HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2561  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2022, 6:15 PM
Dasylirion Dasylirion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Chicago
Posts: 17
I believe ithakas has it right. From the east or west it's a humongous, blank blue wall. From the south it just looks VE'd to me.

Also, please spare us the "if you don't like it, build your own" nonsense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2562  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2022, 6:33 PM
lakeshoredrive lakeshoredrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 267
If this building was built to its original height of 950 ft with a short spire taking it over 1000 ft, then it would actually look better and more accepted by us on here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2563  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2022, 6:38 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 27,771
My 4-word critique:

Fine building; too short.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2564  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2022, 7:18 PM
Klippenstein's Avatar
Klippenstein Klippenstein is online now
Rust Belt Motherland
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianowizard View Post
The rendering from the OP looks a bit better than the real thing:
They made it look like the glass is different shades, which it is not. The angle also helps to accentuate the setbacks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2565  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2022, 9:06 PM
-Nick- -Nick- is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive View Post
If this building was built to its original height of 950 ft with a short spire taking it over 1000 ft, then it would actually look better and more accepted by us on here.
Agreed, as a local Chicagoan the building doesn't do all that much for me TBH. I mean its a very nice building depending on the angle you are looking at it from. Coming north-bound on I-55 into the city it kind of gets lost in that blue cluster there. But, I feel that its missing something... Of course as skyscraper enthusiasts we all wish it was taller, that's a given. I feel like for its spot that its just bland and when I see the building heading into the office I feel like there were a lot of missed opportunities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2566  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2022, 9:42 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,125
Yup they played it very, very safe in a city that once prized for innovative architecture.
Better than a parking lot I guess.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2567  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2022, 9:45 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 6,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
My 4-word critique:

Fine building; too short.
Every building is too short. . .

. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2568  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2022, 10:16 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 27,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago View Post
Every building is too short. . .

. . .
LOL!

Well yeah, but some towers are "too shorter" than others.

A small piece of me will never fully get over how perfectly something at least 200' taller would've plugged into the overall skyline on this site.

But what got built is still nice. No real complaints on that front.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"

Last edited by Steely Dan; Nov 4, 2022 at 1:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2569  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2022, 9:35 AM
rivernorthlurker rivernorthlurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
LOL!

Well yeah, but some towers are "too shorter" than others.

A small piece of me will never fully get over how perfectly something at least 200' taller would've plugged into the overall skyline on this site.

But what got built is still nice. No real complaints on that front.
Like a difficult to get over relationship, the only real cure for all of our 'what cold have been' ruminations will be the next new shiny 900'+ skyscraper for us to crush on and to let us forget about this one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2570  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2022, 10:43 PM
donnie's Avatar
donnie donnie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 583
Don't know about you guys but this is a beautiful view!

https://abc7chicago.com/weather/cams/riverwalk/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2571  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2022, 3:22 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is online now
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,816
It is a good building.

But it is not architecture or even quality design. Maybe the details make it special, but even the details are lost in the overall banality. Just a bland, nameless, forgetful piece of corporate soullessness in a very prominent and highly visible location.

There is nothing about it that inspires awe, joy, delight. It is utterly forgetful, just something that you walk by and won't think twice about. Even WPE has a far more interesting exterior, and it's not even that different, just minor details that amplify the design in a much better manner.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2572  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2022, 3:09 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 6,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
It is a good building.

But it is not architecture or even quality design. Maybe the details make it special, but even the details are lost in the overall banality. Just a bland, nameless, forgetful piece of corporate soullessness in a very prominent and highly visible location.

There is nothing about it that inspires awe, joy, delight. It is utterly forgetful, just something that you walk by and won't think twice about. Even WPE has a far more interesting exterior, and it's not even that different, just minor details that amplify the design in a much better manner.
I'm surprised you think that. . . most of the other office buildings that have gone up in the last 10 years don't really offer much in the way of excellent design. . . but seem rather banal with odd engineering flourishes that set them apart from other simple boxes. . .

This building is austere in the details, it's vertical expression and proportions on the site make it easy to look at. . . I don't see any dissonance when I'm looking at this building compared to every other office building done in the last 10 years. . .

. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2573  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2022, 3:43 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago View Post
I'm surprised you think that. . . most of the other office buildings that have gone up in the last 10 years don't really offer much in the way of excellent design. . . but seem rather banal with odd engineering flourishes that set them apart from other simple boxes. . .

This building is austere in the details, it's vertical expression and proportions on the site make it easy to look at. . . I don't see any dissonance when I'm looking at this building compared to every other office building done in the last 10 years. . .

. . .
I gotta agree. I understand the disappointment in that it underwhelms a bit in height and design, but I think it ranks rather solidly compared to its city peers of the last 15 years in the same neighborhood, with 150 Riverside being the standout outlier in the Wacker/River corridor.

I think it is also clearly superior to WPE, thankfully, given its stature as the larger of the two towers. I can't see how one can find much wrong with the cascading lobby of WPS that I think was well executed. The massing and setbacks are well proportioned, just a bit undersized given its prominence. The crown has turned out better than I expected it would.

I just can't get on board with those that think WPE is somehow superior to WPS. WPE has some slight PoMo vibes or something that throws it off to me. I find it more banal than WPS and more appropriate for some generic sunbelt city.

Last edited by nomarandlee; Nov 7, 2022 at 6:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2574  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2022, 5:50 PM
pianowizard pianowizard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SE Michigan, US
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
I just can't get on board who thinks WPE is somehow superior to WPS.
Some people prefer WPE because it is less homogeneous than WPS, thanks to the white stripes. I personally dislike WPE's horizontal stripes, which make it look shorter than it really is due to the illusion that each stripe corresponds to one floor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2575  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2022, 6:39 PM
Ned.B Ned.B is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianowizard View Post
Some people prefer WPE because it is less homogeneous than WPS, thanks to the white stripes. I personally dislike WPE's horizontal stripes, which make it look shorter than it really is due to the illusion that each stripe corresponds to one floor.
I think the size and design of the vertical white fins on WPE are more successful than WPS at creating depth and differentiation to the various planes. The 4 facade treatments of WPE are more obvious from more different angles. It takes a particular views and light conditions for the different fin depths and areas with no fins on WPS to really become prominent.

There was an earlier design of WPS that had more facade variation that would have I think improved and accentuated the form. It had a lower first setback too, but I understand why keeping the setbacks all close to the top was better for the floor plans:


Rendering from curbed by Steelblue

Last edited by Ned.B; Nov 7, 2022 at 6:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2576  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2022, 3:25 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,234
^ absolutely... Unfortunately, the architectural heritage of this city has been lost for some time now...instead of continuing to innovate and push the limits on design we become so safe and modest as compared to other major skyscraper capitals...If you cant build a supertall or near supertall at this location where could you build one..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2577  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2022, 1:55 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 27,771
i'll have to reiterate this for like the 100th time now, really tall office buildings in chicago don't seem to pencil.

there have only been two office towers with occupiable height above 900' ever built in the entire history of this city, and they were both global outliers built as trophies to mammoth old dinosaur corporations back in the early 70s (sears and standard oil).


all of the late 80s big office towers (frankiln center, 311 s wacker, and 2 pru) used sticks and other rooftop embelishmnets to extend above 900').
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2578  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2022, 2:15 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
i'll have to reiterate this for like the 100th time now, really tall office buildings in chicago don't seem to pencil.

there have only been two office towers with occupiable height above 900' ever built in the entire history of this city, and they were both global outliers built as trophies to mammoth old dinosaur corporations back in the early 70s (sears and standard oil).


all of the late 80s big office towers (frankiln center, 311 s wacker, and 2 pru) used sticks and other rooftop embelishmnets to extend above 900').
Well there was no better time to add to that list than this spot...they had the building more than half preleased for a long time .. and so what if they had decorative element /spires to rooftops...if it works in the overall aesthetic designs so be it... doesn't hurt to change it up from time to time rather than the flat roof trend we normally see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2579  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2022, 2:33 PM
Klippenstein's Avatar
Klippenstein Klippenstein is online now
Rust Belt Motherland
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 496




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2580  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2022, 2:40 PM
gebs's Avatar
gebs gebs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: South Loop
Posts: 758
^^^

enhance ... enhance! ... ENHANCE!
__________________
Raise your horns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:23 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.