Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview
That's fine, but it should also be about vision. There is no law that says you can't have vision with efficiency and profitability. I'm sure many firms would by happy to rise to that challenge.
I still think many of the buildings cited above are boxy, with the exception of 333 Wacker, which is outstanding and groundbreaking. But guys, that was built in 1983. And more than 30 years later, River Point tries to execute the same magic, but it just doesn't pull it off. It's a bit clumsy, especially the top. It's one thing to pay homage to a classic tower and do it perfectly, it's another to sort of phone it in. That's the way I feel about RP.
|
I'm still not sure how you are concluding that River Point is a box, it's an elliptical floorplate with indentations on both ends set on an angle to the street grid. It is topped by a multi story rounded crown. Now sure you can say maybe the design could be more adventuresome, but to call it a box is silly. Is it a box because it has the same floorplate for 50 stories? Is that what you are trying to get at? That every floorplate needs to change or a building is a box? That seems to be what you are getting at considering the wide range of designs you are lumping together as "boxes". Hate to break it to you, but changing the floorplate more than a few times in an office building is a deal breaker because of how it screws with leasing and space planning for tenants.
Also curious what you think of Vista, is that a box? Is Trump Tower a box? Does Aqua count as a box? What exactly makes something a box to you?