daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 15th, 2006, 01:41 AM   #561
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 880

here are some photos of The Tides model in the LSE sales trailer.







BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 15th, 2006, 02:36 AM   #562
Chi_Coruscant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 0

Thanks for the pix, BVictor. It seems that the model looks nicer than the rendering. So, hopefully, the Tides, once built, looks nicer as well. *fingers crossing*
Chi_Coruscant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2006, 02:49 AM   #563
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi_Coruscant
Thanks for the pix, BVictor. It seems that the model looks nicer than the rendering. So, hopefully, the Tides, once built, looks nicer as well. *fingers crossing*
Also notice how "gorgeous" they make the west facade of The Regatta look...now go see it in person...butt ugly. Its a sales center or "spin center". I threw in the towel on LSE when when they built the Shoreham...get a new architect!...THIS WHOLE PROJECT IS STARTING TO REMIND ME OF A MINI DUBAI (not a good thing) Every building is different...yet still the same...know what I mean?
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2006, 02:59 AM   #564
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

I'd be content to have a "Dubai" in this project right now. I agree, they should dump Loewenberg, but that won't happen given the success of most of the towers. And it's a shame really as this is one of the best spots for a mega development and we're getting mostly crap. The few things that are good so far is the actual park design, 340, Aqua, Lancaster (questionable) and we can only hope that the school and retail will be good. Everything else isn't worth mentioning.

Also notice those horrible square windows on the side on Tides, the same windows featured on all the other crappy towers of LSE.

Last edited by spyguy; March 15th, 2006 at 03:05 AM.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2006, 04:33 AM   #565
Chi_Coruscant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 0

Yeah, dump Loewenberg! Hire, Sir Norman Foster, Adrian Smith, Helmut Jahn, Daniel Liebskind, Santiago Calatrava, and other starchitects/rising stars to design each building!
Chi_Coruscant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2006, 04:45 AM   #566
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

There's nothing wrong with the Lancaster! It's probably the only decent thing Low-end-berg's ever built!
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2006, 05:00 AM   #567
ChgoLvr83
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 316
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_diamond
There's nothing wrong with the Lancaster! It's probably the only decent thing Low-end-berg's ever built!
I agree. Its THE only decent thing in LSE. For me the jury is still out on 340 OTP until I see the finished exterior treatment and Aqua needs a hi-res rendering to show it in the best light. So yeah, as of right now Lancaster is the only decent thing in LSE. I just want them to split the remaining towers to different architects and they dont even have to be big names. Theres so much potential out there waiting to be discovered. Lets tap into the undiscovered and see what they can come up with on a couple of the towers. Who knows what can happen? Chicago needs a breath of fresh air in its catalog of established architects. I feel they tend to water down their designs when it come to Chicago and a new "somebody" could definitely shake things up and hopefully enable more creative, inspired designs from the established. I had high hopes for this project and unfortunately Im sorely disappointed. Drop Lowenberg. Start new.
__________________
Chicago is New York with the heart left in.

Last edited by ChgoLvr83; March 15th, 2006 at 05:07 AM.
ChgoLvr83 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2006, 06:27 AM   #568
STR
What'u smokin' Willis?
 
STR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 2,095
Likes (Received): 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi_Coruscant
Yeah, dump Loewenberg! Hire, Sir Norman Foster, Adrian Smith, Helmut Jahn, Daniel Liebskind, Santiago Calatrava, and other starchitects/rising stars to design each building!
F*ck Libeskind. He can't do skyscrapers for jack.
__________________
There are six phases to every project 1) enthusiasm, 2) disillusionment, 3) panic, 4) search for the guilty, 5) punishment of the innocent, 6) praise for the non-participants. - Guy Tozzoli
Build your own Model Skyscrapers** New World Trade Center (2006-) 3D Model ** World Trade Center (1971-2001) 3D Model
STR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2006, 07:11 AM   #569
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

I unfortunately have to agree with many of the criticisms mentioned above. I was initially very excited about this project but have steadily grown more and more disappointed by it. Those models BVictor photographed create such an over-idealized, inaccurate representation of what Lakeshore East actually looks like when you see it in person, as do the renderings. 340 OTP obviously looks amazing in the renders. But I'm even beginning to have my doubts about how it will turn out--how all of Lakeshore East will turn out. I just hope it ends up being the "community" envisioned by the developers and not merely some anonymous group of sterile, boring towers surrounding a vacant, lifeless park. And I don't see how that can be avoided when most of the buildings either proposed, approved, under construction, or completed, except for 340 OTP and Aqua, have no individual identities. Of course, these problems are especially significant when what we're dealing with is a prime piece of real estate in close proximity to the lake, the river, Millenium Park, and the Mag Mile. I hate to see it wasted like this.

Last edited by i_am_hydrogen; March 15th, 2006 at 09:34 AM.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2006, 01:42 PM   #570
simulcra
Cynical post-collegiate
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 937
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
...merely some anonymous group of sterile, boring towers surrounding a vacant, lifeless park. And I don't see how that can be avoided when most of the buildings either proposed, approved, under construction, or completed, except for 340 OTP and Aqua, have no individual identities.
Hold on there.

Despite all of us wanting pretty buildings, the actual quality of architecture has little to do with the life of a neighborhood.

While architecture is all nice and good, I'm personally happy having a decent looking Aqua and 340 amidst bland post-modern attempts because my main concern is with how this neighborhood is going to shape up in terms of vitality and in connectivity with the city, and so far atleast the former seems to be working out OK.

I don't mean to sermonize, but the connection between quailty architecture and a successful area are remotely, if at all, linked, so I wouldn't make such write-offs of an area simply because Loewenberg has fouled it up (after all, Grand Plaza has great ground-level interaction despite its architectural travesties).
__________________
Mmm... forbidden donut...
simulcra no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2006, 02:11 AM   #571
ChicagoLover
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 819
Likes (Received): 0

I agree with Simulcra: let's not conflate architecture with design of the urban corrider. I'm surprised to see some of you turn against LSE in such a big way. First, of all, why all the skepticism suddenly about 340 OTP? As far as I know, that project is basically a SCB product, not a Loewenberg product. So the best predictor of the success or failure of that project is previous projects by SCB. Who here has been disappointed by what SCB has churned out? The Heritage, despite the seemingly "unfinished" paint job, looks pretty damned good. I think it looks great from Millenium Park. And its lower-level facade is elegant as well, even the pasted on facades from the older buildings they gutted. What about SCB's River North towers? OK, I know many people have lambasted 400 North LaSalle, which was an SCB design as I recall -- probably mainly because of that brownish-beige color, because the shape of the building is actually rather pleasing. Other SCB designs that I can immediately recall -- the Sterling, and back in '92, the Sheraton, are pretty solid in my view. SCB has a solid record all in all and is worlds apart from Loewenberg-Land.

And most of the LSE buildings that I have seen that were actually designed in part by Loewenberg are not bad. For example, the proportions on the Lancaster and the Shoreham are pleasing to the eye, unlike, say, the Park Millenium close by. Also, the taller buildings in this development -- 340 OTP, and now Aqua, are designed by others. Loewenberg's buildings will look small by comparison. Hell, last time I was in Chicago to see LSE, which was about a year ago, I was surprised at how "small" LSE's newer towers look in relation to some of those built earlier. In other words, I think the mediocre-to-average towers will be overshadowed by the kickass towers. (and I really don't think there are going to be any mediocre new ones built but maybe I'll be very wrong)
ChicagoLover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2006, 02:21 AM   #572
ChicagoLover
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 819
Likes (Received): 0

I really think our expectations have increased as design standards have increased. LSE even without Aqua or 340 OTP is worlds above concrete city in River North. Yet we're complaining! We take for granted the fact that there is demand for all of this development, and that so much more of the building facades are eye-pleasing tinted glass....
ChicagoLover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2006, 03:14 AM   #573
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoLover
I really think our expectations have increased as design standards have increased. LSE even without Aqua or 340 OTP is worlds above concrete city in River North. Yet we're complaining!
OUR EXPECTATIONS SHOULD INCREASE and we should be complaining because I have said this many times on this forum but I believe architects have a responsibility to be progressive in thinking and designing and when the architectal team for LSE is cheaping out on the most visible parts of a high rise (the sides and rear) and conforming the designs of all the buildings we have every right to get pissy.

As far as 340 goes I think it will be great and have no reservations about it.
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2006, 04:50 AM   #574
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

we have every right to get pissy.

I wasn't aware that you had financial interest in LSE. You paying the architect's commission? What about the construction costs? No? Then guess what? You've got no right to be pissy. If you don't like the building, don't buy one of their units. It's that simple. What everyone here seems to forget is that development is still a business. Yes, we must be responsible - but, we must also mind the bottom line. None of this construction would be happening if all of these towers were designed to our ideal specifications - the cost would simply be too high.

We should be thankful that we've got new towers to critique lest we forget the developmental void that marked the last two decades of the twentieth century.

<end rant>
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2006, 04:53 AM   #575
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

Sry for the dbl post - but, I forgot to address the 340 concerns.

Granted, I'm also becoming wary of 340's aesthetic value - but, we can't forget that no matter what it looks like, it's still a step forward for Chicago highrise construction in that it's LEED certified (Gold level, at least, possibly Platinum) and that's forward thinking here no matter how you slice it.
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2006, 05:06 AM   #576
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

One other thing...Does anyone know what that side building is directly connected to the Shoreham? I don't get it...is that parking disguised as residences or are those actually residences? Anybody know...I don't know how to post pictures but heres a link to what Im talking about...I think it is also going be present on the Regatta?...


http://www.rent.com/media/property/731/731487_w.jpg
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2006, 05:42 AM   #577
Chi_Coruscant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 0

^I saw the side buildings attached to Regatta and Shoreham, separately. They kinda stick out like small potatoes or Danny DeVito walking side by side with Arnold Schwarzenneger in the movie "Twins".

You know, I am starting to realize they are Loewenberg trademarks.
Chi_Coruscant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2006, 05:10 PM   #578
GTchicago
GTchicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by danthediscoman
One other thing...Does anyone know what that side building is directly connected to the Shoreham? I don't get it...is that parking disguised as residences or are those actually residences? Anybody know...I don't know how to post pictures but heres a link to what Im talking about...I think it is also going be present on the Regatta?...

http://www.rent.com/media/property/731/731487_w.jpg
They are residences. All levels facing the park have people living in them, that I can see. The pool and sundeck is at the top of that section, and all people living below. They look like huge spaces inside from what I can see from my vantage point, so maybe that section are larger residences, and more expensive? Not sure.

When they were breaking ground on the initial first phase, LSE hosted this really extravagant conference for all the local residences at the Swiss Hotel. First we were given packets about the individual phases, and then they gave a really nice media presentation about the park, phases, etc held in the packed Main ballroom. Then they gave us listings of presentations taking place on the different conference floors regarding different areas of interests…people concerned about the traffic flow could go to one room, while people interested in the school would go into another. I went into the presentation about the design of the buildings. From what I understood the speaker to say, he stressed a few reasons for the lower part present in these buildings.

They wanted to break up the scale of these buildings to:

1. Allow more light/air flow into the development, park area, and surrounding neighborhood.

2. Allow views to not be completely obstructed for new and existing residences (which got claps from the audience). I remember the speaker saying something like “Different levels make things more interesting to the eye, and allows you to see beyond.” Not an exact quote…it was years ago!

3. Avoid the “Walled in” feeling found in cities like New York, allowing for a greater sense of space, even if there are going to be many buildings present.

There were other factors, including architectural reasons, but I got up to go to the next room to hear about the school and shopping center so I never heard them…and I’ sorry I did, because I’m sure that would be the part that would interest all of YOU the most!

Not sure if this was a bunch of bull, but it made sense to those of us sitting in there. LOL!

But as Chi_Coruscant said, it makes sense to me that they may be trademarks. I’m sorry that I can’t confirm that as fact, as I left the room, but that could very well be it.

GT
GTchicago no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2006, 05:02 AM   #579
simulcra
Cynical post-collegiate
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 937
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Avoid the “Walled in” feeling found in cities like New York, allowing for a greater sense of space, even if there are going to be many buildings present.
That's interesting, since it is New York that employs a similar strategy of terracing and requiring setbacks (which these tiny little building stumps seem to be more exaggerated versions of). In fact, I dare say more of Chicago has a "walled in" feeling than New York, as most buildings in new york taper off, while Chicago buildings tend to be stout rectangular prisms. In fact, deep in the heart of the Loop is more shadowy than the densest areas of Midtown.

So a bunch of bull I say.
__________________
Mmm... forbidden donut...
simulcra no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2006, 05:17 AM   #580
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

In an increasingly dense city like Chicago, views from a new tower must be negotiated between existing buildings. Aqua tower considers criteria such as views, solar shading and function to derive a vertical system of contours that gives the structure its sculptural form. Its vertical topography is defined by its outdoor terraces that gradually change in plan over the length of the tower. These terraces offer a strong connection to the outdoors and allow inhabitants to occupy the building façade and city simultaneously. The result is a highly sculptural building when viewed obliquely that transforms into a slender rectangle from further away. Its powerful form suggests the limestone outcroppings and geologic forces that shaped the great lakes region.









Architect: Studio Gang Architects
Architect of Record: Loewenberg & Associates
Owner: Magellan Development
Program: Hotel and Residential High-rise with
retail and commercial spaces
Size: 1.9 m SF including parking, 823 feet high
Construction Begins: 2006
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu