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

[Ricochet48]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Forgive me if this has been asked before, but the section where the construction blokes are hanging out, with the high ceiling, is that some special event section or something that will have an amenity functionality (cigar room, restaurant, ballroom, ect).

Blow-through required to due to wind issues they initially failed to model for. It's similar to 432 Park in NYC (except we can't have lights here).

[Jonathan Washington]

delete

[cozy]

Originally Posted by Knightwing

What company?

Slalom

[chris08876]

Untitled by James Fremont, on Flickr

Originally Posted by Ricochet48

Blow-through required to due to wind issues they initially failed to model for. It's similar to 432 Park in NYC (except we can't have lights here).

Thanks. Makes sense.

[Bombardier]

^Very nice photo! The Essex to Vista skyline view is one of my favorites.

Here are a few shots from the blow thru floor. There will be some nice views from the top of Vista!
Vista Blow Thru Floor Photos

[SolarWind]

February 5, 2020

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Untitled by James Fremont, on Flickr



Thanks. Makes sense.

That view of Vista from Essex northeast is very impressive. I would also add that the color blue is well represented on the Chicago skyline.

[Zapatan]

Not a huge fan of the blow through floor on this, they look better on 432 Park Avenue.

[SouthByMidwest]

^That last photo had like 16 clicks on it straight from this SSP thread to my Flickr. Cool.



Vista by James Fremont, on Flickr




I'll add another one. Taken with Glowrock from the north steps of the Field Museum.






Untitled by James Fremont, on Flickr

[observer]

Originally Posted by Ricochet48

Blow-through required to due to wind issues they initially failed to model for. It's similar to 432 Park in NYC (except we can't have lights here).

They both function the same way, but one was arrived at as an after thought due to a lack of understanding on how tall buildings work, and the other was part of the overall composition from day 1 of the design due to an understanding how tall buildings work. 432 Park is an elegant study of how problems associated with towers can be solved, while Vista was ultimately about form making.

I would place a healthy bet that if Studio Gang receives another tall tower commission, dealing with wind and the slenderness of the building will show up much earlier in the design.

[cozy]

^ harsh

but.. true

[bhawk66]

Ummm, how different would the blow-thru look had it been conceived of earlier in the design? I'm guessing pretty much the same. Not a lot you can do with empty space.

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by observer

They both function the same way, but one was arrived at as an after thought due to a lack of understanding on how tall buildings work, and the other was part of the overall composition from day 1 of the design due to an understanding how tall buildings work. 432 Park is an elegant study of how problems associated with towers can be solved, while Vista was ultimately about form making.

This is just demonstrably false, the CTBUH case study revealed that the blow-through floor became necessary when the developer wanted the size of the floorplates increased, which then increased wind load and required a redesign. Unlike 432 Park, Vista also happens to achieve the no small feat of spanning a multi-level roadway, preventing it from relying on the same structural systems as every other skyscraper.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by gandalf612

This is just demonstrably false, the CTBUH case study revealed that the blow-through floor became necessary when the developer wanted the size of the floorplates increased, which then increased wind load and required a redesign. Unlike 432 Park, Vista also happens to achieve the no small feat of spanning a multi-level roadway, preventing it from relying on the same structural systems as every other skyscraper.

you've been drinking the kool-aid... (so many excuses for this building design) any experienced skyscraper designer would have anticipated the sway issues regardless of the slight change in the project's profile... AND, they would have anticipated the need for mechanical ventilation...

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

you've been drinking the kool-aid... (so many excuses for this building design) any experienced skyscraper designer would have anticipated the sway issues regardless of the slight change in the project's profile... AND, they would have anticipated the need for mechanical ventilation...

The fact that you're diminishing Gang's work, who IS an experienced 'skyscraper designer', or rather, 'architect', if you're familiar with the term, with multiple built projects before and after this as reference, shows that you have some sort of agenda against her, which you've demonstrated time and time again in the forum.

IF there was any sort of wind tunnel testing, or any kind of stress modeling done to see what the wind loads would be on this project, it's the structural engineer's responsibility to validate that either way. Whether or not the structural consultant is under Gang's contract with the owner, or if they had a separate agreement directly with the developer, I do not know. However, the direct fault lies in the structural engineer not anticipating the need for a blow-through floor to mitigate wind load. And even then, a number of other factors may have played into why this wasn't added until well into the design development process of the project: 1. Initial modeling may have shown incorrectly there was no need to provide a blow through floor 2. The owner/developer may have cheapened out and initially decided against it, until their legal department laid bare the potential liability issues associated with not having it, because 3. even with modeling/testing, blow through requirements may have seemed unnecessary if swaying was deemed within acceptable limits, but someone (correctly) thought that it should still be incorporated because no one living in a luxury megatall highrise would want to feel ANY swaying.

Moral of the story, don't blame the architect for decisions they may have no control over.

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by gandalf612

This is just demonstrably false, the CTBUH case study revealed that the blow-through floor became necessary when the developer wanted the size of the floorplates increased, which then increased wind load and required a redesign. Unlike 432 Park, Vista also happens to achieve the no small feat of spanning a multi-level roadway, preventing it from relying on the same structural systems as every other skyscraper.

Interesting. I found the link. PDF warning:

https://studiogang.com/files/pdfs/39...ower-oneup.pdf

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Zerton

Interesting. I found the link. PDF warning:

https://studiogang.com/files/pdfs/39...ower-oneup.pdf

Thanks for the link.

Gandalf612 was right, and I was speculating incorrectly; but hopefully providing some insight in process..

[woodrow]

That is fascinating. Imagine if it was the original 70 to 90 difference, rather than the 81 to 90 that is is. It would have been significantly more sculptural (?). The 11 feet is really significant.

[doomsdayprepper]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Thanks for the link.

Gandalf612 was right, and I was speculating incorrectly; but hopefully providing some insight in process..

Those don't even look like frustums anymore compared to all those corners they drew at the beginning, i don't see frustums I see curvy curves. The curves are nice but they ain't frustums.

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by doomsdayprepper

Those don't even look like frustums anymore compared to all those corners they drew at the beginning, i don't see frustums I see curvy curves. The curves are nice but they ain't frustums.

The curves you see are the shadows, which smooth out edges due to physics. If you look at the south edge of the shortest section where there are no shadows (Can be seen on page 18 of the case study), it quite clearly is a frustum.