no, no need to develop residential there, people are just going to complain about their views eventually, (even though that area is already built up so....) you're argument is an odd one.

sentinel Apr 21, 2015 8:10 PM

Soooooo.....no new, official renderings from last night, yet?

Tom In Chicago Apr 21, 2015 10:43 PM

^No new renderings. . . everything is as we've already seen. . .

. . .

BVictor1 Apr 21, 2015 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 6998878)
Then you'd just have more NIMBYs complaining that the new buildings are stealing their views, too much noise, traffic, crowding, etc; And voting in alderman to squash them.
Chicago has plenty of land, no need to force residential into the commercial core. If it comes so be it, but no need to ask for it when we know what comes with it.

That's why you do hotel instead.

BVictor1 Apr 22, 2015 6:10 AM

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

Skyguy_7 Apr 22, 2015 12:41 PM

Thanks for doing the legwork, Bvic. MAN, what a design! The high-quality glass; its concave, cantilevering, collective F-U to symmetry. Its dominance over the surrounding blocks.. This will undoubtedly become an instant icon.

SamInTheLoop Apr 22, 2015 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago (Post 6999130)
^No new renderings. . . everything is as we've already seen. . .

. . .



No, there were several new ones that I noted at the presentation (which BVic just posted).
Reilly mentioned that he will be posting on his site the full presentation by next week.....




And this, folks, is how Architecture is done.......

Notyrview Apr 22, 2015 12:57 PM

I think that long, vaulted strip of darker glass above the entrance might be new.

LouisVanDerWright Apr 22, 2015 1:23 PM

So to the Wanda haters, what makes this less "arbitrary" than Wanda? If anything it is more random, but hey, I ain't complaining, I actually prefer this design over Wanda, very handsome.

pilsenarch Apr 22, 2015 2:04 PM

it's the 'more random' part that makes it work... an office building doesn't have to do much, right? just provide large, uninterrupted floors plates... by treating the envelope of this box as a sculptural element, creating distinction through relatively minor manipulation of the curtain wall, it creates a bit of delight without any/minimal negative impact on the program, structure, etc. and maybe a little added joy from within... very much like Aqua's balconies...

wanda isn't random at all... the 'arbitrary' doesn't necessarily come from the frustum itself (it's a very definitive, symmetrical form) but by its selection as a form maker to begin with... this results in a skyscraper whose form was not generated from within, i.e. function, program, context, etc., but forced upon it entirely from without...

pilsenarch Apr 22, 2015 2:20 PM

oh, to clarify, I consider myself a 'Wanda very-disappointed-er' rather than a 'Wanda hater'...

sentinel Apr 22, 2015 2:21 PM

Looks impressive, thanks as usual, BVic. The main lobby height is quite impressive to me.

wierdaaron Apr 22, 2015 2:26 PM

I really love this tower but I don't think I love that stilted/airy base. I wish the glass kept going all the way to the ground, so it was a solid shard of uneven glass from head to toe.

That aside, it's a work of art and I'm happy to see a commercial building have a little guts.

Steely Dan Apr 22, 2015 3:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6999718)
I really love this tower but I don't think I love that stilted/airy base. I wish the glass kept going all the way to the ground, so it was a solid shard of uneven glass from head to toe.

good point. this design would be even more successful if they found a way to pull the "crystal shard" concept all the way down to the ground.

but like you said, it's still great to see an office tower take a design risk.

LouisVanDerWright Apr 22, 2015 4:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch (Post 6999689)
it's the 'more random' part that makes it work... an office building doesn't have to do much, right? just provide large, uninterrupted floors plates... by treating the envelope of this box as a sculptural element, creating distinction through relatively minor manipulation of the curtain wall, it creates a bit of delight without any/minimal negative impact on the program, structure, etc. and maybe a little added joy from within... very much like Aqua's balconies...

wanda isn't random at all... the 'arbitrary' doesn't necessarily come from the frustum itself (it's a very definitive, symmetrical form) but by its selection as a form maker to begin with... this results in a skyscraper whose form was not generated from within, i.e. function, program, context, etc., but forced upon it entirely from without...

But that's literally the same logic for Wanda, Gang herself made no secret that a huge part of the design was trying to create more views (or "a bit of delight" as you put it) for the residents. She just started with a shape and decided to create a more geometric version of what K+S is doing here.

Both towers are sculptural and don't rely on form follows function, that's where architecture is at these days. I just see your response as "Wanda is too abstract, but not abstract enough".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 6999810)
good point. this design would be even more successful if they found a way to pull the "crystal shard" concept all the way down to the ground.

Disagree, one of my favorite aspects of this design is the massive, open, airy, base. With the super white lobby, it makes it seem as if this tower is a crystal hovering above the ground suspended by some sort of magic glow. That's going to be absolutely stunning at night.

sentinel Apr 22, 2015 4:05 PM

^You know, I was thinking the same exact thing - I really like the fact that there's a sizable opening at the base. If the design, sublime as it is, was extended all the way down, it would make the entire structure too monolithic and could have potentially dulled the overall design.

wierdaaron Apr 22, 2015 4:25 PM

Could be true. I've also been going back and forth about whether the tree-lined plaza is better than hugging the street and filling out the whole block. I'm not really familiar with that part of downtown though, and I think the plaza trend is already pretty set in stone around there.

A monolith is good at certain locations, the Blue Cross building for instance, but maybe over there it would feel oppressive and out of context.

aaron38 Apr 22, 2015 4:40 PM

To be clear, all 190 parking spaces are in the low rise portion on the north with the green roof? Not bad as far as parking garages go. Even managed to line it up with the material change on the building to the west at Randolph/Wacker.

pilsenarch Apr 22, 2015 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 6999891)
But that's literally the same logic for Wanda, Gang herself made no secret that a huge part of the design was trying to create more views (or "a bit of delight" as you put it) for the residents. She just started with a shape and decided to create a more geometric version of what K+S is doing here.

Both towers are sculptural and don't rely on form follows function, that's where architecture is at these days. I just see your response as "Wanda is too abstract, but not abstract enough".

see my response in Wanda thread...

Tom In Chicago Apr 22, 2015 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 6999621)
No, there were several new ones that I noted at the presentation (which BVic just posted).

I'm not seeing any significant design changes. . .

OLD
http://imageshack.com/a/img913/7237/FsJmXc.jpg

NEW
http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

. . .


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:42 AM.

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