http://www.stlchicago.com/wp-content...-1920x1080.jpg

Is this a new version of the project or what?

Sure, but now people are comparing it to the current proposal and saying they don't like it as much.

no, it looks to be a competing design that didn't win.

it's interesting, and it would probably look nice there strictly from a skyline perspective (hard to know what's going on at the base), but i think i prefer david child's scheme more, again from a skyline perspective.

Holy hell, has everyone been to their website? They have nine absolutely stellar renderings, some of which were "taken" from very creative angles. I'm drawn in particular to the one that mimics an airplane traveler capturing the skyline from a window seat. I love it.

As for the design, I like it. But if I were on the selection committee, it's compelling imagery like this that would certainly influence my decision.

http://www.stlchicago.com/wp-content...-1920x1080.jpg

The STL design is pretty bland compared to the articulation SOM gave us.

Also "bland" :

https://chicagoonthecheap.com/lotc-c...llis-Tower.jpg
_

Lol, no.

The Sears Tower is probably one of the least bland buildings ever built. At the time it went up it was radical and striking. Just another big tapering stick is not bold, it is bland. 110 floors of a purely vertical wall with setbacks arranged in a series of bundled rectangular tubes that set back dramatically as the building rises all clad in a bold black facade is like the antithesis of bland. Especially in 1973.

Maybe it looks bland to you when viewed through the 2003 lens of "everything from the midcentury period is boring because it doesn't look like ye olde beige Parisian concrete manor", but no one alive at the time it was complaining it was boring. Complaints were largely thrown at it's radical size and big blocky massing. Nothing about that suggests a bland design, it suggests a design so bold that a lot of people couldn't handle it.

This runner up design is decent enough, but it's boring compared to the complex geometry and detailing of the winning design. I'm glad we are getting something more adventurous here.

The trope of "two angular shafts of different heights seemingly angled away from each other" has already played out in two large Manhattan developments alone including that ugly ass Hudson Yards tower with lame helipad thing sticking out of it. The losing design would be a notch above that, but it would represent a true regurgitation of the scheme. Obviously this firm was just designing to the client in an attempt to win the business. We should be lucky that Related actually did the right thing for once and picked something new and interesting instead of being like "we made lots of money last time we built two angular sticks, let's do it again" which is basically what this architect was proposing to them.

I said I like the design, but would prefer something like it elsewhere on the skyline(and fortunately my fantasy may yet be played out one day). Chillax

I like the additional height, but I'm happier with the SOM proposal. It definitely looks like something we would see go up in NYC. Whether you think that is good or bad, is a different conversation.

Looking at STL's additional renderings on their website, this proposal really draws your attention to how dated and stale many of the high-rises in this area of our city looks IMO.

I also like the actual one better

Both the SOM and STL proposals feel New Yorkish to me, but that isn't a problem IMO. As much as we get into pissing contests, our two cities have an extremely similar architectural tradition rooted in sheer capitalism.

At least they don't look like something from Dubai or China.

I honestly don't know which one I prefer. Both are excellent designs, the STL with its taper has a superficial resemblance to Hudson Yards or Manhattan West if you squint but that's where the similarities end. The white cladding is beautiful, reminds me of Alvar Aalto. But SOM's terra cotta will also be stunning so :shrug: I'm still worried the SOM cladding is too costly and elaborate, I'm worried about some major VE; we couldn't even get a proper curtain wall on Vista, what are the chances for this one? But VE could also happen to the STL design and we end up with a boring-ass white window wall.

The SOM proposal is also a lot more nostalgic with lots of references or straight borrowing from Art Deco, while this is more pure and Modernist. I do think the base is stronger on the STL, it beckons people to walk through to DuSable Park while the SOM's base is like an urban box canyon, just a clear visual dead-end.

Choosing between these two designs is a good choice to have to make.

Agree with everything said here. :cheers:

Definetly Hudson Yard-ish.

This ain't bad, but I prefer the current, active proposal

^ Agreed. I really like both. But I like the one selected best. It's so detailed.

Yeah, I use the name for Hancock and Sears, Merchandise Mart, and maybe the biggest few hotels. Otherwise I use the address or the closes cross-street. I was in Axis (aka 441 E Erie, formerly called the Onterie Building) for a few weeks earlier this year and only ever used the address.

Using addresses can help with which side of a full-block building you want to be dropped on, too.

My thoughts as well. I love the detailing, setbacks and the depth the project has from the use of terra cotta. Please please please don't VE out the terra cotta. lol

If they VE out the terra cotta, the design goes from quite good to Miami-esque garbage in a hurry.

I hope Related Midwest realizes that. They have a history of VEing the shit out of everything.

The current design is way better and these new renderings look boring and reminds of two fingers giving the peace sign!

No thank you._.