CHICAGO | St. Regis Chicago (Vista) | 1,191 FT | 101 FLOORS

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

and lou, not that it matters, but in no way is there a variance in SF any where near your example...

Actually there is a way that the SF varies that much. As RLW points out above, Gang showed an image suggesting that the top floor of this building is 81' x 81'. If the floors vary by even just 5' (and it certainly looks like it's a bit more than that) you have a 12% change in the area of the floors relative to a 6% change in the perimeter of the floors. If it's 10' change then the change in area is even more than my example above:

81 x 81 = 6561 SF

86 x 86 = 7396 SF

Difference: 835 SF or 12.7% more area with only 6.1% more perimeter.

91 x 91 = 8,281 SF

Difference: 1,720 SF or 26.2% more area with only 12.3% more perimeter.

You can deny it all you want, but numbers don't lie. This very same concept is what limits the maximum size of life on earth given atmospheric oxygen content. You are basically trying to claim that math doesn't exist. This is like middle school algebra. I'm not trying to defend the rest of the design, but Gang is unquestionably correct when she claims that larger floorplates see relatively lower heat gain and/or loss than smaller floorplates. This is an immutable law of nature, not something you can just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface..._ratio#Biology

See this diagram for actual numbers, not just "well I think it's not going to be what you say it is":


curbed

[chris08876]

Interesting figures for Aon. Didn't know it was that wide and thick. Almost identical to one of the twin towers. Although I always liked Aon. Reminds me of the original trade center. It kinda gives a odd feeling looking at it, and its resemblance one of the towers. Probably my favorite tower for Chicago next to Two Prudential Plaza.

From the renderings, it looks nice, but it doesn't captivate. I'm sure it will be lovely when it becomes a reality, but its definitely no Prudential in terms of beauty and aesthetics for the skyline.

[pilsenarch]

still missing the point, Lou... the tint on the glass, the difference in the floor area, the $ costs of different tints... they all amount to almost nothing...

Jeanne wanted to do something Aqua cool... that's it... just like Aqua, she felt a need to try to justify it like her mentor, Rem, does so effectively, and what she came up with is the best she could do...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

still missing the point, Lou... the tint on the glass, the difference in the floor area, the $ costs of different tints... they all amount to almost nothing...

Jeanne wanted to do something Aqua cool... that's it... just like Aqua, she felt a need to try to justify it like her mentor, Rem, does so effectively, and what she came up with is the best she could do...

You are so obsessed with trying to debase literally every single comment of hers that the best you can do is repeat yourself. Sorry, but High E glass is significantly more expensive than less efficient glass is especially when you are talking about hundreds of thousands if not millions of square feet of it. You are just discrediting yourself by trying to write that off. If this weren't true, then every single building being built would have ultra high efficiency glass. If the costs were are as marginal as you suggest, then the city wouldn't have had to mandate the use of higher efficiency glass. I'm willing to bet that using lower efficiency glass on portions of this building is saving the builder at least several million dollars if not more.

[BVictor1]

A few images of the presentation from Monday nights meeting...

[Zapatan]

Cool thanks!

Does "planned development adjustments" mean they're going to tweak the design further?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Cool thanks!

Does "planned development adjustments" mean they're going to tweak the design further?

Shifting building massing around, getting write-offs on height and it has to go through the Lakefront Protection Ordinance.

[the urban politician]

Sticking with my theme of having a hard-on for submerged transportation infrastructure, this is a classic multilayered project accommodating public benefits at many levels, and solving so many of LSE's shortcomings. Wow what a project, reminds me of the boldness you used to see 30 or 40 years ago.

I will let the architecture buffs debate the details, but this thing will be stunning. I much prefer this design over the Spire.

[sentinel]

Indeed. This appears to be far more integrated than the Spire, which was quite literally an Ivory tower of exclusivity.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Indeed. This appears to be far more integrated than the Spire, which was quite literally an Ivory tower of exclusivity.

The Spire site was also much more isolated which allowed for that exclusivity.

[rlw777]

Whoever worked on the connectivity of this thing deserves some major kudos.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

You are so obsessed with trying to debase literally every single comment of hers that the best you can do is repeat yourself. Sorry, but High E glass is significantly more expensive than less efficient glass is especially when you are talking about hundreds of thousands if not millions of square feet of it. You are just discrediting yourself by trying to write that off. If this weren't true, then every single building being built would have ultra high efficiency glass. If the costs were are as marginal as you suggest, then the city wouldn't have had to mandate the use of higher efficiency glass. I'm willing to bet that using lower efficiency glass on portions of this building is saving the builder at least several million dollars if not more.

Lou, all the glass will most likely be 'high E' (it's actually called 'low E')... and you have no idea what is being spec'd, it most likely is just a change to the tint which will still have an impact on reducing solar gain but little to none on cost... my point still stands, the justification is not there, they did it for aesthetics... if the solar variances from floor to floor is such a big deal, you would see this effect on all towers that have changes in SF floor plates

accusing me of not being objective is kinda funny coming from one of the leaders of the Gang Choir...

[pilsenarch]

Lou, et. al.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hha0...&feature=share

Interesting TED talk that concludes with exactly what we are all doing here... challenging our form makers....

[SamInTheLoop]

I attended Mon evening's presentation and discussion, as I know a number of us here did.....

First, completely agree with those that think the refinements in design presented represent improvements.....I think that's pretty clear. I especially like what's going on at the ground levels(s) and all the connectivity and outdoor design down there.....good stuff all around. Like the façade changes overall, especially getting rid of the N and S side inset balconies.....I actually hope they'll do the same for the E and W sides as well (on this account, Magellan has been one of these Chicago developers that stubbornly refuses to give up on the mythology that most residential towers in Chicago need outdoor spaces for individual units to sell/rent......it's outright nonsense and quite frankly a certain level of silliness goes into the thinking given the climate in these parts), and I also like the actual façade details.....much better aesthetically than previous renderings.....

I've got to say that I agree with Pilsenarch and Mr Downtown on the characterization of how Gang offers her rationalizations of her major design moves. I've seen her speak previously at least a couple times years ago (at least one of those was on Aqua), and my coming over to this line of thought (although I've certainly been exposed to it previously, here on SSP via above two mentioned fellow forumers and also elsewhere) didn't really happen in a major way until Monday night. Quite honestly my reaction to the genesis story of the frustrum was a major roll of the eyes.....I got a strong sense that they started with the form, and then worked up a rationization for it moving backwards. I mean, it's quite a stretch otherwise (or in any case). That being said, overall I like the design and think it's pretty cool and aesthetically pleasing, I could just do with out the fake rationale and intellectual underpinnings.

On the issue of the glazing variation throughout based on floorplate size or what have you, again could be a very nice affect and I think it might end up being very nice dependent on execution. That being said, again a roll of the eyes: A solution to the 'problem' of the façade that angles in and out, creating upward/downward-sloping unit exterior glazed walls and varying sized floorplates, which was of course necessitated by the incorporation of the base geometric frustrum element in the tower, which was the most sensible basic facade building block for a tower at this location, because..........what was that again? I think you get the point......

[Steely Dan]

^ i agree, gang's tortured explanations of how they ended up where they did are indeed eye-rolling.

she should have just stuck to the truth:

it was a late night at the studio.... they decided to order some chinese food.... around midnight someone started goofing around with the empty food cartons.... skyscraper!

[SamInTheLoop]

So, (unless I missed it earlier) I'm surprised nobody here has yet mentioned Reilly's explanation in his opening remarks that he is taking this opportunity (the PD approval process for Wanda Vista) to do a complete 'refresh' of the LSE PD, which will involve many other items.

I was a little confused by at least one aspect here. It's been my recognition for at least a few years now that Magellan needs to get increases to the number of allowable residential units/hotel units. Am I wrong here? (eg, can the originally planned office towers (which never made sense - even at the time of the LSE PD approval, based on office market demand patterns - again, even at that time - and the allowable footprint of them - along Columbus - they were too thin to work as office floorplates, for example, and not enough demand even at that time in the East Loop for new office space......).....which of course aren't being built transfer space to residential/hotels and automatically increase the number of allowable units?? (it wasn't just sq ftge limits in the PD that was spelled-out - it had strict unit limits)........for example, while WV doesn't contain a massive number of units, "O" does - more than Aqua combined, and then the entire NE corner of the PD yet to be developed.............But then Sean Linnane (if I have sp right) seemed to indicate that Magellan is not seeking any increase in what they are building at LSE (or was he just referring to the overall WV site)?? Also, something is curious about the claim they all (Reilly, Magellan) seemed to make that WV is going thru PD because its height exceeds the limit in 'the box' spelled out for the specific site in the PD......however so did Aqua for its site, but Aqua did not in fact go through a public hearing/PD revision, Plan Commission approval process.....they handled that one administratively, so that suggests that either there is a grey area here, or Aqua's process was in error, or WV's current one is......

Also, I continue to be discouraged that CPS is continuing to claim that there is not enough demand for a new public school at LSE at this time, as Reilly mentioned. Give me a break. There's enough demand for a private school in same development at $30k avg annual tuition, but not for a new public school in downtown Chicago?? Right...........I want Reilly to really get on the Emanuel Administration and CPS about this....he seemed pretty resigned almost on this issue....

[SamInTheLoop]

Final Comment on Public Meeting: I've been to quite a number of higher-profile public meetings downtown over the years - Spire, Trump, Wolf Point, and on and on - and I have never, ever been to one that was 1) so impressively well-attended, and 2) so lacking in virtually any and all negative comment about the project itself (more complaints targeted motorcyclists than virtually anything else)........

........I'm not saying Magellan offered current LSE building residents they'd kick-in for May's rent or assessment* in exchange for coming out and supporting (or at minimum not speaking out against) WV tower, or anything....

Repeat: I'm NOT suggesting that, or anything of the sort......

[LouisVanDerWright]

I was impressed by the attendance and general supportive attitude as well. I think it really just has to do with how incredibly popular Aqua is in LSE and the city as a whole. Aqua is probably the biggest pop hit architecture in Chicago since Hancock was constructed. Even the Sears Tower is not as popular as buildings like Marina City, Hancock, and Aqua all of which rapidly ascended to iconic status. When you mention Trump or Legacy to an architectural layman they often know which building your are talking about, but when you say Aqua people get excited. I think everyone is expecting a repeat out of Gang and she seems to be trying her best to deliver. I think the public spaces this building will create and the effect it will have on the River and LSE park give it a good shot at being equally as popular around town even if the tower turns out only a shade above medicore.

[MultiModal]

The only thing that I am disappointed about is the lack of retail space. I was hoping they would add retail in lower lower Wacker. At least they are prettying up the the space. The improvements to the connection to the river and are the most important part of the project In my opinion.

[chris11]

Off topic but does aqua still light up at night?