CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS - Page 141

bhawk66 · #**2801** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 1:35 PM**

Not trying to be devils advocate seeing the last 5 posts were all negative reviews but I honestly have no problem with the randomness of the design. As BuildThemTaller said, the height is great. And I also think the faux limestone is really rather impressive. Take a look at the close ups several photos back (HarryC's first and fifth in his set). It's not bad at all. I think sometimes when you have expectations of something it can set you up for disappointment. This building is just fine, imo. In fact, rather handsome. Look forward to the lighting treatments.

HomrQT · #**2802** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 1:36 PM**

The windows hurt this thing alot. It's like they were presented with 10 different window layouts and they said "screw it, figure out a way to incorporate them all."

Steely Dan · #**2803** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 1:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Oh, trust me. It can get worse, as anyone who lives in Los Angeles can tell you...

Image Source: Apartments.com

i stand corrected. that one is indeed much worse.

that said, OBP is still too messy for my tastes.

there's no cohesion, just a bunch of randomly slapped together pieces.

bhawk66 · #**2804** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 1:54 PM**

Not trying to change anyone's mind, but I just don't get it. There is a ton of consistency with the windows, imo. Just that it's broken up with a higher variety of styles. It's beautiful that way.

Like many great artists in the past, they start to "loosen up" in their older age. This may end up being a well thought of Stern design. Idk. Either that or he's losing it. haha!

vandelay · #**2805** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 2:02 PM**

The LA tower is an obvious homage to Marina City Club in MDR. Back to OBP, it's pointless to whine about the concrete facade. Name a new limestone tower built in Chicago, or anywhere outside of NYC. The real estate market in Chicago isn't at that level yet. Hell, it might not even support one of Stern's lesser contributions. If Chicago's lucky it'll get another Stern.

As for the windows and panels, try and design a better building. An 800 foot concrete tower with regular window placement will end up dull and monotonous.

Steely Dan · #**2806** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 2:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandelay

As for the windows and panels, try and design a better building.

i don't have to. Stern has already done so with his superior residential towers in NYC like 30 park place, 220 central park south, and 520 park ave.

and my criticism has nothing to do with stone vs. precast.

it's a damn shame that chicago got saddled with one of his duds.

but at least it's not nearly as horrendous as that LA monstrosity.

LouisVanDerWright · #**2807** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 2:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandelay

The LA tower is an obvious homage to Marina City Club in MDR. Back to OBP, it's pointless to whine about the concrete facade. Name a new limestone tower built in Chicago, or anywhere outside of NYC. The real estate market in Chicago isn't at that level yet. Hell, it might not even support one of Stern's lesser contributions. If Chicago's lucky it'll get another Stern.

As for the windows and panels, try and design a better building. An 800 foot concrete tower with regular window placement will end up dull and monotonous.

That's the issue, you are wrong. Chicago may not have a new limestone tower in the past decade or so, but both NBC Tower and 900 N Michigan are limestone. If they made the numbers work at 900 N Michigan, they could have made them work here.

The only reason this is precast is that Related is cheap as fuck and feels like they can get away with it here in Chicago because "we are bringing real high end design to Chicago".

900 and NBC are Pomo done right. I shouldn't even be comparing Stern to them because that's like comparing a 1975 Lowemburg precast shit stack with MvdR's 860-880 LSD. One is a visionary work that set the bar for 3 decades. The other is a hack job that came 25+ years after the original and even after all that time to perfect the copycatting they still couldn't get it right.

ayay.co.uk

Note how the windows make what would otherwise be a giant slab vertical, note how the bays taper as it rises, the setbacks here actually make sense, the crown is symmetrical and proportionate to the scale of the building, etc. Now compare that to this goober of a building:

Tries harder to be deco and ends up looking less Deco as a result.

bhawk66 · #**2808** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 3:27 PM**

Of course it isn't symmetrical. Call the history police. The exterior is adhering to interior functionality, most likely. But every change in direction is treated with considerate and a considerable amount of detail. I like it. But maybe more-so because my minds eye is saturated with blue glass.

You'll be lucky to ever see a high-rise clad in limestone again here. 900 North and NBC towers were built in the 80's. The economic world we live in today??? Pffft. Never again.

Ned.B · #**2809** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 5:13 PM**

I'm pretty sure that Stern was aiming at something like 50 Central Park South (Ritz Carlton New York: https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/...0612184200.jpg) which starts out rectangular and regular and gets more asymmetrically massed and more varied in style and window openings as it ascends. But he stretched it much taller and narrower and flattened the setbacks so much that they sometimes disappear, and then it just looks like random window groupings. Add to it that Chicago doesn't have any buildings with that sort of language like New York. I understand what he was doing, and there is an inherent, if somewhat obscure logic to it all, but I also agree that it is not completely visually successful.

bhawk66 · #**2810** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 9:35 PM**

FAR more interesting.

Thank gawd for this building.

Stern just kicked off a new era, with honors. Get a load of the future, peeps. If you don't like the look of man-made rock....

At least we had a master set the bar.

bhawk66 · #**2811** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 10:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't have to. Stern has already done so with his superior residential towers in NYC like 30 park place, 220 central park south, and 520 park ave.

and my criticism has nothing to do with stone vs. precast.

it's a damn shame that chicago got saddled with one of his duds.

but at least it's not nearly as horrendous as that LA monstrosity.

Steely, I just Googled and took a look at all three of those buildings and one word came to mind with all of them...Boring.

30 Park is cool if you like monotone sand castles. 220 central park is a symmetrical pencil on 'roids. And I don't know wtf is up with 520 park. Do you like that crown better??

Honest retort.

I mean, I guess if super tall is the game, there is not really much you can do. I take OBP over all of them. (Bias/not bias)

dan ryan · #**2812** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 10:45 PM**

520 Park Ave is the only one that might be better. But it's going for a whole different look so it's tough to compare.

bhawk66 · #**2813** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 11:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan ryan

520 Park Ave is the only one that might be better. But it's going for a whole different look so it's tough to compare.

It definitely is different. I have to think the Chicago commission was a breath of fresh air to Stern. I wouldn't be surprised if he was enthusiastic to have some play time in the greatest architecturally historic city in the world.

LouisVanDerWright · #**2814** Posted **Jul 9, 2019, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B

I'm pretty sure that Stern was aiming at something like 50 Central Park South (Ritz Carlton New York: https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/...0612184200.jpg) which starts out rectangular and regular and gets more asymmetrically massed and more varied in style and window openings as it ascends. But he stretched it much taller and narrower and flattened the setbacks so much that they sometimes disappear, and then it just looks like random window groupings. Add to it that Chicago doesn't have any buildings with that sort of language like New York. I understand what he was doing, and there is an inherent, if somewhat obscure logic to it all, but I also agree that it is not completely visually successful.

That building is hideous, glad we don't have any deco scrapers that look like that. Our throne style symmetrical designs are much nicer.

Steely Dan · #**2815** Posted **Jul 11, 2019, 2:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Steely, I just Googled and took a look at all three of those buildings and one word came to mind with all of them...Boring.

what you call boring i call coherent.

OBP is a jumbled mess, a dog's breakfast.

harryc · #**2816** Posted **Jul 11, 2019, 7:46 PM**

June 28

Chicago | One Bennett Park by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chi-Sky21 · #**2817** Posted **Jul 11, 2019, 7:53 PM**

looks fine in that pic but that is because the north side of the building does not even have the same framing lay out as the south side, the north side looks O K , the south...ruins it all. So silly in my opinion. An otherwise good looking building ruined by a cosmetic choice of random window frames.

the urban politician · #**2818** Posted **Jul 11, 2019, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc

June 28

Chicago | One Bennett Park by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

SICK AS HELL!!!! Gosh, I've probably seen thousands of Chicago pics, yet even today some new angle will just wow me at the beauty of this city

KWillChicago · #**2819** Posted **Jul 11, 2019, 8:15 PM**

Is that all the crown lighting that they came up with? Really? I hope their still just in the testing stage. I thought that whole crown would be glowing, and would look even better if they lit up the setbacks as well NBC style.

bhawk66 · #**2820** Posted **Jul 11, 2019, 9:07 PM**

NBC Tower isn't residential. Doubt their going to blow it up lighting wise on set backs into someones living room. Hopefully though, the top floors, which are all mechanical, etc, will get some more. Even still, looking good