CHICAGO | General Developments

[Mr Downtown]

Two stories; nothing above.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Two stories; nothing above.

Darn... I was hoping for a rooftop bar! Still, at least it'll be brick and respect the area better than the other short one they just built over there

[Mr Downtown]

^Second floor will have a retractable roof, so (in good weather) you can still howl at the moon while drinking.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Second floor will have a retractable roof, so (in good weather) you can still howl at the moon while drinking.

Good!

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Definitely not all it could be.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

Darn... I was hoping for a rooftop bar! Still, at least it'll be brick and respect the area better than the other short one they just built over there

I don't get the hate for the building across the street, it has great brick and a patina metal cladding and the massing steps up to the classing Printers Row midrises instead of chopping off the top like a buzz cut.

[Mr Downtown]

Photo by SolarWind


My objection is that [751 S. Dearborn] doesn't use the forms and materials characteristic of the Printing House Row landmark district. It has massing and fenestration dictated by the internal needs of the residence—rather than the more universal rhythm and symmetry of the endlessly adaptable industrial loft buildings that comprise the rest of the district. It uses the strange checkerboard metal screening on the south exposures, which is not a material native to the district at all.

The south end of the Borland Manufacturing Buildings illustrate the proper form for a low building to take here. In my philosophy, when you build in a historic district you have to step up your game; you have to take the forms and materials of that district and make a contemporary building by skillfully deploying or reinterpreting them—not by just ignoring everything other than the brick color.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ The West facade of this building literally continues the exact fenestration pattern of the historic building to the North and then wraps it around the South side of the block. I don't understand how you can claim it doesn't.

Any attempt at ye olde factorye here would fall flat on it's face. I think this turned out pretty damn nice considering it's essentially shoehorning a SFH into a dense high-rise district. It certainly respects the district much more than a vacant lot...

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ The West facade of this building literally continues the exact fenestration pattern of the historic building to the North and then wraps it around the South side of the block. I don't understand how you can claim it doesn't.

Any attempt at ye olde factorye here would fall flat on it's face. I think this turned out pretty damn nice considering it's essentially shoehorning a SFH into a dense high-rise district. It certainly respects the district much more than a vacant lot...

I think if they just would of left off the weird checkerboard pattern screen at the top and continued the fenestration pattern on the top floor it would be better. Otherwise the rest of the building matches it's neighbor pretty well.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The West facade of this building literally continues the exact fenestration pattern of the historic building to the North

Except that it doesn't. Fenestration is more than the size of the openings.

You've got a window that's two-thirds bricked in, as if that fools anyone, and another on the end that's only a half-window. In a cantilevered overhang. And they're all huge sheets of plate glass rather than double-hung windows with divided lights.

I didn't realize "better than a parking lot" was now the test for whether a new building is judged appropriate in a landmark district.

[harryc]

Aug 7

Chicago | Sears Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | Sears Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | Sears Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | Sears Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Except that it doesn't. Fenestration is more than the size of the openings.

You've got a window that's two-thirds bricked in, as if that fools anyone, and another on the end that's only a half-window. In a cantilevered overhang. And they're all huge sheets of plate glass rather than double-hung windows with divided lights.

The architects of those buildings would have killed to have the ability to install full size plate glass windows with no double hung. You whine about the interior dictating the fenestration while completely ignoring the fact that the fenestration you want aped so badly was also dictated by interior factors like ventilation which are irrelevant in modern building design. The Chicago window existed to create airflow, not because it was the aesthetic choice of the era. Just look at CPS or Reliance to see what architects of the time were really jonesing to do. They wanted as much glass as possible and would have made it one solid plate glass square if that were an option.

I didn't realize "better than a parking lot" was now the test for whether a new building is judged appropriate in a landmark district.

It's not, but neither is "let's make it fake old" because I might knock over my walker in shock if I see anything that doesn'te havee ane ee ate thee ende ofe ite...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by harryc

Chicago | Sears Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Wow, this is my first time seeing this, I would presume this is one of the main entrances? It beckons indeed.....

[gebs]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Wow, this is my first time seeing this, I would presume this is one of the main entrances? It beckons indeed.....

Yes, that's the Wacker entrance.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Wow, this is my first time seeing this, I would presume this is one of the main entrances? It beckons indeed.....

I wish it would beckon the contractor to hurry the f*ck up. They've only reduced Adams by one lane for a week and already colossally f*cked up traffic this morning when their oopsie forced them to take another lane out and backed up traffic from Adams, up Lasalle, and down Wacker to Wabash (literally buses nose to tail the whole way). I dread what my commute will be like this winter.

[Barrelfish]

Originally Posted by JK47

I wish it would beckon the contractor to hurry the f*ck up. They've only reduced Adams by one lane for a week and already colossally f*cked up traffic this morning when their oopsie forced them to take another lane out and backed up traffic from Adams, up Lasalle, and down Wacker to Wabash (literally buses nose to tail the whole way). I dread what my commute will be like this winter.

I was wondering why traffic on LaSalle has been so terrible this week. I was ready to blame my usual hobbyhorse: clueless lyft/uber drivers cutting into the bus stops to drop off their equally clueless passengers exactly in front of the address instead of half a block up the street.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

I was wondering why traffic on LaSalle has been so terrible this week. I was ready to blame my usual hobbyhorse: clueless lyft/uber drivers cutting into the bus stops to drop off their equally clueless passengers exactly in front of the address instead of half a block up the street.

The genius contractors left jersey barriers up along the Jackson entrance sidewalk (so now there's only 1 side, Wacker, that's available for drop off or pickup with barriers blocking the others) so I saw one rideshare drop off passengers mid-block who then had to walk in traffic until they could get around the barrier (well 2 out of 3...the third one tried to walk around the rideshare car in order to climb over the barriers and got hit by another car). Just bad decisions compounding on other bad decisions.

Incidentally the Jackson entrance is the one for the Skydeck.

[Handro]

Anyone have info on "The Parker 60614" project on Ashland south of Diversey? I drove by yesterday and it looked like foundation had been poured, but I didn't see much other sign of life... I checked google streetview and it is indeed new, it was just an overgrown lot at this time last year:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9313...7i16384!8i8192

Project was reportedly stalled in 2017:
https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/5/9/...o-project-dead

This ones been an empty lot since the building there was demo'd in 2015...

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Wow, this is my first time seeing this, I would presume this is one of the main entrances? It beckons indeed.....

Yeah, that's fantastic.

[the urban politician]

Project to rehab the Hollander warehouse on Milwaukee Ave in Logan Square and and what appears to be new construction in a mixed use project for offices and retail. I don’t have premium access so I can’t read this article:

https://blockclubchicago.org/2019/08...building-site/