Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1
Hardly ignoring instead of trying to be concise enough that this thread doesn't go completely off track.
|
Ok, but then why did you bring up civic improvement projects when talking about a medium/smallish private development? The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Quote:
The interconnectivity (both in terms of function and formal execution) of it leaves a lot to be desired but it's still a hugely popular place.
|
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean considering Millennium Park is more or less completely connected to the city on three sides and has bridges further connecting it on the one side that isn't completely connected and one directly connecting the park to the Art Institute. Short of skybridges directly into the Michigan Ave Streetwall I don't know how you can get much more connected especially considering it is built on top of parking garages and a rail station.
Quote:
In fact, while NYC pumps out human-scaled/micro-stores, unique one-of-a-kind shops en masse across most boroughs, Chicago is happy to push out blah projects such as Block 37, the Roosevelt Collection and the eventual destruction of Prentice as a sign of "progress".
|
I know you are supposedly from here, but it sounds to me like you haven't ever been here or have never left downtown. Chicago has "human-scaled/micro-stores, unique one of a kind shops" slathered across the entire North and Northwest sides. Apparently you've never been to Wicker Park, Lincoln Park, Andersonville, Lincoln Square, Roscoe Village, Logan Square or any of the other numerous neighborhoods that are filled to the brim with such stores. These aren't just old "legacy" areas that have always been like that either, Andersonville, for example, has gone from 0-60 in the past few years as what used to be a pretty decent neighborhood retail strip has exploded into a city-wide destination lined with great restaurants, boutiques, and bars. So not only is your implication that Chicago somehow lacks such things incorrect, but the city is actively adding such districts at a pretty impressive pace. It's even starting to spill into areas I thought could never see such things such as Broadway in Edgewater which is a street I thought was doomed to automobile hell for all eternity.
Also, as if NYC hasn't had it's fair share of banal projects and crimes against preservation recently. Just look at all those shitty hotels being slapped up all over the city by that one chintzy developer or the impending destruction of TWBT's American Folk Art Museum. At least we let Prentice stand for nearly 40 years here in Chicago before throwing it in the trash.
Quote:
I'm also not sure why the Meatpacking District is the example you chose to pick for NYC. Maybe its because you only know this city as a tourist?
|
I chose Meatpacking because it is the most directly analogous district in NYC to the West Loop here in Chicago. My entire post was on how you keep comparing completely different things and then drawing inaccurate conclusions as a result, so why would I be like "yeah, Wrigleyville is actually more like Midtown" or something equally absurd when my entire point is that Wrigleyville is absolutely nothing like any part of the entire island of Manhattan. You might be able to compare it to Barclays center in Brooklyn, but even then you are comparing a brand new basketball arena surrounded by new development to an ancient ballpark nestled in a neighborhood.
And, for the record, I've been in NYC for over a month already this year and have been working on projects related to Soho House so I've been spending a lot of time in Meatpacking (though I refuse to pay Meatpacking hotel rates, so I've been staying in Brooklyn either at hotels or with my cousins who live there).
Quote:
So, to steer this back on message, what about the Wrigley Field plans do you like and don't like?
|
I personally don't really have any major issues with the plans that have been released so far. I have some minor nit picks like thinking the skybridge is probably a bad idea, but the plans have turned out better than I had feared so far. I'm actually impressed that they shot down the idea of that parking garage and frankly can live with everything else if they at least go with a decent design.
My biggest fear is that they are going to release renders showing a neo-classical monstrosity justified by some lame "respecting what is already here" bullshit. Wrigley Field is a modernist building, plain and simple. People might not recognize it, but the ballpark is all "form follows function" and really a piece of structural expressionism to a certain degrees. IF the Ricketts propose some beige garbage it will be an insult to the design of Wrigley, not a complement. I think the addition should be radically modern and complement Wrigley, not ape it. For example, I could see the triangle building being a wedge of highly reflective glass that would produce mirrored images of Wrigley on the side that faces the ballpark. Reflective glass would also keep the space between the new building and the field from feeling cramped or closed in.