A) That building is not representative of our architectural vernacular

B) That building is stone, so it has aged well

C) Interpretations in architecture are inherently bad

Not so much aging well, those stone buildings have to get facelifts every 30 years or so. It's why stone isn't a good building material, especially as you get taller

You gotta have a lot of chutzpah to criticize a building that hasn't been built for aging poorly.

I can walk around River North and examine concrete from the last 10 yrs to know it doesn't age well.

Concrete curtain walls (whether poured in place or precast) don't age well, there are no exceptions to that rule. Just look at River North's beige curtain, they've all had to be ground and grouted already and none is more than 20 years old. Having to do that to a big concrete modern box is one thing, having to do it to something with a bunch of fake ass ornate details is another entirely.

That's just scientifically false. Concrete actually gets stronger as it gets older....

Bad design doesn't age well, it doesn't matter what the material is

New rendering posted on Crain's today, gives a better sense of the scale relative to neighboring buildings:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/...20160303092655

She's a whopper alright.

^lol

I know I'm in the minority but like I have stated before I like this building and think the end result will surprise.

Is the foundation for this already built, with it going on top of underground garage?

This rendering really isn't doing the building any favors. Looks like a chunker from this less west-east angle. The vibrant yellow/beige color feels Langrangian in its over-saturation.

color will be interesting

Yeah, if that Ferrari was 1,900 years old

A highway bridge and a highrise have way different exposures though. A balcony slab or precast panel 200' in the air will not have any meaningful exposure to salt, except in coastal areas.

It is known that Roman concrete is much more stronger than modern concrete.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-the-ancie...-do-1672632593

In car years that's like 60 or 70 years.

Yes, but only two floors of this building are not precast so all this means is all the details withing range of human sight will be blasted with salt while the upper reaches will decay more slowly.

Fact is that all the 1990s and early 2000s poured in place and precast towers in River North have already required extensive maintenance to control spawling. That does not bode well for this building.

It would be a nice building if they used the same materials as they did for 15 CPW, but given the relative price points I doubt that will be the case. It's a shame.

This rendering looks good though:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/...20160303110546


Btw, is that block bounded by Huron, Fairbanks, Erie and McClurg supposed to remain green space of some sort, or is Northwestern just waiting to have something to build on it? It would be great if downtown Chicago had more small parks. That's what I'd prefer for the USPS facility in River North as well (along with a lot of other redevelopment in that area.

Wow that new rendering is Hotlanta