CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS - Page 46

prelude91 · #**901** Posted **Mar 18, 2016, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

say what?

everything we've been told about this one is that it will have real stone at the base and precast above.

i've never heard any mention of painted concrete on this one until your post. do you have insider VE info, or are you just fearing the worst?

I don't have insider info, but I recall hearing on a podcast I listened to that it was precast base. I hope I'm mistaken. I'll try and track down the podcast

rlw777 · #**902** Posted **Mar 18, 2016, 9:12 PM**

The only thing I'm worried about with this one is the details. Things don't look so great on Ramsa's 30 Park Place. Notice the obvious precast seams and the terrible off-white bay windows. Let's hope the details are better on this one.

vandelay · #**903** Posted **Mar 18, 2016, 9:37 PM**

Would still up the bar from this:

pilsenarch · #**904** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 12:28 AM**

Mr. D., symmetry is overrated...

asymmetry is provocative...

BVictor1 · #**905** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 1:05 AM**

03/16/16

BVictor1 · #**906** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I find myself really dubious about the asymmetrical top. I want to like it as a reinterpretation of the Palmolive Building, but I can't figure out if the way the massing here is stairstepped is a Postmodernist wink-and-a-nod or if it's entirely programmatic. Even stranger is the imbalance between north and south, with this terrace not having any counterpart on the other side.

I've been bitching about the offsetting setback at the crown since the project was first announced.

BVictor1 · #**907** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by prelude91

Couldn't disagree more. The Chicago version is painted concrete and the proportions look really awkward, IMO. The CPS version is far from great, but much nicer IMO

No, the tower here will not be painted concrete,

Above the base the cladding precise concrete panels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Mr. D., symmetry is overrated...

asymmetry is provocative...

Not in this case and not in this location.

The asymmetrical crown in this case is visually off-putting and generally poorly designed, as are most Stern buildings anyway.

Domer2019 · #**908** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The asymmetrical crown in this case is visually off-putting and generally poorly designed, as are most Stern buildings anyway.

This asymmetry will be especially significant for the location given that it could be (depending on the line of sight) to Navy Pier what the Legacy is to Millennium/Grant Park as an anchor for thousands of pics. Granted, Legacy is itself asymmetrical, but that is its character, rather than a singular mismatch.

BVictor1 · #**909** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 5:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019

This asymmetry will be especially significant for the location given that it could be (depending on the line of sight) to Navy Pier what the Legacy is to Millennium/Grant Park as an anchor for thousands of pics. Granted, Legacy is itself asymmetrical, but that is its character, rather than a singular mismatch.

The Legacy is modern, this isn't.

The developers referenced the Palmolive as inspiration and that building is by no means 'asymmetrical'.

Domer2019 · #**910** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The Legacy is modern, this isn't.

The developers referenced the Palmolive as inspiration and that building is by no means 'asymmetrical'.

It has nothing to do with the intent or style, all I'm saying is that this building's asymmetry will inevitably end up in many pictures, and be observed a lot due to its proximity to Navy Pier. For good or bad...

ardecila · #**911** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I find myself really dubious about the asymmetrical top. I want to like it as a reinterpretation of the Palmolive Building, but I can't figure out if the way the massing here is stairstepped is a Postmodernist wink-and-a-nod or if it's entirely programmatic. Even stranger is the imbalance between north and south, with this terrace not having any counterpart on the other side.

Again, Stern is working within a New York context where not every Art Deco tower was symmetrical. I'm sure he feels justified given that the tower is facing the city on one side and a park on the other (like 500 5th)

src

Mr Downtown · #**912** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 9:05 PM**

Somehow all those Manhattan towers look much better worked out, and much more balanced, than One Bennett Park does.

BVictor1 · #**913** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Somehow all those Manhattan towers look much better worked out, and much more balanced, than One Bennett Park does.

They're better proportioned, have a grace and are clad with actual limestone.

Kumdogmillionaire · #**914** Posted **Mar 20, 2016, 12:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

They're better proportioned, have a grace and are clad with actual limestone.

They are also finished works. I feel it's pretty unfair to judge this building right now and pronounce it a failure like everyone here seems to be doing before it's even off the ground...

I can think of plenty of times where a building turned out much better in reality than what renderings showed, and vice versa. For all we know "we'll" end up liking this building more than the proposed Helmut Jahn/Viñoly buildings in 20 years.

BVictor1 · #**915** Posted **Mar 20, 2016, 5:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

They are also finished works. I feel it's pretty unfair to judge this building right now and pronounce it a failure like everyone here seems to be doing before it's even off the ground...

I can think of plenty of times where a building turned out much better in reality than what renderings showed, and vice versa. For all we know "we'll" end up liking this building more than the proposed Helmut Jahn/Viñoly buildings in 20 years.

I have other finished Stern works to judge by. I feel comfortable in my call.

I've not called it a failure, I've called it a disappointment.

I may be surprised in the end, but my enthusiasm isn't soaring.

ardecila · #**916** Posted **Mar 21, 2016, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

They're better proportioned, have a grace and are clad with actual limestone.

To me, even the Manhattan towers look awkward. But that's the style Stern is working in. As mentioned before, he's a scholar of these old buildings and knows how to replicate them in the modern era when it makes sense (as in Streeterville, which is quite similar to parts of midtown Manhattan).

Also, those vintage buildings are not clad in limestone. Most of them are brick with limestone or terracotta accents. At the time, brick was the cheapest building material available...

rlw777 · #**917** Posted **Mar 21, 2016, 2:59 AM**

^^ I'm not sure I would call many of those old NYC buildings well proportioned. Someone more knowledgeable in the history of NYC zoning might know for sure but I believe many of those old NYC buildings and their proportions are more a product of zoning than thoughtful aesthetic design. Zoning that requires setbacks starting at around 85ft and must follow a "sky exposure plane" back from the street.

Streeter · #**918** Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 10:23 PM**

harryc · #**919** Posted **Mar 29, 2016, 7:25 PM**

3/29

i_am_hydrogen · #**920** Posted **Mar 29, 2016, 7:50 PM**

^Why did they clear that entire park?