CHICAGO | Legacy at Millennium Park | 819 FT / 250 M | 73 FLOORS | 2010 - Page 93

george · #**1841** Posted **Oct 5, 2009, 2:28 AM**

10-1

At the David Smith sculpture.

george · #**1842** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 1:59 AM**

10-1

J_M_Tungsten · #**1843** Posted **Oct 11, 2009, 1:45 AM**

10-10

Phil McAvity · #**1844** Posted **Oct 11, 2009, 6:44 PM**

wow, this building really reminds me of John Hancock in Boston.

The Pimp · #**1845** Posted **Oct 11, 2009, 7:01 PM**

Good call. Very elegant!

MrLakepoint · #**1846** Posted **Oct 11, 2009, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pimp

Good call. Very elegant!

Jm....George...great shots as always. George, great shots of the details

. I still dont understand why they removed all of the elevators from the outside before finishing it up?...

denizen467 · #**1847** Posted **Oct 11, 2009, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

Interesting garage access - nice and subtle, but maybe could have been done better.
Looks like they had to "move" the columns as an exception to the facadectomy, to widen the bays...

Joe Zekas · #**1848** Posted **Oct 18, 2009, 3:01 PM**

YoChicago's Joe Askins visited Legacy on Friday and has an update, with photos.

BVictor1 · #**1849** Posted **Oct 18, 2009, 6:03 PM**

10/17/09

BVictor1 · #**1850** Posted **Oct 18, 2009, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pal

I dont understand why the Frieight elevators are completely removed from the outside!!! Can someone explain to me why that is?

My understanding is people are going to start moving into the lower levels within a month so they have to close the building up so that the ventilation system operates correctly. Also the construction elevator penetrated the floors of the garage and they need to close the holes up to make the garage usable.[/QUOTE]

The external skips were removed because they weren't needed anymore. Anythng that needs to be installed can now use the internal freight elevators. As mentioned, they also need to close up the tower. The windows for the upper floors are probably already on those floors and the smal crane on the roof can be used to install them.

The North One · #**1851** Posted **Oct 18, 2009, 6:39 PM**

wow! the copper on the top of the older buildings is going to look very cutting edge!

i like how they kept those buildings at the bottom, its almost like the building is hidden!

Via Chicago · #**1852** Posted **Oct 21, 2009, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One

i like how they kept those buildings at the bottom, its almost like the building is hidden!

They didnt keep any "buildings" intact, they kept the facade. Which is why the landmarks ordinance is such a joke in this city. Its a grotesque and disturbing trend which I hope is banned very soon. Its a disgrace to Chicago's architectural legacy.

Kippis · #**1853** Posted **Oct 21, 2009, 10:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

They didnt keep any "buildings" intact, they kept the facade. Which is why the landmarks ordinance is such a joke in this city. Its a grotesque and disturbing trend which I hope is banned very soon. Its a disgrace to Chicago's architectural legacy.

Not to be a stickler or anything, but keeping the facades of historic buildings up is certainly better than just tearing everything down and replacing them with some abhorrent parking podium - so I guess, in that regard, the landmark ordinance is doing its job. But if an ordinance were in place with stricter guidelines like the ones I *think* you may be suggesting were in place, there would be many fewer tall towers in the downtown area to speak of...just a thought.

At the very least, they are doing a fantastic job at restoring these historic storefronts through this project, which is always a plus.

Tom In Chicago · #**1854** Posted **Oct 21, 2009, 11:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

They didnt keep any "buildings" intact, they kept the facade. Which is why the landmarks ordinance is such a joke in this city. Its a grotesque and disturbing trend which I hope is banned very soon. Its a disgrace to Chicago's architectural legacy.

It is. . . I would rather they demolished the old builidings as well as their facades completely. . .

. . .

J_M_Tungsten · #**1855** Posted **Oct 21, 2009, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

It is. . . I would rather they demolished the old builidings as well as their facades completely. . .

. . .

Why? Progress is going to happen whether we like it or not. At least they leave remnants of the past to be viewed... Most cities are ever changing and older sections are being replaced, its just part of life...

uaarkson · #**1856** Posted **Oct 22, 2009, 12:07 AM**

Keeping those old facades was a brilliant move. The streetwall doesn't lose its architectural continuity, but there's a gorgeous glass tower sitting on top.

Via Chicago · #**1857** Posted **Oct 22, 2009, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kippis

Not to be a stickler or anything, but keeping the facades of historic buildings up is certainly better than just tearing everything down and replacing them with some abhorrent parking podium - so I guess, in that regard, the landmark ordinance is doing its job. But if an ordinance were in place with stricter guidelines like the ones I *think* you may be suggesting were in place, there would be many fewer tall towers in the downtown area to speak of...just a thought.

At the very least, they are doing a fantastic job at restoring these historic storefronts through this project, which is always a plus.

What I dont understand is why people act as if we cant have new development without sacrificing the old (and all too often, the "good" old). Chicago more than any other major American city has room to build, even within the core, without resorting to this type of practice. Go a few blocks in any direction and you're looking at surface lots, old industrial sites, garages, and all manner of eyesores. And yet time and again the integrity of our historic buildings are compromised. Yea, I guess its nice they saved the facades, but its still a slap in the face that they are essentially just being used as a false front for a parking garage. It sets a dangerous precedent and suggests the interior of buildings really dont matter from a preservation standpoint. I hate to use the term, but its Disneyesque.

Via Chicago · #**1858** Posted **Oct 22, 2009, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

It is. . . I would rather they demolished the old builidings as well as their facades completely. . .

. . .

I bet you also thought tearing down the Garrick and the Stock Exchange were great ideas as well.

BVictor1 · #**1859** Posted **Oct 22, 2009, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

They didnt keep any "buildings" intact, they kept the facade. Which is why the landmarks ordinance is such a joke in this city. Its a grotesque and disturbing trend which I hope is banned very soon. Its a disgrace to Chicago's architectural legacy.

In this case, the facades were the only thing worth saving. The interiors had been mutilated and so changed over time. Its not as if a tower was plunged through the Tiffany dome at the cultural center. The interior of these particular buildings didn't matter.

Via Chicago · #**1860** Posted **Oct 22, 2009, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

In this case, the facades were the only thing worth saving. The interiors had been mutilated and so changed over time. Its not as if a tower was plunged through the Tiffany dome at the cultural center. The interior of these particular buildings didn't matter.

If thats the case, fair enough. But its the precedent that worries me.