CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1687

ardecila · #**33721** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

But then you had the post modernists who didn't really abandon the principles of Modern design, just the strict ridgity of it all. Jahn was right in the middle of that and Xerox is a perfect example of it. It rejects the notion of just being an efficient square divorced from its site. It embraces circles and curves. It flares out at the base.

Yeah, but this is really only "departing" from a very narrow strain of Modernism descended from Mies (the International Style, essentially). Obviously these buildings were considered radical in the city that birthed the International Style, but globally they fit solidly into the broader umbrella of Modernism.

Other architects that we consider purely "modernist" were happy to play around with curves and go beyond steel/glass. Le Corbusier, Louis Kahn, Alvar Aalto, etc.

SamInTheLoop · #**33722** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 4:50 PM**

^ Yes, of course. Xerox and Quaker are not postmodern at all. They are obviously not strict miesian in any sense, but that does not at all mean they are not truly modern........now, 333 you can argue is a different story, and that all has to do with some things that happen at the base of that tower.....

i_am_hydrogen · #**33723** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 5:13 PM**

3901 N. Broadway was approved by the Plan Commission.

Ned.B · #**33724** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 5:48 PM**

Double Post

Ned.B · #**33725** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Yes, of course. Xerox and Quaker are not postmodern at all. They are obviously not strict miesian in any sense, but that does not at all mean they are not truly modern........now, 333 you can argue is a different story, and that all has to do with some things that happen at the base of that tower.....

Has anyone walked into the lobby of Quaker? The elevator banks are clad in green marble with arches and barrel vaults, and the ceiling is coffered, and all of the hallmarks of Post-modernism.

marothisu · #**33726** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 7:12 PM**

Apparently zoning was approved for that "luxury" development in Canaryville (around 4300 S Halsted) - the one where a bunch of residents were being big NIMBYs about it. It says construction should begin in the fall.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...board-approves

joeg1985 · #**33727** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 7:28 PM**

Which is the Quaker building that is being referred to above? Google brings up 321 N Clark, as well as 555 W Monroe.

Ned.B · #**33728** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 7:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeg1985

Which is the Quaker building that is being referred to above? Google brings up 321 N Clark, as well as 555 W Monroe.

I believe everyone has been talking about 321 N Clark, which was completed in 1987.

Mr Downtown · #**33729** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 7:53 PM**

Yes, 321 N Clark. The resemblance to New York's Lever House is what I always find striking about the building.

LouisVanDerWright · #**33730** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Yes, of course. Xerox and Quaker are not postmodern at all. They are obviously not strict miesian in any sense, but that does not at all mean they are not truly modern........now, 333 you can argue is a different story, and that all has to do with some things that happen at the base of that tower.....

False, Xerox and Quaker were both explicitly covered as postmodern in two separate courses on architectural history and design I took at UIC (not my alma mater, but mine didn't have these two specific courses). Whether you think they are or not is irrelevant when people with a doctorate in architectural history who have literally written the book on design trends disagree with you. This is not an item that is open for debate, Xerox in particular is well known as a very early example of the style. Not only was the site pavement, massing, base, etc all distinctly non-Modernist, the facade was totally radical in its rejection of the structurally expressive facades before it.

Xerox was not only post modernist, but it was designed by a member of the Chicago 7 at literally the zeeneth of their movement. It's quite literally textbook post-modernsim. It's one of the buildings that first evoked that name designed by one of the first architects to be called that name. To deny that is just in blatant denial of the facts. Here's a book I frequently had to reference for one of those courses:

https://books.google.com/books?id=wm...modern&f=false

harryc · #**33731** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

3901 N. Broadway was approved by the Plan Commission.

Replacing ....

the urban politician · #**33732** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 9:21 PM**

^ More virtuous cycles, please. Especially that pleasant surprise way down in Canaryville--market rate luxurious housing. Let's hope it sticks this time

tjp · #**33733** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 9:26 PM**

finally! that gas station has been driving me nuts for years.

LouisVanDerWright · #**33734** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 3:59 PM**

And now for our totally unsubstantiated rumor of the day:

I heard that 2211 N Milwaukee quickly leased up to about 30% of the units and it's been crickets ever since. One wonders if this isn't going to be an example of first to market being totally outclassed by competition (i.e. why live in dinky 2211 when you can get floor to ceiling glass and 10th floor views for the same outrageous rent literally next door.) Or maybe the market just can't take all these luxury apartments and there is a massive glut forming.

ithakas · #**33735** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

And now for our totally unsubstantiated rumor of the day:

I heard that 2211 N Milwaukee quickly leased up to about 30% of the units and it's been crickets ever since. One wonders if this isn't going to be an example of first to market being totally outclassed by competition (i.e. why live in dinky 2211 when you can get floor to ceiling glass and 10th floor views for the same outrageous rent literally next door.) Or maybe the market just can't take all these luxury apartments and there is a massive glut forming.

Or people overestimated the degree to which renters with money want to live on a pretty barren stretch of Milwaukee when they can live near the West Loop for a similar price?

They also have the weird living arrangements ($1,000/month for a bedroom with total strangers!) and have done little marketing, besides that lit-up L a couple years ago.

marothisu · #**33736** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

Or people overestimated the degree to which renters with money want to live on a pretty barren stretch of Milwaukee when they can live near the West Loop for a similar price?

Yeah, I've found it a bit weird. I love an area like Wicker Park - and if a development near Milwaukee Ave came along (yeah, Tower of Pizza Hut is there, I know) I would totally considering moving from downtown to there. And while I like some of the places around this stretch of Milwaukee Ave, I agree that it's a bit weird and I probably wouldn't live there just yet. However, there are a number of people who would anyway. There's a number of really nice new or semi new homes/condos in LS now.

Ned.B · #**33737** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 4:18 PM**

^Interesting though, there are only a handful of units shown as available on their site, unless they want it to look a lot more popular and rented up than it really is:

1 Jr 1 bedroom
4 1 Bedrooms
5 2 Bedrooms
1 3 Bedroom
And 3 units that are rent by the bedroom (they seem to be doing this on only the first two floors)

ithakas · #**33738** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yeah, I've found it a bit weird. I love an area like Wicker Park - and if a development near Milwaukee Ave came along (yeah, Tower of Pizza Hut is there, I know) I would totally considering moving from downtown to there. And while I like some of the places around this stretch of Milwaukee Ave, I agree that it's a bit weird and I probably wouldn't live there just yet. However, there are a number of people who would anyway. There's a number of really nice new or semi new homes/condos in LS now.

Yeah, I live near this project, and while I like the area, if I could afford to singlehandedly pay $2,000/month in rent I would be in a downtown-adjacent neighborhood, not in Logan Square. The high-amenity luxury apartment model probably works better downtown in general, where a higher % of residents tend to be newer or transient corporate workers who need easy access to company offices downtown.

I think a lot of the monied folk coming into Logan are youngish families who wanted a better deal for single family homes than they might get in Wicker Park or Ukrainian Village.

the urban politician · #**33739** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 4:41 PM**

^ Well I really hope this rumor is not true, because that would slam the brakes on this new neighborhood TOD new construction boom that is just starting to unfold.

ithakas · #**33740** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Well I really hope this rumor is not true, because that would slam the brakes on this new neighborhood TOD new construction boom that is just starting to unfold.

I agree, but I think the poor leasing numbers on this has more to do with some of the peculiarities of this project than TOD in general. I don't think my personal preferences are necessarily shared by everyone either – there are a lot of folks who would want access to the nightlife on Milwaukee up the street.