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

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

... but this wiggling wall and finger and its many ilk popping up around the planet have turned the idea of "less is more" on its head.

And is that a bad thing? There's room for more than one way of doing things. Gosh, for every person complaining about the wiggling wall scrapers going up you'll find someone else lamenting about yet another blue Meisian box. While you're magniloquence post is insightful, bordering on turgid, ultimately it's nothing more than your personal opinion.

[Chi-Sky21]

Everybody bustin out the SAT words today....let me try. I like this building bigly....

[sentinel]

It's a perfectly cromulent building.

[Steely Dan]

And it embiggens the smallest man.

[BrinChi]

Look at me! Look at me! I so smart.

We all have our own ways of showing off.

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Yes, I am often difficult.....

In both of your double-spaced posts, I think you confused Vista / St. Regis with those Billionaires' Row condos in NYC. Vista's units are actually fairly affordable, for example:

$968,360, 1,126 sqft, $526 HOA fee

$984,370, 1,138 sqft, $535 HOA fee

$1,368,630, 1.994 sqft, $739 HOA fee

IMO they are designed and priced for the middle class, not billionaires or even multimillionaires.

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

Everybody bustin out the SAT words today....let me try. I like this building bigly....

You are the most presidential!

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Yes, I am often difficult.

Let me complicate the assessment of the building and its recent relatives farther.

Like so many ancient stelae, these contemporary expressions of the worship of the dominating power structure are part of a system which uses them

to keep us on the same path by distracting us from the fact that these islands of affluent excesses are intimately connected to the spread of

urban and environmental decay.

While celebrating the unwarranted privileges of the greediest members of society and their poverty of design sense, we are guaranteeing the

greater decline of everyone's wellness.

Imagine the improvements and jobs which could come about if the costs of these excesses in bad design had been used instead to build up those

neighborhoods which are in much greater need.

The now-former Vista and its ilk of billionaire perversity have always been vanity projects which primarily reinforce the path to greater

inequality and distraction.

Even just visually, it fails to be a positive addition to the skyline because of its self-absorbed gimmickry and shallow reflectivity.

Seriously it's just a building with a blow through floor and some ugly vents int he back - not the total deterioration of society.

[feynman]

Rooted Aboriginal, I think you're getting more hung up on the financials of this than the architecture itself. Even with the blow through, it's an incredible tower. Miles better than all the beige precast of River North. And, I think it's pretty neat that Gang has done a few towers in Chicago now. It's quite fitting since, imho, she's carrying the mantle of organic architecture pioneered by Sullivan, Wright, and John Lautner, who all have Chicago connections.

[harryc]

End of the line




Ganging up.

[observer]

The louvers and blow through floors have received a good bit of comments over the last year or so, with debates on them being appropriate or not. I don't recall seeing a lot of comments though on the unremarkable nature of the base of the building. I think initial concepts for the building had a more grand gesture, similar to what was called for in the original master plan for this site (a gateway element of sorts visually connecting the Lakeshore East Park with river). Not sure that was ever going to be the right solution, but in my opinion the base of the building is completely unremarkable from the pedestrian experience side. Yes, one can look up and experience the delightful massing of the building, but once you look forward again, there is little in the way of upgraded details/materials/pedestrian space. This is not an office building, granted, where the omission of an upgraded pedestrian experience on an iconic tower would be almost criminal, but even so, it may be the uninspired and under improved base of the building that ultimately captures the most criticism when the building is complete and not the louvers or blow through floors. I am surprised this has not been discussed or called out more (if it has, I missed it, and my apologies for missing the discussion!).

[Skyguy_7]

^ I respectfully disagree. The frustum-filled "bump out" on Wacker is magic to the eye, not to mention the base is still a work in progress, so judgement should be reserved. Do you feel the base lacks grandeur for a tower of this size?


via Harry

[ardecila]

Yeah the base is great, especially compared to the other Lakeshore East buildings that just hit the ground with a dull thud. The landscaping details are elegant and subtle, I love little touches like the portal around the garage entrance, or the lights that wash the tops of the columns. I love that the drive lanes around the building are the bare minimum, to give as much space to pedestrians as possible. Etc, etc.




both images: credit harryc

And I'm judging that only based on what is open now - once the pocket park opens and the cladding is finished, it should be excellent.

[observer]

If the base of the St. Regis tower is 'great' as noted by ardecila, what words do you use to describe the base of a building like the one being proposed in New York at 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt)? Not built yet, but as a big idea for the base of a tall tower, I would call that 'great'. Or the lobby of the built Lotte Tower in Seoul? My point is if someone created a list of top 10 or 20 building bases on tall towers, this one would likely not be on the list compared to all the other amazing things that have been done at the bases of tall towers. It is great compared to other buildings at Lake Shore East, but is it good enough for the scale building it is and considering how rare it is that buildings of this scale get built in Chicago? There is ultimately no comparison to dollars spent in NY on buildings as compared to Chicago. Might as well be different planets. The critique I have likely has more to do with the developer and budgets than the architect. Studio Gang has demonstrated many times how to deal with the base of buildings in a memorable way.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by observer

If the base of the St. Regis tower is 'great' as noted by ardecila, what words do you use to describe the base of a building like the one being proposed in New York at 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt)? Not built yet, but as a big idea for the base of a tall tower, I would call that 'great'. Or the lobby of the built Lotte Tower in Seoul? My point is if someone created a list of top 10 or 20 building bases on tall towers, this one would likely not be on the list compared to all the other amazing things that have been done at the bases of tall towers. It is great compared to other buildings at Lake Shore East, but is it good enough for the scale building it is and considering how rare it is that buildings of this scale get built in Chicago? There is ultimately no comparison to dollars spent in NY on buildings as compared to Chicago. Might as well be different planets. The critique I have likely has more to do with the developer and budgets than the architect. Studio Gang has demonstrated many times how to deal with the base of buildings in a memorable way.

And how many have active roadways underneath them on multiple levels while facing a river with a multi level roadway? I think they did a damn good job of linking the river with LSE ....AND with Cirrus & Cascade..linking to the lakefront. Not a huge fan of the one random vent on the west side and that they did not taper the top more but otherwise very nice. P.S....we really need to have the 1st annual SSP meeting in this bar when it opens.

[SteelMonkey]

[QUOTE=Chi-Sky21;9264135] And how many have active roadways underneath them on multiple levels while facing a river with a multi level roadway? I think they did a damn good job of linking the river with LSE ....AND with Cirrus & Cascade..linking to the lakefront.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by observer

If the base of the St. Regis tower is 'great' as noted by ardecila, what words do you use to describe the base of a building like the one being proposed in New York at 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt)? Not built yet, but as a big idea for the base of a tall tower, I would call that 'great'. Or the lobby of the built Lotte Tower in Seoul? My point is if someone created a list of top 10 or 20 building bases on tall towers, this one would likely not be on the list compared to all the other amazing things that have been done at the bases of tall towers. It is great compared to other buildings at Lake Shore East, but is it good enough for the scale building it is and considering how rare it is that buildings of this scale get built in Chicago? There is ultimately no comparison to dollars spent in NY on buildings as compared to Chicago. Might as well be different planets. The critique I have likely has more to do with the developer and budgets than the architect. Studio Gang has demonstrated many times how to deal with the base of buildings in a memorable way.

All of the above are good. Gotta consider context though.

175 Park is basically a train station that happens to have an office tower above it. Literally hundreds of thousands of people need to pass through it every day, getting off subways and commuter trains so SOM had to bend over backwards to make an open design. It's a civic showpiece so it is designed accordingly.

St Regis is basically in a vertical bedroom community. There's certainly some pedestrian traffic but it's not a hub of activity, it doesn't call for a civic showpiece design. For that context I think it's a great design at the base. All it needs to do is provide quiet, pleasant pedestrian connections between the outer ring of LSE (Upper Wacker, Riverwalk) and the inner ring (Harbor Drive, LSE Park). There's a really nice connector at the upper level that opens out to the vista of LSE Park and LSD stretching down to the Field Museum. There's a really nice connector at the lower level that links the riverwalk to the park, and manages to turn the dystopian hellscape of Sub Wacker Drive into something unthreatening and even inviting. All those public spaces are filled with stylish elements that continue the design flair of the tower down to the pedestrian scale. That's it, mission accomplished.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by ardecila

...snip...
and manages to turn the dystopian hellscape of Sub Wacker Drive into something unthreatening and even inviting.
...snip....

I take it you were never down there before LSD was straightened.

[iLeunamme]

Taken by me 5/2

[harryc]

^^ Very nice

[jpIllInoIs]

Welcome to the forum Iluenamme. beautiful pix.