Water Tower Place
Chicago, USA

HEIGHT: 262m/859 feet
FLOORS: 74 floors
COMPLETION: 1976
ARCHITECT:Loebl, Schlossman, Dart & Hackl

74 floors high, Water Tower Place comprises two different sections, a horizontal podium and a tower, and its constituent elements make it into a miniature city within a city block. With restaurants, cinemans, two department stores and over 100 smaller shops in the 7-storey base, it is one of the world's most multi-functional buildings. The tower itself contains offices, the Ritz Carlton Hotel with 400 rooms on 15 floors, and 260 apartments on a further 40 floors.

http://************/bvo60

http://************/bvo77

http://************/bvo7t

http://************/bvo7c

http://************/bvo8h

http://************/bvo7r

Too plain and boxy, the colours are neat though, but it doesn't stand up against John Hancock Center behind it.

A 70s rationalist architectural piece. Another staid safe design. Reminds me of the Rinku Gate Tower in Osaka, completed 20 years hence, only without the setbacks, differing forms and features. Both slender :) . I guess it's the multitude of windows in (seemingly) close proximity; a tight squeeze.

Rinku (a rendering although completed in 1996):

........http://www.obayashi.co.jp/project/96/rinkuu.jpg

In context i.e 1970s, a 7.

I would consider this your average, everyday skyscraper. It's plain, but it's not ugly either. 7.5/10

6/10

Monotonous. The only good thing is its sharp contrast of colour to the John Hancock.

I don't really care for it... 5/10

Nothing special. 6/10.

6.5/10

A little too plain

i don't think that this building is beautiful;) :)

There's nothing about it that makes it stand out.

5.5/10

7/10 I like it, but plain

7, abit boring, dull, not sure, just dont like it... but is sure is tall!:D

7/10. Just a box.

probably Chicago's ugliest tower !!

yep .. . it would fit my city quite well. . . and that sucks. . oh well. . . 3/10

4/10 - A box :ohno: on top of another box ***yawn*** - the facade doesn't even dance with the light or help the height. As a final insult, it appears to be concrete...simply dull

Awful in almost every aspect, but the base takes the cake. For a city that prides itself on architectural excellence, this tower is an insult. 3/10

Here's the base, it's a mall.
http://www.skyscraper.org/exhibitions/bb/jumbos/Pics/j16.jpg

http://67.36.169.126/pix/99_1.jpg

http://www.uic.edu/depts/ahaa/imagebase/brubaker/images/21.jpg

4.

Sometimes it's hard to believe this is in Chicago of all places.

Then again, it was many decades ago that it was built.

Its just a big ugly box what can I say more.

6.5/10

For some reason the 1970s produced some of the most consistently boring architecture of any decade. Although I do like the proportions of this box, so that bumps it up to a four.

well the tower reminds me of other tall slabs like Trump World Tower & the Four Seasons in Miami but those are in glass instead of concrete..a pretty simple design and on the skyline the white facade contrasts nicely with the dark cladding of the John Hancock, however the base is horrible.....6.5/10

I guess not every tower in a city of major landmarks can be a signature tower. I guess towers like this are needed in skylines to make it complete. ->4/10

Well it's not a beauty,i mean let be honest..
it's plain....boxy,but high!But somewhere i like this...
6.0/10

7.5/10

Nice and slim, and has a good contrast to Hancock.

Meh, tall enough, but just plain ugly.
4.5

1.5

Oh my, what were they thinking when they built this monstrosity?

Successfull effective modernism. The design is a bit of a relief.

Since I gave the MetLife building a 5 and I dislike this building even more, it gets a 4. It's a box, a damn box. An unborn fetus could create a better design than a box. Plus it reminds me too much of my cities tallest building, The Republic Plaza in Denver.
http://www.81x.com/Authors/DowntownTHC/101-0196_IMG.jpg

Looks like something out of a horror movie.. Dirty and without any character.. Just an ugly box.. :bash: Heck, even I could design that! :rant:

6/10

4/10 they need to pressure wash it or something. This building is white and DIRTY.

5....
Too ... "standard building"-ish

Boxy boxy boxy.Nothing special, only the 270 m high...

Such a drab concrete building. It looks like the facade still needs to be finished. 4/ 10

5.5/10 some points for being tall, besides that i hate it

cool. it's tall. 4/10

nic and slim and tall, 7

Plain, but quite nice. 7/10

7/10

Nice and simple, it looks nice with Hancock. Plus, there is a mall inside.

7/10...It doesn't look great but it accomplishes it's purpose by making you turn your head a way from it and stare at the great John Hancock Building.

6.5/10
The building is slim and tall, but that doesn't quite make up for it being very ordinary looking.

now this is a box that i don't like

5

Slim and tall

8/10

7/10

6.0

Nothing special. But it's tallllll!

8/10

It fits perfect on Magnificent Mile.

3 Or Less ! :)

Nothing special!

6.5 Too PLAIN and Too BOXY

I give it a 2. An institutional-looking, housing-project-vernacular, concrete bore, which loses more points because it's so big -- drawing even more attention to it (as in, "Hey, look at me!, I'm a big ugly piece of sh**!). And I deduct even more points because it sometimes obscures the view of Big John.

Could this be the archetype for all the bland residential towers on windowless pedestals infesting our city? It certainly is the prototype for the mallification of downtown. Its descendants -- the residential towers built on parking garage bases -- are a logical evolution, making downtown friendly for SUVs and their psuedo-city dweller, suburbanite-in-disguise owners.

7/10 This is a good box. It looks supertall because of its shape.

boring but is very tall, I like that 6.5/10

6/10


nothing special.

6.5/10
Boxy, slim & tall. I don't like it cause is just very simple.

7/10

seriously, is kinda ugly

Bored, does not call the attention, only by his height 5,5/10

Dull and Square
Of no intrest to me sorry

5.5

Ugly, but solid and tall. Not sleek but redeems itself with the horizontal bands.

they should give this tower a facelift and raze the garage too and put it underground, and put in a huge plaza or something, then i'll like it more.

7/10

7/10. mediocre.

6.5/10

9/10
I like its classic, elegance and being next to the original Water Tower gives it a nice view.

5/10

An average building. Every city needs these, its what makes the skyline and sets apart the masterpieces (Hancock and Sears, for example). Still dirty and a little boring, but a decent attempt at a box.

I like it. 9.5/10

I love this big white box. 9.5.

Breathtakingly DULL... what a shame to build such a building in such a great location.

Hmmm, just looks like a plain tall box office building and it's boring. I give it a 1.6.

one word: ugly! 3

Utterly nondescript. Even the height isn't that impressive, for Chicago.
5/10

7

I guess u might expect more from Chicago but it is 74 floors and is a good companion to the Hancock.

7.0

8/10

6.5/10

I don't like it. 5/10

This has got to be one of the most boring skyscrapers ever created, but it is pretty tall
6.5/10

5 - how boring

7/10

Good for a box, but nothing special. I give it a 5/10. :(

average.6

a straight out tower....simple but graceful 9/10

A boring box 5/10

International-boring.
Luckily it's in Chicago so it doesn't look so tall ^^
And it's not black, brown or dark grey.
4.

A box. And not the best one. 6/10

7.5/10

5.5/10

The white cladding fits bad for this tower.

:ohno: 6/10.

I doný like this box. 5/10.

so shit 5/10

6/10 - PLAIN AND BOXY

5.5/10

It's just a box. But I like boxes. However I've seen better boxes than this one ;) 7/10

6/10 ugly!!!!!!!!!!!

10.0 for it's functionality.
The facade is ok imo. But that top could be better, it would look much better if it was.

Total: 7.5

Hideous 5/10

8/10

I wonderfully minimalist marble slab, but -1 point for the overpriced mall. 8/10

An eyesore in Chicago's beautiful skyline. That's an ugly building even by 70's standards.

2.0 for the design + 1.0 for the height

3.0/10.0

6/10

BOX, the end 5.

This tower is perfect in its location. It's a nice contrast with JHC and the Water Tower. Some of my fave pics of Chicago are ones that show all 3 structures in one shot.

JHC's surface has a very busy look to it, so you don't want to compete with that. The straight vertical rise and solid marble facade are a perfect contrast to JHC's angles and highly scalloped surface.

If this building were plopped in the middle of nowhere, it wouldn't do a thing for me; but where it's at - it's perfction.

3/10

8/10

This is truly awful. 3 or less.

7/10

It´s simple. 7/10

Yeah, John Hancock beats it hard. This tower needs a serious renovation, some new and glassy facade or sth, then its height will work.

Pitiful compared with the rest of Chicago its just a big box. 3/10

6/10

5.5/10

All it had going for it was that it was the world's tallest concrete building

9/10 I really like this one.

Too plain and boxy
6/10

8.5/10

4 / 10 Nothing special and very monotonous

Boxy, but nice. 8/10

I like these straight towers. 7.5

4.5/10
It's just a box, very boring

What can I say its just a box. 4/10

good ol' box tower.... i dunno what it is, but i love box towers. This one is ok tho... 8/10

6/10 too boxy and plain

3,5/10

That is a very big box with no design. 6.0

7.5/10. It's not that bad. It's certainly not offensive in anyway. It's just one of those buildings that contributes to a great skyline without being too extravagent or overtly unique.

boxy 6/10

7.5/10. It's not that bad. It's certainly not offensive in anyway. It's just one of those buildings that contributes to a great skyline without being too extravagent or overtly unique.


8/10. I agree with Oriolus: it contributes to the great Chicago skyline in its own significant way, and certainly doesn't detract from it.

It's also one of those buildings that looks better in person. The proportions--narrow when viewed from the east/west, very broad when viewed from the north/south--are unusual and distinctive. From the south, the broad, tall expanse of white (especially with the black Hancock Center as a backdrop) is quite pretty.

True, it's just a box, but it's a sleek, elegant, and well-proportioned box that fits in the skyline well.

outdated, boxy, ugly, but tall.5/10

4.5/10 ...scary building

7/10

8/10.

too plain, too simple 4/10

What can I say, it's just a box that rises up too......so odd feet. I have nothing to say, I am getting sick. I barfed, I barfed on my dog, I barfed on my girlfriend (Like I have one), and I popped on the toilet seat. Tonight, I got work to carried out of my system, and it sucks while encountering it. Well, mostly when I go home, I sleep, but though this time my butt is working out a sweat. 5/10.

It's a plain building, but it's not bad. 7/10

6/10

6/10 uninspiring design.

dull 5/10

So so dull, 6/10

6,5/10 nothing special

7/10 Not a big fan of this building.

clean and tall, but boring box 6/10.

5/10 looks very dull

Plain ole box but i like it. dont know why. I sometimes feel that if this were isolated so that you can really appreciate how tall it is, it would get more respect. But being under John Hancocks shadows doesn't help. nevertheless it is boring and plain and will be graded as such. 5/10

3/10

Kind of boring. It's one of my less favorite Chicago buildings.

Not very individual, but it's pretty tall. 6.5

Just its height makes me think good about this tower 6/10

4.5/10......

It's okay but plain and not all that special.

6.0

6/10

5/10 and thats maybe too much

theres something going for it,-it was the worlds tallest concrete building on completion!
its a lump of a bldg

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=377922

I hate 70's buildings! :down: 0/10

boring 70's box but not really bad 7/10

8.5/10

6.5/10. Maybe a half a point to high. Nice, but nothing special. Definitly not worth to be one of the top 100 buildings in the world.

6.5

7/10 nice but nothing special

7/10

I'll give it a 7/10. It's nothing more than just something to balance the skyline, IMO.

6.5/10

6.5/10

poor design for the top

Doesn't Oprah live there? 7/10 because of location. Amazing atrium.

How boring. Yawn.

5/10

1/10 what an eyesore

worst building ever

5/10

5.5/10

4/10

There is nothing to see in that building except the altitude. Inside it looks quite good, but from the outside it really doesn't. Modern skyscrapers rock.

6/10.

8/10

just a box
6.5/10

"4"

Dull and bland, absolutely no imagination to this building. It looks like a cereal box with windows. I've visited it and its height is impressive, but it does take away from some good views of "Big John" and overshadows the actual Water Tower and is overbearing. The only reason why I have a half-interest in this building is because Oprah lived in it.

Very thin, good feeling out of it. 9.

4/10 Super functional but forgettable and ugly.

Probably the worst real tall in Chicago. Definitely the worst in the Mag mile cluster around the Hancock.

Banal, uninspiring and generic. It is tall and helps balance the classic skyline but that is it's only redeeming factor.

When dealing with chicago I usually deal in 8s or 9s but this ordinary box gets an ordinary 5.

6.5
- is +

Probably the worst real tall in Chicago. Definitely the worst in the Mag mile cluster around the Hancock.

Banal, uninspiring and generic. It is tall and helps balance the classic skyline but that is it's only redeeming factor.

When dealing with chicago I usually deal in 8s or 9s but this ordinary box gets an ordinary 5.

ditto. ^^

but I think 5 is too generous.

4 / 10

i dislike this tower but it's important in relation to big john.......6.5

^^ Agreed.

Boxes are boring.

5.5 for its high

7/10

4.5/10 nothing special, looks very ordinary.

While I am not a big fan of this building, I can say that it fits in well with the surrounding buildings. Then again, I don't know if that should figure into the rating. It does have a nice rectangular quality about it.

7.5

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/4585/dsc07306bu2.jpg

5/10

Too plain and boxy 6.5/10

I dont like box stuff, but I guess for those of the style, it was okay - 8

4.5/10

Nothing special 5/10

1976 ok 9

nothing special 6/10

6/10

7/10

5,5/10

5.0/10.

Good height 7/10

3.5/10

2/10

generic, al there is, is height

Famous skyscraper. 9.5/10

(this is my 500th post)

7/10 a bit boxy the farcade brings it up I prefer windows to a black box any day lol

7.0

5,5/10

Meh. 4/10

4,5/10

Boring! 5/10!

Big box!!

5/10

7/10

5,plain

4. gross

I think it's very simple but elegant. 7/10

This building sucks!
5/10

4.

6/10

4/10 plain boring box

4/10

4/10

7/10

3/10

7/10

7/10

6.5/10

5/10, awful...

Just a box with lots of windows. 5/10

^^ and a little boring. Good height though. 6/10. :)

7/10.

4/10...looks a like contrete block, but i like the proportions...

06/10

7/10

It's a box, but it's kind of skinny and has a good contrast against the John Hancock Center.

6/10

Standard

6/10 The base is awful.

9/10

6/10

5/10

6/10

a 7 for its ugliness :D

6/10

Too monotonous :/

4/10

Not beautiful although so huge !

4.0/10

6/10

boring, totally boring. 6/10.

8. Good building. Regards.

whaaaaats? just like abandoned building totally bad !!
this building didnt hve a style.
5/10

6/10

so avarege 6/10

4
It´s simple in my opinion...

7/10

whaaaaats? just like abandoned building totally bad !!
this building didnt hve a style.
5/10

abandoned my ass, Oprah lives here

7/10

Good work !
Very cool, looking great so far. Keep going, I wanna see it finished! :bash:

Clean, unassuming design. Was the world's tallest reinforced concrete building when it opened. The interior mall spaces are quite nice. 7.5

7/10

8/10