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 May 24th, 2007, 06:52 AM   #41
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

^ Lancaster, clearly the best so far, IMO. 340 is great, Tides is interesting, and the Arquitectonica is will be nice too, I think.
BorisMolotov no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 24th, 2007, 06:12 PM   #42
MWR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 155
Likes (Received): 0

The Purpose of Living in a High Rise

is to have a VIEW.


Soon Lakeshore East will be so crowded with high rises that most of the apartment views will be obstructed.


MWR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 06:21 PM   #43
Flubnut
4th Level of Hades
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 709
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by MWR View Post
The purpose of living in a high rise...is to have a VIEW.

Soon Lakeshore East will be so crowded with high rises that most of the apartment views will be obstructed.
Actually, I believe the purpose of living in a high rise is to have DENSITY. Views are a by-product. But you're correct: if you're not facing the park or on a street side, you're going to be looking into someone else's living room.
Flubnut no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2007, 01:55 AM   #44
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 880

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
Well, besides this proposal, and Aqua, all of the other structures are "infill" projects that aren't really intended to have any "Wow" factor. Hopefully, there will be at least one more interesting building in this development.

I'm wondering if the majority of the new buildings still in development for LSE will try to pull off some type of "WOW" factor. Maybe Lowenberg now realized that people actually give a shit as to what the outside of a building looks like. When AQUA was released, it got all types of praise and maybe he feels that that praise will somehow lead back to his door, like it was his idea, you know? Maybe he now realizes that "quality" achitecture actually sells, and at a premium none the less.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MWR View Post
is to have a VIEW.


Soon Lakeshore East will be so crowded with high rises that most of the apartment views will be obstructed.


It's not as if this wasn't a known fact. When buyers go into the sales center they are told where new development wil go. That's the purpose of LSE Park, to offer a little breathing room. If you don't have a view of the river or lake, you have a view of an intimate park. If they have issues with their views being blocked, they should have chosen more wisely, or they can always move to oner of the newer towers with better views.

Last edited by BVictor1; May 27th, 2007 at 02:07 AM.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2007, 07:26 AM   #45
ChicagoNight
Registered User
 
ChicagoNight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 283
Likes (Received): 4

cool, i really like this one
ChicagoNight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2007, 09:47 AM   #46
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Driving up LSD today... this tower will have a really amazing impact.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2007, 02:04 PM   #47
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

Flubnut, by definition, MWR is correct from a sales/marketing angle and the perspective of a buyer.

Most laypeople aren't aware of density as a "purpose".....only Planners & NIMBY's would know or care about that. However I guess the danger with too much density is losing character in our streetscapes.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of adding families to an urban setting, but what is the quality of the life lived within this kind of neighborhood? I don't know the answer. I just pose the question.

It seems to me that north Lake Shore drive has a good balance of residential density yet still maintains view corridors.

This packing-in of high rises is probably pretty common in most cities, but in office buildings. Does anyone out there know if other cities have built so many residential towers so close together - not counting the density fiasco of 1960's public housing?

Good talking to you!
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2007, 06:20 AM   #48
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Newcityskyline mentioned that "unofficially" the height of this one is 921 feet.

http://forum.newcityskyline.com/viewtopic.php?t=96
__________________
flickrgallery
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2007, 06:34 AM   #49
Jai
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः
 
Jai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Haleiwa, Oahu, HI :. Waianae, Oahu, HI :. DETROIT, MI
Posts: 3,703
Likes (Received): 79

Great proposal.

Should look stunning coming up LSD
Jai no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 3rd, 2007, 07:15 PM   #50
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Yawn View Post
Flubnut, by definition, MWR is correct from a sales/marketing angle and the perspective of a buyer.

Most laypeople aren't aware of density as a "purpose".....only Planners & NIMBY's would know or care about that. However I guess the danger with too much density is losing character in our streetscapes.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of adding families to an urban setting, but what is the quality of the life lived within this kind of neighborhood? I don't know the answer. I just pose the question.

It seems to me that north Lake Shore drive has a good balance of residential density yet still maintains view corridors.

This packing-in of high rises is probably pretty common in most cities, but in office buildings. Does anyone out there know if other cities have built so many residential towers so close together - not counting the density fiasco of 1960's public housing?

Good talking to you!
Isn't most (or at least some) of that really dense high-rise residential in Asia 'market rate'?

Mike
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2007, 08:14 AM   #51
urban_addict
Craving density 24/7
 
urban_addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 141
Likes (Received): 0

MILLENIUM-ART-DECO
urban_addict no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2007, 11:45 AM   #52
Jarenz
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central Philippines Capital _-=C=E=B=U=-_
Posts: 4,289
Likes (Received): 1303

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post


NewcitySkyline

76-story mixed use tower planned for Lakeshore East

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Chicago, IL, US - A 76-story mixed-use tower designed by Miami-based Arquitectonica is planned for Chicago’s prestigious Lakeshore East community, accompanying completed and under-construction towers developed by Magellan Development Group LLC, including: The Tides, The Lakeshore, The Regatta, 340 on the Park, The Parkhomes, and Aqua.

The new $400 million tower will be located at 375 East Wacker Drive and will house a five-star hotel with 224 suites, 671 condominiums and six stories of underground parking.

Read more at NewcitySkyline.
i like this design...when it be constructed
Jarenz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2007, 11:51 AM   #53
great184
visionary
 
great184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Miami-Manila-Bohol
Posts: 1,722
Likes (Received): 281

Nice hole, still chicagoesqe while bringing something new to the architecture there.
__________________
Arguably, one of the best 3d cities in SSC - South Sea Central

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1536278
great184 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2007, 03:13 PM   #54
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

Momo's got a better hole.
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2007, 04:17 PM   #55
MWR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 155
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Yawn View Post
Flubnut, by definition, MWR is correct from a sales/marketing angle and the perspective of a buyer.

Most laypeople aren't aware of density as a "purpose".....only Planners & NIMBY's would know or care about that. However I guess the danger with too much density is losing character in our streetscapes.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of adding families to an urban setting, but what is the quality of the life lived within this kind of neighborhood? I don't know the answer. I just pose the question.

It seems to me that north Lake Shore drive has a good balance of residential density yet still maintains view corridors.

This packing-in of high rises is probably pretty common in most cities, but in office buildings. Does anyone out there know if other cities have built so many residential towers so close together - not counting the density fiasco of 1960's public housing?

Good talking to you!
Personally, I think the density will be over-whelming, not because of the number of buildings, but how they are layed-out. (Lakeshore East is not Central Park).
MWR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2007, 06:27 PM   #56
Chi649
Registered User
 
Chi649's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Yawn View Post
Momo's got a better hole.
How is that when Momo's hole is way undersized? At least this one will have a much stronger visual impact.
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2007, 06:53 PM   #57
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

True, this one will be seen from afar, but Momo's is structurally expressive of what's happening beneath the skin. All the transfers are part of the aesthetic.

This one just appears to be a typical Architectonica gimic....they're kind of known for their one-liners in the profession.
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2007, 03:17 AM   #58
Frumie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 717
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Yawn View Post
True, this one will be seen from afar, but Momo's is structurally expressive of what's happening beneath the skin. All the transfers are part of the aesthetic.

This one just appears to be a typical Architectonica gimic....they're kind of known for their one-liners in the profession.
Perhaps more discriminating architectural/engineering commentary could be forthcoming by focusing less on the hole and more on the doughnot?
__________________
You truly want peace? Be righteous.
Frumie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2007, 04:08 AM   #59
CHIsentinel
padisha emperor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: CHICAGO
Posts: 393
Likes (Received): 319

A hole in a building...is just a hole in a building "...but Momo's is structurally expressive of what's happening beneath the skin..." that is like hearing a 2nd year studio critic going on and on just wanting to hear themselves talking. Guess what Helmet, I bet you the same thing is being planned for with this building. Perhaps the hole as an architectural element isn't unique and neither are the structural elements that make it stand, but I think in this case the execution is unique, and that is reason enough to like the project; but just my opinion.
CHIsentinel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2007, 04:56 AM   #60
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Yawn View Post
True, this one will be seen from afar, but Momo's is structurally expressive of what's happening beneath the skin. All the transfers are part of the aesthetic.

This one just appears to be a typical Architectonica gimic....they're kind of known for their one-liners in the profession.
And that's just it. MoMo's void is purely aesthetic. Arquitectonica's is not only aesthetic but contextual. It will function as a gateway to LSE.
__________________
flickrgallery
i_am_hydrogen 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 12:58 PM.


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