CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS

[braun06]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...01-column.html

Just the review I was expecting from him.

[Mr Downtown]

Kamin offers some insight on the redesign:

As Jahn shrank the design, however, he found that the cubes looked squat. And when a friend of one of his clients suggested that the overhangs made the tower look unstable, all concerned agreed that the time was right for a fresh approach.

[James_Mac]

This residential tower wasn't just shortened. It was transformed from a precarious-looking series of stacked cubes to a more graceful (and stable-looking) silhouette that resembles a subtly sculpted glass vase.

How could he think this is "graceful?" It's a mess. If someone gave me a vase like that, I'd return it.

Still desperately hoping that this gets built, though -- it might be a mess, but it's much better than nothing, and at least it's not boring.

[meh_cd]

Generic is the first word that pops into my mind with the new design.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Kamin offers some insight on the redesign:

As Jahn shrank the design, however, he found that the cubes looked squat. And when a friend of one of his clients suggested that the overhangs made the tower look unstable, all concerned agreed that the time was right for a fresh approach.

I'm guessing that this individual doesn't know too much about engineering and that we really don't design structures that 'tip over'.

[Mr Downtown]

You misunderstand. No one thought the building would actually be unstable. But one of the ways humans determine whether an object is beautiful is if it looks comfortable in repose. Buildings that deliberately toy with our innate understanding of the physical world are performing a parlor trick, not celebrating our mastery of materials and engineering.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You misunderstand. No one thought the building would actually be unstable. But one of the ways humans determine whether an object is beautiful is if it looks comfortable in repose. Buildings that deliberately toy with our innate understanding of the physical world are performing a parlor trick, not celebrating our mastery of materials and engineering.

Not really. There's also a fear.

Just like the reason the design for 111 S. Wacker was changed after 9/11.

It's called creativity, like Turning Torso.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You misunderstand. No one thought the building would actually be unstable. But one of the ways humans determine whether an object is beautiful is if it looks comfortable in repose. Buildings that deliberately toy with our innate understanding of the physical world are performing a parlor trick, not celebrating our mastery of materials and engineering.

You misunderstand the potential of contemporary architecture and design (look up this guy named Frank Lloyd something).

Anyway, the fact that Kamin gave this particular redesign a positive review should be enough basis for anyone that Jahn needs to get back to the drawing board...

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You misunderstand. No one thought the building would actually be unstable. But one of the ways humans determine whether an object is beautiful is if it looks comfortable in repose. Buildings that deliberately toy with our innate understanding of the physical world are performing a parlor trick, not celebrating our mastery of materials and engineering.

Nonsense. Lots and lots of beautiful design deliberately manipulates the way we perceive the physical world. Like how the subtle angle and vertical lines on the Hancock building "toy" with our perception of it's height when we look up at it from the street.

[ithakas]

Renderings in color: https://twitter.com/BlairKamin/statu...97546223968256

[rlw777]

^ a little source inspection gets the url

[Domer2019]

Originally Posted by rlw777

^ a little source inspection gets the url

It honestly looks like some 333 Wacker/River Point combo on a cheap, awkward podium

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Domer2019

It honestly looks like some 333 Wacker/River Point combo on a cheap, awkward podium

I preferred the original but think this will look very good once they figure out how to bring the curved tower shape further down on the south wall of the base. Chicago could use more curved glass, and it's not without precedent – Lake Point Tower, 333 Wacker, Trump, Thompson Center, etc.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

What the fuck is up with this design? It's all over the place...

The podium is awkward, stumpy, and doesn't work with the rest of the tower(or vice versa I guess). The top section is cutting edge on one side and curvy on the other. It's like a child with ADHD was told to design a building and took 5 hour breaks inbetween drawing sessions while thinking he was drawing parts for 3 different buildings and thought 4 green blocks 10 floors up would look cool.

[vexxed82]

A less distorted render would be really helpful in accurately visualizing the curves and facets of the South/north walls as well as the widening near the top.

This looks like a photo taken from too close with a ton of perspective control applied in post-processing to remove the converging parallels - which I'm totally guilty of doing to my photos when buildings/obstructions prevent me from getting far enough away.

In the digital, where you could take a virtual snapshot from any point in space you'd think a more pleasing, representative view would have been chosen. I'm sure there will be more, better renders, but this one is irking me more than most for some reason.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by rlw777

^ a little source inspection gets the url

Round the corners where the podium meets the towers....and get rid of the indentation right below where the meet...even that slope out.....then you have a winner.

[Mr Downtown]

Folks who want to study the details a bit may want to look at the large versions of the renderings:

Perspective from northeast
Perspective from southeast

One good question is whether the curved corners will actually have curved glass. The renderings suggest no. I asked the developer about it Monday, and he seemed to indicate it was possible—but that may have been wishful thinking on my part.

[BVictor1]

^Thanks

Hopefully they continue to make refinements.

[The Pimp]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

Steely is correct. The first design was a Chicago building, it was also more cerebral. This one is for consumers but i guess that's the game.

No disrespect to anyone. But I'm saying bs.

Sorry... that was harsh.

[Sequenza]

Ha! Love the background on the rendering from the southwest – places AT&T Center to the left (south) and Sears/333 South Wacker to the right (north).

Every time I look at the base I can't help but be reminded of the Ebony Building pre-renovation.