CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Seriously? They're massing models. And the criticism has nothing to do with the design:

"It's too big," resident Marty Wallace said. "You went from 120 to 101 units. It doesn't mean anything. ... Fifteen stories is not going to work in this neighborhood at this particular time."...

Residents on Tuesday argued that 68 parking spaces wasn't nearly enough for such a large project in an already congested area. One woman said she frequently sees cars double-parking — and getting towed — outside the Starbucks that sits directly across the street from the proposed development lot. "My main concern is parking in a neighborhood that's already over-parked," said Tim Brent, a 23-year resident. "This is just too big for the neighborhood. It's not good."

Obviously the parking objections took center stage in the article, but you can't tell me the images of the building helped the developer's case.

IIRC Sedgwick has their own in-house architects and free access to SketchUp, so there is no reason why they can't show something that looks like a building and not Kim Jong Il's wet dream. Give me a rough massing and I can crap out a better sketch in 5 minutes.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Obviously the parking objections took center stage in the article, but you can't tell me the images of the building helped the developer's case.

Sure I can. You could've gone in there with the slickest rendering of the best design ever and the comments would've been the same. Nothing in the article indicates that things would have played out differently.

[joeg1985]

Originally Posted by spyguy

LOVE LOVE LVOE. I'm in love with this one. Another River North gem. More please.

[joeg1985]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Obviously the parking objections took center stage in the article, but you can't tell me the images of the building helped the developer's case.

IIRC Sedgwick has their own in-house architects and free access to SketchUp, so there is no reason why they can't show something that looks like a building and not Kim Jong Il's wet dream. Give me a rough massing and I can crap out a better sketch in 5 minutes.

Don't you think the NIMBYs would complain even more if you came at them with one design, a place holder as you are suggesting and then came back to the table with something that was totally different. "Oh, that was just a building we showed you to give you an idea of how big this thing would be. We never intended on building that." Yeah, that would go over real well.

[Notyrview]

[george]

Also lovin' 61 W Erie. That's a well done rendering, exposed concrete and all. Are the slats wood or metal? If wood, that's high maintenence, needs to be addressed every couple of years.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Feel like getting even angrier? Read about this debacle in Lakeview if you haven't already. It contained this interesting nugget:

Feeley pointed to the Halsted Flats, which has a 1:1 parking ratio. He said 80 percent of the apartments are currently leased, but only 40 percent of parking spots are occupied.

"I think in this day and age, the people who are paying these rents for these amenities don't want a car," Feeley said. "They don't want to pay for a car. If they need a car, they'll use a ZipCar for a day."

I am so annoyed right now.

Yeah, I read that too. Compare those people's sentiments, and then the abomination that just got approved for Wellington/Broadway with 250+(!) parking spaces. Which one is going to cause traffic again?? Granted, Wellington/Broadway was within Southeast Lakeview Neighbors' "purview", and the meeting for the Sedgwick proposal was held by East Lakeview Neighbors, but the comparison is just too maddening to not remark upon.

Nothing gets me more, though, than the campaign (replete with flyer-distributed propaganda containing laughably huge lies) against the California/Milwaukee development in Logan Square.

[Jibba]

Looks very Ralph Johnson...

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by spyguy

So very cool! Lovin' it.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Looks very Ralph Johnson...

That's what I was thinking. It bears some resemblance to Contemporaine.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by george

Also lovin' 61 W Erie. That's a well done rendering, exposed concrete and all. Are the slates wood or metal? If wood, that's high maintenence, needs to be addressed every couple of years.

You know what - that is a well done rendering - in fact, almost too well done. Can it be confirmed that this is in fact a rendering of this project, and not a photo shopped into this Chicago siting of one of the architect's or developer's other projects?

I vaguely remember (don't know what the project was) there was a case like this in the relatively recent past (not saying it had anything to do with this site or any parties working on it).

Just checking.........otherwise it is one super photorealistic rendering!!

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Nothing gets me more, though, than the campaign (replete with flyer-distributed propaganda containing laughably huge lies) against the California/Milwaukee development in Logan Square.

To be fair, I've heard some very, shall we say, interesting things about how Enrico Plati (the developer) does business. I am all for that development, but let's just say Plati has a similar reputation to Proco Joe, the snuff dippingest of all the upstanding aldermen patronizing your local nightclub.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Looks very Ralph Johnson...

It's actually from Hartshorne, believe it or not.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Sure I can. You could've gone in there with the slickest rendering of the best design ever and the comments would've been the same. Nothing in the article indicates that things would have played out differently.

^ I'm going to have to side with the East Lakeview Neighbors on this.

That project is too dense and doesn't have enough parking. The neighborhood is already congested, and there is no place to park. There is no damn parking. No parking is wrong, and it really makes my blood boil.

Not only that, but the lack of parking really makes me mad. This building needs about two times the amount of parking and about 1/4 the amount of proposed units. Actually, it should be turned into a park, but a park that has PARKING.

I think we also need to discuss children. Children are dying in the city. Do you want more children to die? If that building is built as planned, there will be too much congestion and children will die. Every day. And it will be the developer's fault. Shame on the city for allowing the death of children.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ Wow. That firm (not that I ever thought they were outright bad or anything - although they've had projects in the past which were not good) has dramatically stepped up its game over the past several years! Also, this would seem to answer my question re actual rendering for this particular project, as I sure do not think they've done this before!

What a great reminder (just as in the Contemporaine) that concrete is an exterior facade material best left unpainted.

By the way - speaking of that A+++ building, it's reminding me how distressing this current Chicago energy code is for new construction. The fact that it (Contemporaine), and (as a post a couple weeks back indicated) 600 N Fairbanks (another of my absolute favorites from the past 20+ years) likely could not be built exactly as they were today under the new code. Huge thanks to Pilsenarch I think for brining that issue to light......something most be done about it, because clearly it's a naive ordinance when it comes to modern glass, no? Chicago has such a large and well established and connected (I hope all are still true!) architectural and design community that I would hope a lobbying effort could bring about the necessary changes to the code......could it get organized a little to do this??

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ Don't get me wrong, I'm not rooting for the NIMBYs or anything - far from it, but I just actually am almost physiologically incapable of getting worked up over any type of opposition to a Sedgwick Properties proposal. They previously soiled the skylines of the South Loop and Lakeview so horrifically that I can barely shrug my shoulders over this (I'm not joking - it's completely involuntary). Marty Paris + Mark McKinney = The absolute worst we have in development and design in Chicago - and that's a full stop.

[wierdaaron]

Apparently the student housing conversion in the Old Colony + Plymouth building will be called Arc at Old Colony. PG is the designing architect.

I'm going to try to contact McHugh about a photo tour and maybe some renders. We've never dealt with them directly at Curbed, so if someone has a PR contact that would be helpful. I'll try a public contact if not.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Apparently the student housing conversion in the Old Colony + Plymouth building will be called Arc at Old Colony. PG is the designing architect.

I'm going to try to contact McHugh about a photo tour and maybe some renders. We've never dealt with them directly at Curbed, so if someone has a PR contact that would be helpful. I'll try a public contact if not.

I have a contact with the developer. PM me...

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

To be fair, I've heard some very, shall we say, interesting things about how Enrico Plati (the developer) does business. I am all for that development, but let's just say Plati has a similar reputation to Proco Joe, the snuff dippingest of all the upstanding aldermen patronizing your local nightclub.

Sure, but that's irrelevant to the sentiments of the neighborhood residents that I have concerns about. Regardless of the developer's shady connections and political wrangling, people are still going to say ridiculous shit like, "5 stories is too tall."

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

...I'm still trying to figure out what the extra thick slabs are for though.

Easy. Fabulousness.