Quote:
As it stands, the facades of the existing stock are nothing to write home about. There's plenty of other more beautiful streetscapes in the city. But that's not a valid enough reason for them to go, or replaced by a product that is entirely different. Their composition is what gives Wrigleyville identity. If your premise is to completely modify this neighborhood beyond all recognition and take it in a completely different direction, then I guess you could justify this project. This isn't really NIMBYism or opposition to any small change. It's a big project that will certainly leave a mark. I don't see it any different than the urban renewal efforts in the 60's and 70's to level dozens of commercial buildings for one mammoth development. |
How can anyone look at that Clark facade and think 'souless suburban mall?' The facade is broken up into storefront sections that reference traditional building widths along Clark and most Chicago arterials, and any elongating effect is taken care of with signage and canopies. My biggest issue with the project remains the fact that those Sports World assholes refused to move or incorporate and we have to look at that shit right opposite Wrigley. That's what you jerks should be complaining about!
http://www.addisonparkonclark.com/im...est_aerial.jpg x http://www.addisonparkonclark.com/im...el_closeup.jpg x http://www.addisonparkonclark.com/images/cubs.jpg x |
^ The only successful part of that design is the top, where you see multiple structures of varying mass and material. The base is long and monotonous. Why would someone design a neighborhood building like that? It's totally inappropriate. Very similar to the contrived mega retail developments attempting to build commercial districts around ballparks and arenas.
|
Quote:
I've never felt that outstanding architecture makes up great cityscapes. It is collections of regular buildings, punctuated by greatly designed buildings of importance, that make great places. I tend to subscribe to that kind of thinking. There are some forumers around here who believe that every single building must resemble an ant humping a beetle, or else it is a blight on the cityscape. I think that kind of thinking is way misguided, and has been damaging to cities. |
^^^ I agree I love the hundreds of infill pomo purple brick three and six flats and 3-6 floor apartment blocks that have gone up over the past 10 years. Yeah they are bland and completely non-progressive, but I can live with that since they make an excellent background for the jewels of Chicago's Architecture to stand out against.
Quote:
You show me a commercial artery that is lined with bungalows and I'll show you a block that needs to be razed and replaced with 3-8 story street-facing buildings with retail. Also how the hell are you comparing this to a suburban strip mall. Hint, the only difference between the excellent streamlined 1960's 1 story retail buildings on the fringes of Chicago (Peterson is a great example) and a suburban strip mall is the fact that one has parking in front of all the retail the the other does not. Same goes for these old, one story, brick retail buildings that exist on the site today. If you slide them back 50 feet and put in parking, they'd be strip malls. This building on the other hand comes right up to the street, has a 3 story facade along the street, and no parking. You show me a strip mall in a suburb that is built right against the street and is three stories with a 10 story hotel on top of it and I'll admit your entire argument is flawless. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Other than the empty litter filled lots that are still unused 4.5 decades later.....other than that exactly the same.....yeah |
My main concern with this things is 1. Not intense of enough use....preferred the earlier more intense plan.
2. It eerily reminds me of the "newish" 28 story condo in Evanston with retail in the base, just cut by 2/3rds I think materials will make a huge difference on execution and impact......if it is clearly brick facade its is going to look sterile; on the other hand if they could produce a more authentic Chicago brick type look....maybe not so bad |
I especially hate to see the old fabric of the Clark St. facades lost to this developement, but I'll get used to it. I welcome the infill along Addison.
Why would the D-bag at Sports World give into this scheme. He sits on one of the most visible & prime parcels in Wrigleyville. He would never recoup revenue from losing his massive obtrusive billboards. |
SOM Chicago and Sasaki Associates have designed a massive 369 acre development on Chicago's South Side
05.14.2010 Read More: http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4530 Quote:
http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/Southworks_City.jpg http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/Southworks_Plan.jpg |
155 N Wacker - Plaza
April 9 April 28 April 28 April 28 April 28 |
5-18
Randolph Pocket Park http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4564/randpp1.jpg http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/939/randpp2.jpg |
The beauty is nauseating.
|
Quote:
If this stuff gets built and it goes out of business...then I will believe your opinion. Lifeless....we are getting rid of some surface parking....huge billboards...buildings that roll down their fricken security doors at night...and getting something that serves the neighborhood all day verses just game day and the weekend. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What part of W. Rogers Park would you consider the "armpit of the north side?" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
When I'm discovering an impressive environment for the first time--whether it's Pilsen or Bronzeville, Printer's Row or Hyde Park, London or Barcelona; I'm usually impressed by the uniform quality of the streetscape--that the average building is above average and they come together to make something great. I don't think every townhouse needs to be designed by I.M. Pei, but when a whole neighborhood is tied together by quality I like it a lot better than when I see mediocre construction but with a beautifully preserved cathedral at the end of the block. |
Quote:
let the destruction begin, i guess. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.