916 W Fulton Market - Time Out Market
 

December 6, 2019

345 N Morgan
 

December 6, 2019

Duhhhh - tyvm

Is 1001 W Fulton using real Chicago common brick? I assumed that the solid vertical crack in the middle of the brick indicated these are pre-fab panels. But maybe they are panels of reclaimed Chicago brick? I thought there are imitations out there too.

It's common brick of some kind - it seems a little dark for Chicago common, but that could just be a film left over from the dark mortar that will come off when they clean it.

It appears to be real brick. The "vertical cracks" are control joints to account for movement in the steel frame of the facade. You have to do that when you use brick as a veneer like this. Old school Chicago common brick walls are usually mass walls, so they don't need control joints.

However - it appears they are using more control joints than they actually need, so this would be a design choice to give the facade a more "tectonic" appearance and clearly indicate that it's not really a vintage building.

Solar posted photos of 345 N Morgan being demolished. Yesterday they got the permit issued officially.

As a reminder this is going to be an 11 story office building - I believe Google will take it as part of their expansion. Commission approved it in September:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EE2IhQ7X...jpg&name=large

I thought that was the CN Tower on the left side of that for a second...

Personally I think that's great. I absolutely love how it's pushed right up against the track right of way. About as urban as it gets.

Was wondering when this day would come. Probably a future redevelopment:

ALA Announces Sale of Headquarters Buildings

American Library Association (ALA) President Wanda Kay Brown and Executive Director Mary Ghikas announced on December 6 that ALA has sold its headquarters buildings at 50 E. Huron and 40 E. Huron Street in Chicago’s River North neighborhood.

I don't think this will look good. The glass is too close to plane of the masonry and will be too reflective to allow the brick to have the bigger presence on the facade. As long as they're doing something ersatz-Romanesque, why not go all the way and make that conceit part of the look?

It would look better as a knowing copy than as something actually trying to pass for an original...

Moving the glass inward would result in a loss of leasable square footage. That's why office buildings generally don't have deeply incised facades.

In much of Fulton Market there is landmarks review that would insist on a more three-dimensional facade treatment and a finer scale to the glazing, but the 345 N. Morgan site lies just outside the landmark district so Sterling Bay didn't have to go through any design review.

Not unexpected. In light of those restrictions, then, make more allusions to history, rather than making a botched facsimile. This thing looks to be right at the very bottom of the uncanny valley of history-referential architecture.

I'm sad about this because the guy who watched my cat when I traveled works for the ALA. I no longer have a cat (RIP Peekaboo), but if I wanted to get another I'd have to find someone else to watch her when I travel if the ALA moves far from its current home.

That said, while he has mixed feelings over the sale, I think he's more excited about someplace new than trepid about leaving the sold buildings so I hope he likes their new home wherever that is.

Oh, I don't disagree. But there might be more going on here than what is apparent at first brush. The masonry looks like it will have lots of variation and sort of a rugged/rustic texture, which could be nice.

Also, I see now that those large expanses of glass are actually broken up very faintly - I'm guessing those are structural silicone joints, which will be a lot more prominent in real life than in this rendering. That might actually be an improvement.

Actually, if you click through the slideshow on Sterling Bay's website, there's a lot of nice brickwork detail especially at ground level:
https://www.sterlingbay.com/property/345-north-morgan

I thought Gr333n would be a disappointment, too, but the curtain wall system ended up having a lot of depth and texture so I'll give SB the benefit of the doubt for now.

-

Could not agree more. Not at all a fan of 345 N Morgan design. To me it has a 1000 Fultonesque look, which is not a good thing. That reno/adaptive reuse project has always felt chintzy to me. What's infuriating about the very apparent aesthetic cheapness of these buildings is that these are entirely/primarily occupied by GOOG, which has a market capitalization nearing $1T. That company could very obviously not only demand these buildings are designed to some quite good standard, but to the very highest practical standard. They either don't care, or intentionally choose very weak design sauce here. Would expect much more from Google, but perhaps I shouldn't.

True. If the brickwork is done well, it will help. But again, even if laid super tight and with rich, intricate patterning, it won't be able to stand up against those expanses of windows (which will undoubtedly be visually dense with reflections).


Yes, 1K Fulton is a bit of car crash to me (the emblem of which being those weird pier stumps at the base of the otherwise nice-looking annex to the west).

Google likely has close to zero influence in the matter (nor do I think they care about making any statements with a regional office). I think it's all driven by whatever people will think will draw the tenants to the buildings (so, the interior and associated amenities), the decisions of which are made closer to the headwaters of the capital that's funding the project (so, in some cases, probably not even the architect).
There's probably something to be said for making a building distinctively attractive enough to draw a certain type of leasing client, but I don't know what level that is.

I wonder how much importance a building makes to a company's brand, anyway. Certainly with conspicuous and iconic towers, yeah, but not with something like 345 Morgan. A company could make occupying 'good' architecture part of their identity, but they would have to be happy doing it for themselves -- it doesn't have enough visibility or immediacy to be used as a selling point.

Completely agree as well on the base of the annex. Bizarre choice that is.

I mostly disagree on your point about Google having close to zero influence. A huge corporate taking down an entire (or even a substantial majority) building - whether it is or started out as a spec project, and not bts - let alone one with the balance sheet of a Google can have virtually as much influence as they want to wield. Developers of spec/investment buildings will often bend over backwards to have a tenant of this caliber fill their building. If a tenant like this is into your project/location, and appears willing to sign a 10 year lease for 75-100% of the building, but they have lots of options, and are speaking with other developers, and would like to change/add x, y, z to your building, you're going to give them at least a lot of what they want to see in x, y, and z. Now, this gets to the point you make immediately after - that Google or many other large corporates - may not really care that much. That could very well be the case, and I'm sure in many instances it sadly is the case. Maybe I'm just being idealistic in expecting more of some of these otherwise image-conscious corporates.....

Going to see the "Debasement" of the Quaker Oats building tonight. Wife's holiday party is a pre-opening event at RPM on the River. Will report back maybe with pics...