CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS

[ardecila]

This would be awesome if the 7-story pavilion at the top had some batter to it.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

Did they have this 2nd building planned from the start? Why then not have built 500 LSD on the spot where its podium is a little further south...seems like that would have allowed for somewhat better views for this tower.

Presumably because of 474 NLSD.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The biggest problem is that offset glass square at the top setback on the East of the building. WTF is that? Then entire rest of the massing of this building is lined up in one continuous shaft until you get to the top where the momentum is suddenly decapitated and offset to the East by 3 or 4 window bays.

While you're at it, I think the offset elevator penthouse (or whatever that is) would look better if it were centered. At least in this location - in part because its height and positioning make it a prominent centerpiece tower as opposed to being lost in the crowd. I'm all for asymmetry generally, but not in this case, at least not with respect to the massing and with this design.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by denizen467

While you're at it, I think the offset elevator penthouse (or whatever that is) would look better if it were centered.

It is centered, and its Western placement allows for the shear vertical Western wall to continue to the pinnacle. Unless you design something purely symmetrical, you have to choose a prominent elevation. Given that this tower is mid block on Grand, and oriented E-W, choosing the Western elevation as the dominant elevation is the smart choice.

[denizen467]

^ Not to nitpick, but with an oblong floorplate, I think it only makes sense that the broad face is the dominant elevation. (Something like the GE Building, or the/a flatiron building, are the rare exceptions.) Plus, very few will be viewing 451 from the west; especially given its height it will mostly be viewed from the south (Navy Pier goers walking along Illinois Street; the river; Upper East Wacker; LSE; Grant Park) and the north (north LSD; North Ave Beach).

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Look, personally, I am a died-in-the-wool modernist, tending toward minimalism, but I respect well-done traditional work, and Stern usually can do it in exceedingly well. Look at the pics of 30 Park Place. That "jagged" edge detailing in the spandrel? When you assess it in place and step back from the project it turns out to be a remarkably effective technique for giving the project texture with a rather modern-inspired, obviously well-studied, precast relief...

Yeah, 30 Park Place, is pretty nice, and you make a good point by pointing out that it's pre cast. Meaning, Chicago's getting the same treatment here.

I'm looking forward to a better render though.

When it's all finished, I'm confident this will be a fine looking building. Stern's work has been good to date, and I have no reason to think that it would change. Let alone, him putting his credibility under fire.

This reminds me a little of 15 Central Park West

[tyleraf]

I like the design of the building and I hope it's cladding is the same quality of some of RAMSA's other recent projects.

[chris08876]

Stern was definitely not bluffing when he said he was going to design many variants of "15 Central Park West". Although when you look at it, the public seems to love the style:

In 2005, Manhattan’s limestone-clad 15 Central Park West was the highest grossing residential building in New York with sales reportedly totaling 2 billion dollars. Developers William Lie and Arthur Zeckendorf commissioned Stern to evoke the glamour of the city’s great apartment buildings of the 1920’s. “It is an apartment house; a big house with many parts in it… And people can live there together, and I think people have a great spirit in 15 Central Park West,” says Stern. “I’ve been told by people who visit their friends there that they feel somehow it’s a special occasion to visit that building.”

I think the 1920's towers do evoke a type of aura that is different from your average tower.

This one looks pretty neat:


============================
Architect Robert A.M. Stern: Presence of the Past
http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=81,2

[denizen467]

^ But the unique location accounts for probably the lion's share of the attraction of 15 CPW.

------

This thread's title refers to the architect by his (I'm assuming) middle name - any reason for this? (The design isn't bowling me over, so how about just "Bob Stern" or something?)

[vandelay]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Your post sounds less insightful and more axe-to-grind, and I think you really missed the mark. I don't see evidence of a slavish adherence to Modernism here but the exact opposite: insistence on the same progressive impulses that led to its ascendancy during the past century, which, in Chicago, drew upon a rich tradition of pragmatism and frankness.

You've missed the mark if you think calling out Chicago fanatics for their tedious homerism is an axe to grind. Also you've missed the mark when you concluded that Stern's ability to work with both modern and traditional design, and maintain a faculty that includes modernists boils down to pecuniary interests. Along with tedious hometown provincialism, a lot of these posters also have a certain narrow-mindedness on what constitutes real architecture. What is admirable about Stern is that he doesn't engage in such fanatical thinking either in his practice or his academic role. He'll build to suit the location. So he's able to design an angular glass tower in La Defense and a 1930's throwback to sit next to the Woolworth Building. The way some of you talk, you wouldn't be happy unless every building was an attention grabbing Gehry, Hadid, or Mayne. The result would be a disjointed mess.

If you're going to slam a building, criticize it on the design specifically, not on whether "nouveau riches" buy them, not on whether the architect is from another city, not on whether it's in a style not to your taste, and certainly not because you're parroting what you've always read or heard about "real architecture." Otherwise it's just pointless whining and empty-headed snobbery.

And if any of you I'm describing doesn't get my point, the jerk store in Chicago called and they're running out of you.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The biggest problem is that offset glass square at the top setback on the East of the building. WTF is that? Then entire rest of the massing of this building is lined up in one continuous shaft until you get to the top where the momentum is suddenly decapitated and offset to the East by 3 or 4 window bays. No respectable Deco or Neoclassical architect would ever do something like that because it simply defies logic.

Stern is deploying a timeless technique in the southern elevation which is commonly referred to as "centering and re-centering" that has been utilized by many 'traditionalist' (and contemporary) architects reaching back to the renaissance. It is a device that is maybe more often seen in plan, but certainly plays a role in elevations as well. It takes skill to do it well. Obviously, you do not think he does it well. Regardless, it is a very respected architectural move.

[the urban politician]

Another small item of interest to me is how he plans to redesign the entrance to the garage. Right now it is a soulless concrete bunker. But I would hope that this project has this redeveloped into something more graceful. Can't tell much by the early renderings, but clearly something is planned for that.

[Rizzo]

I think that garage entrance is temporary and intended to be knocked down and replaced

[ardecila]

You can really do anything with that garage entrance, it's not really a formidable architectural barrier. You could clad it in precast, limestone, etc. Looks like there will be some kind of lowrise bustle over the garage ramp even if there isn't a podium per se. The rendering looks like Stern is placing the amenities in the podium - roof deck, sun porch, pool, etc.

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by vandelay

You've missed the mark if you think calling out Chicago fanatics for their tedious homerism is an axe to grind. Also you've missed the mark when you concluded that Stern's ability to work with both modern and traditional design, and maintain a faculty that includes modernists boils down to pecuniary interests. Along with tedious hometown provincialism, a lot of these posters also have a certain narrow-mindedness on what constitutes real architecture. What is admirable about Stern is that he doesn't engage in such fanatical thinking either in his practice or his academic role. He'll build to suit the location. So he's able to design an angular glass tower in La Defense and a 1930's throwback to sit next to the Woolworth Building. The way some of you talk, you wouldn't be happy unless every building was an attention grabbing Gehry, Hadid, or Mayne. The result would be a disjointed mess.

If you're going to slam a building, criticize it on the design specifically, not on whether "nouveau riches" buy them, not on whether the architect is from another city, not on whether it's in a style not to your taste, and certainly not because you're parroting what you've always read or heard about "real architecture." Otherwise it's just pointless whining and empty-headed snobbery.

And if any of you I'm describing doesn't get my point, the jerk store in Chicago called and they're running out of you.

Best reference for the best show ever, just beautiful

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by vandelay

You've missed the mark if you think calling out Chicago fanatics for their tedious homerism is an axe to grind. Also you've missed the mark when you concluded that Stern's ability to work with both modern and traditional design, and maintain a faculty that includes modernists boils down to pecuniary interests. Along with tedious hometown provincialism, a lot of these posters also have a certain narrow-mindedness on what constitutes real architecture. What is admirable about Stern is that he doesn't engage in such fanatical thinking either in his practice or his academic role. He'll build to suit the location. So he's able to design an angular glass tower in La Defense and a 1930's throwback to sit next to the Woolworth Building. The way some of you talk, you wouldn't be happy unless every building was an attention grabbing Gehry, Hadid, or Mayne. The result would be a disjointed mess.

If you're going to slam a building, criticize it on the design specifically, not on whether "nouveau riches" buy them, not on whether the architect is from another city, not on whether it's in a style not to your taste, and certainly not because you're parroting what you've always read or heard about "real architecture." Otherwise it's just pointless whining and empty-headed snobbery.

And if any of you I'm describing doesn't get my point, the jerk store in Chicago called and they're running out of you.

You're all mixed up. Tedious hometown provincialists insisting on Gehry, Hadid, Mayne? WTF?? That's actually overwhelmingly not at all what you'll actually find. Folks insisting on high quality design (and yes, of course modern - this is not 1988 any longer - pomo has come and gone, and good riddance) is what it is about.......this is a foreign concept to Stern, he is a demonstrably lousy 'architect'....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Stern was definitely not bluffing when he said he was going to design many variants of "15 Central Park West". Although when you look at it, the public seems to love the style:



I think the 1920's towers do evoke a type of aura that is different from your average tower.

This one looks pretty neat:


============================
Architect Robert A.M. Stern: Presence of the Past
http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=81,2

Absolutely Hideous.

[r18tdi]

So Stern's design isn't mediocre in itself; but instead an homage to existing mediocrity elsewhere.

I get it now. Very classy.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

You're all mixed up. Tedious hometown provincialists insisting on Gehry, Hadid, Mayne? WTF?? That's actually overwhelmingly not at all what you'll actually find. Folks insisting on high quality design (and yes, of course modern - this is not 1988 any longer - pomo has come and gone, and good riddance) is what it is about.......this is a foreign concept to Stern, he is a demonstrably lousy 'architect'....

Obviously homers always want architects from the other side of the world to design towers in their city, duh... Vandelay is totally off kilter and bordering on troll status. People in Chicago welcomed Pomo with open arms for decades (See one Mr. Stanley Tigerman, one of the finest purveyors of Pomo wares to this day) after the second Chicago school just as we welcomed Neo-classicism for decades after the first Chicago school. Now we are again sick of the backwards facing bullshit and looking for something more progressive rather than more of the same. I don't see what is so confusing about that.

Homerism would be calling Stern garbage because he's not from Chicago and demanding that someone like Tigerman design the building instead. My comments about Stern being from the East coast were in regards to Related's attitude in the press about "stepping up their game" here in Chicago and then they drop this turd on us. It's obvious that either Related is totally tasteless or they think Chicagoan's are totally tasteless. It's got to be one or the other because this building is tasteless and certainly does not represent "stepping up their game" by any measure. Even SCB is a significantly more classy and talented firm than Stern.

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

So Stern's design isn't mediocre in itself; but instead an homage to existing mediocrity elsewhere.

I get it now. Very classy.

Hahaha

[rlw777]

I think this is a great design for the location and I am happy to see Stern doing a building in Chicago. This thread is way to critical of Pomo and Stern.

Here's the thing... No matter the art form if you are writing off an entire style or if you are dismissing all the work of a prominent well reviewed professional in that field I got news for you.

Chances are you're not the guy seeing through the BS of the system... That the reviewers are wrong and you the enthusiast are right.

Nope.

Instead chances are you're either missing something or you're just using bias as a compensation for ignorance.