CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS

[harryc]

Chicago | One Bennette Park by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

[vandelay]

Looks like falcons will be roosting on this one

[marothisu]

The top looks pretty cool. Not my absolute favorite building, but turned out better than I expected. Hope they get/got the lighting at the crown right - it could look pretty awesome at night...

[PittsburghPA]

I know I'm in the minority here but I rather like this building, and its height. Sure it might not be the best building materials but having seen this up close and in person many times I think it could be MUCH worse.

Perhaps I'm missing something, was it a brilliant design that was VE'd to death, or perhaps it took the place of a much better design that never was? Honest questions too not trying to be facetious.

Admittedly I've only lived in Chicago for a year and some change so perhaps I have a longer leash than some but I tend to be pretty critical. Especially as the resident hater of Hayden WL and its neighbor the Hyatt extended house purely due to cheap building materials.

[donnie]

Originally Posted by IronWright

This tower is infinitely better than the standard high rise glass boxes going up all over the city that could have landed in this location. I don't get the criticism of an 800'er with a decent design that deviates from the glass monotony. I'd take another 800' concrete POMO building with randomly placed elements over yet another River North, West Loop box all day.

I don't think the tower's design or height is what's in question and why it has received so much hate but more so the materials that where used!

[RedCorsair87]

Agreed. The height is good, the materials could (should) be better: I wish copper was used instead of bronze (and limestone instead of concrete obviously). I love how beautiful green verdigris looks against limestone. The top of the tower looks great, but the seemingly random setbacks and bronze accents on the rest of the tower don't work for me.

[nocturne]

At least those glass boxes are forgettable. A bad (or badly executed) PoMo design sticks out like a sore thumb.

The design is alright on this one, but it's the precast that makes it look cheap.

[BonoboZill4]

I like this tower a lot more than much of the late-mid-century stock. Doesn't mean much, but this tower plus 400LSD's inevitability, and the neighborhood will be much improved in quality of architecture. I hadn't seen it in person since the summer, but it looks nice in person(pictures definitely make it look worse). I'll keep an eye out for night lighting on the crown

[harryc]

Jan 29

[donnie]

OBP looks good in the winter landscape!

Light da lantern!

[photoLith]

This is probably one of the best faux historic looking buildings in the county. Great proportions and no stupid balconies blasting off the sides and no stupid dunce cap. Love it.

[the urban politician]

For what it is, I think it was well executed. The base treatment was very well done, better than Elysian

[yaletown_fella]

The Port Cochere details are beautifully executed. I'll trade this for Toronto's Gehry designed supertall twins.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by nocturne

At least those glass boxes are forgettable. A bad (or badly executed) PoMo design sticks out like a sore thumb.

The design is alright on this one, but it's the precast that makes it look cheap.

I dont think the precast is noticable to the average person. Isnt the first 5-8 floors clad in limestone?

For me, some of the porportions of the upper tower feel unresolved and a bit sloppy. But overall this one is a winner.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

You know, I appreciate the use of a heavier material to clad this thing....but the lack of setbacks and the use of materials kind of makes this feel like a cheap out. It makes the blackened windows stick out a bit too much.....but the crown doesn't look that bad. It's a fair tower, just nothing I would praise.


Once it's occupied, I can only assume it'd look a bit better or natural. It is better than a glass box.

[10023]

They’ve still built the base around cars which sucks. Is that a ground level parking lot?

And yes, if residents of prewar co-ops on Park and Fifth where apartments sell for many multiples of these, or even the new buildings on 57th, can make do without a covered driveway for their cars, then so could residents here.

Ahh well.

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by 10023

They’ve still built the base around cars which sucks. Is that a ground level parking lot?

And yes, if residents of prewar co-ops on Park and Fifth where apartments sell for many multiples of these, or even the new buildings on 57th, can make do without a covered driveway for their cars, then so could residents here.

Ahh well.

Except that porte cocheres and off-street, sometimes gated, driveways are a trend in new high end high rises in NYC as well - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/r...s-mundane.html

There isn't ground level parking lot, that is probably the driveway / turnaround. There is underground parking at OBC. It pre-dated the building so it impacted the design.

[10023]

Originally Posted by woodrow

Except that porte cocheres and off-street, sometimes gated, driveways are a trend in new high end high rises in NYC as well - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/r...s-mundane.html

There isn't ground level parking lot, that is probably the driveway / turnaround. There is underground parking at OBC. It pre-dated the building so it impacted the design.

The key word being “new”.

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by 10023

The key word being “new”.

Correct, and it is a word you used - "... or even the new buildings on 57th, can make do without a covered driveway..." and I pointed out that new buildings, such as those on 57th street, are indeed making do with covered driveways. If anything, Chicago is behind NY on this "luxury" feature.

[BonoboZill4]

This one is about wrapped up. Should be moved over to completed projects any day now