Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876
^^^
I think its a success because of how it blends with the urban fabric. Complements the river, complements the lake and works well with various type of lighting conditions throughout the year. A dark blue hue balancing out the river in the winter/fall and a more open, playful cyan in the summer/spring that again, goes well with the river. The angles and essentially how this tower morphs into a different tower depending on where your looking at it is a key feature. More blocky when viewed away from the water but more wavy when near the river and lake front. It's a trippy tower with many personalities IMO.
|
Chris: Thanks for a great post. Your said exactly what I think but in better words than I could ever say.
The thing I like about the five Chicago supertalls is that each is the perfect design for its site. If you ask people to pick their favorite a lot would say the Hancock building. And I don’t disagree. Driving south on North Lake Shore Drive, the view of the Hancock building is truly iconic. It’s impossible to imagine any of the other four supertalls at 875 No Michigan.
Or imagine the view of the Aon building looking north from Grant Park. Would any of the other supertalls work at the Aon site?
Or the view of Willis Tower looking north from Roosevelt and the river. Or from 18th St and the river.
These are my three favorite views of the Chicago skyline. And in the center of each view is the perfect supertall.
Now, there’s a fourth; the view of St Regis and the river, looking west from Navy Pier.
It wouldn't work at Wacker and Adams or 875 N Michigan, but for the reasons Chris explains, St Regis is a great building for its site at 363 E Wacker.
Thank you Ms Gang