HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 1:50 AM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,509
Let's hope they can find a way everyone wins and Prism can still develop a decent project. I think what irks me the most is the idea that the building will be completely gutted to become a parking garage. Keep this facade functional, gut the interior perhaps but reuse it as your classy office space.
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 1:55 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,061
Agreed. Can't they build the Ritz Carlton Residences somewhere else in the neighborhood? Hopefully, better designed too.

There are surface lots and smaller, ugly buildings nearby. State and Chestnut has a damn surface lot in the heart of the Gold Coast.
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 2:48 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...,1,7718719,print.story?coll=chi-news-hed

An actual landmark decision

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic

January 4, 2007, 5:52 PM CST

Pigs flew. When Chicago's landmarks commission stiffened its spine Thursday and throttled a plan for a spectacularly ill-conceived act of architectural taxidermy, the vote was a stunner.

Members of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks typically act like the old Soviet parliament and do what the Daley administration tells them to do. But four brave commission members heeded the warning of historic preservationists who argued, correctly, that approving the plan would set a horrible precedent.
Wow. This really is amazing. The commission votes independently and Kamin is right on the money!

The part about only 65% of the facade being preserved is what really kills me. This is a developer that truly thinks it can get away with murder. Perhaps this is what is so different between this scenario and the McGraw building - and the parking garage bit too, of course.
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 3:00 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,946
One of the Tribune article's as a different image of the building


Look at those lovely 6 floors of parking facing Michigan Avenue.
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 3:51 AM
wholehog's Avatar
wholehog wholehog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 4:01 AM
pip's Avatar
pip pip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,561
Hopefully this is the turning point. Enough of this crap.

Thank you Chicago's Landmarks Commission .
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 4:16 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by wholehog View Post
That was the best account of a Landmarks Commission meeting I've ever read! But in real life, they're even more hilarious. I really recommend going some day, if you haven't been, especially when it's controversial and Natarus is going to speak. It's free and funnier than Second City.

This quote from Jennifer's Blog really explains the whole thing.

"But, one surprising detail leaked out -- they were spending only $5 million dollars on the deconstructing and reapplying the facade -- an amount so low in construction circles that it began to seem like it wouldn't be that hard to find a better choice for protecting the landmark -- despite all the blowharding about how few economic options face the 80-year old building. (That, to me, was especially not credible given the building's prime location.)"

Pretty sickening. Just pure greed, if you ask me.
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 4:38 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Closeted Normie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 12,968
Man, after seeing this rendering I've made up my mind. This building is a dog. I gave it the benefit of the doubt in that sepia toned render, as it looked moderately graceful from that perspective and hinted at decent massing and materials.

This design just doesn't say Ritz-Carlton to me. Even the Omni next door, for what it is and was at the time it was designed, has more style going on than this project. I'd like to see a total redesign. If they are going neo-traditional, fine, go all out and do a decent job at it, much like the Elysian. But, I'd personally like to see something play off the limestone Parisian-like Farwell with something cutting edge modern—graceful, dark and slick. I also think they should push the height up on this one, maybe more slender as well.

Just a thought:

__________________
Everything new is old again

Sic semper tyrannis
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 5:22 AM
Jaroslaw's Avatar
Jaroslaw Jaroslaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Seoul
Posts: 1,792
I'm glad, and I wonder what those three who voted FOR were thinking? A garage facing the most prestigious stretch of street in Chicago??? Unimaginable!

I seem to recall that the 520 N Mich (McGraw Hill) facade reconstruction was 15-20 mil, and that was only one face of a building, and it was seven years ago. (Although they do claim it was "the largest facade reconstruction in America", so maybe it's hard to compare?)
__________________
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam

Last edited by Jaroslaw; Jan 5, 2007 at 5:36 AM.
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 5:27 AM
Eventually...Chicago Eventually...Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 450
Canal & Milwaukee & Lake

I was wondering if anyone here had heard anything about a building proposed for the site to the NE of this interesection. It is right at the river split. Right now there is parking and tracks there.

I am still researching it to try to get some more info, but I know Hines Development using Pickard Chilton again, has done a design for an office building for this site. My memory tells me that the building was 40+ stories with a plaza and riverwalk spanning over the tracks. The building was, last i heard, to be built on spec and a year or two out from moving forward.

I was just wondering if i was on to something or if everyone already knew about this.

I'll see what i can find. Sorry for so much speculation.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world"- Frank Lloyd Wright

"A Chicago man knows he has a mission to accomplish in the world."- Pierre De Coubertin
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 5:30 AM
pip's Avatar
pip pip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,561
All this highrise growth is great in a bragging sort of way on the Internet but in reality many dog buildings are being built - The 4+1's, just taller, of this time period. A housing slowdown is needed to get a grip on what is being destroyed and the parking structures galore being buillt. There is a truth to 'quality over quantity'. How many highrises constructed in the 60's, 70's and 80's look like crap. Yes it was exciting when they were being built but look at the end result. We are sadly repeating history. I'm even disappointed with MoMo on State Street. The concept is great and the building looks great in renderings but the white plastic panels all over the building look like shit.

Thanks again, The Chicago Landmarks Commission. Keep it up. Glad to see someone had standards.
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 5:49 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago View Post
I was wondering if anyone here had heard anything about a building proposed for the site to the NE of this interesection. It is right at the river split. Right now there is parking and tracks there.

I am still researching it to try to get some more info, but I know Hines Development using Pickard Chilton again, has done a design for an office building for this site. My memory tells me that the building was 40+ stories with a plaza and riverwalk spanning over the tracks. The building was, last i heard, to be built on spec and a year or two out from moving forward.

I was just wondering if i was on to something or if everyone already knew about this.

I'll see what i can find. Sorry for so much speculation.
I asked about the development about 2 months ago at a Friends of Downtown meeting on 300 N. LaSalle. Yes, the same architects are being retained for the project. I was told at that time, they were thinking on the scale of 300 N. LaSalle. I told them that was too short for that site This will be looking straight east down the main branch where the 3 branches of the river converge. With that parcel and Wolf Point it would be amazing.

By the way 1600 Museum Park is now OFFICIALLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION as of yesterday 01/03/07.

This is the first construction start of 2007.

I wonder if the first highrise in this country to start???
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 6:02 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip View Post
I'm even disappointed with MoMo on State Street. The concept is great and the building looks great in renderings but the white plastic panels all over the building look like shit.
I think it's too early to judge MoMo - there's still a lot of protective plastic on it and the facade is only on the lower portions of the building.
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 6:07 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,646
Why doesn't the Ritz just tear this one down?

Leave the Landmarks alone.
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 6:12 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip View Post
I'm even disappointed with MoMo on State Street. The concept is great and the building looks great in renderings but the white plastic panels all over the building look like shit.
Dude, I think the white plastic on MoMo makes it look kinda futuristic.
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 6:22 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ Is it plastic, or glass that has been rear-painted like the Sofitel? I thought the latter; haven't seen it in a while though.
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 8:02 AM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
That was the best account of a Landmarks Commission meeting I've ever read! But in real life, they're even more hilarious. I really recommend going some day, if you haven't been, especially when it's controversial and Natarus is going to speak. It's free and funnier than Second City.

This quote from Jennifer's Blog really explains the whole thing.

"But, one surprising detail leaked out -- they were spending only $5 million dollars on the deconstructing and reapplying the facade -- an amount so low in construction circles that it began to seem like it wouldn't be that hard to find a better choice for protecting the landmark -- despite all the blowharding about how few economic options face the 80-year old building. (That, to me, was especially not credible given the building's prime location.)"

Pretty sickening. Just pure greed, if you ask me.
Yup, I was there, and shocked just as much. I thought for sure this one would have been sadley approved. Back to the drawing board now, hopefully with something worthy of that site. The damn parking ratio was nearly 1 units to 3 spaces on this building, absolutley absurd on any building downtown, luxury or not. LaGrange mentioned that 15 spaces per floor could be squeezed into the tower while not using the Farwell building, the extra footprint brings that number up to 28 spaces per floor. He said parking would have to be bumped up to 12 floors of usage without the Farwell. Can you believe it? 12 floors for of parking for only 89 units, re-friggen-diculas. Reduce the damn ratio, and redesign the building. I hope to be impressed the next time this project goes on public display.

The Farwell is in bad shape though, and no one denies that, However the structural frame is in good condition, so only the facade is in need of total striping and repair, no need for complete demolition, except to save a few bucks with more efficent parking. If they want more floor space in the units, design a modern building with a cantilevered south facade. I don't want to hear the "cost prohibitive" bullshit, this building is fetching the second hieghest condo prices ever in Chicago history per sqaure foot. That CAN afford to do better.

The Farwell was value engineered back in the day, only 4 inch limestone panals through out, poor shelf angle support, bad laterial bracing, and very poor wall construction normally used to anchor the heavy stone. Usually this is constructed of solid masonry durring this age, however hollow terra cotta fire block, giving it very litttle stability for any tie backs. Therefore, the facade can not be saved through stabalization, it must be removed and completly rebult both interior and exterior.
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 8:06 AM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
The only other remote possibility that would set them apart is if John Buck had worked out something with Landmarks as a negotiation, if he already knew he was planning to tear McGraw-Hill down. This may have caused them to specifically write in that only the facade was protected, but I have no recollection of this formality.
Yes, that is exactley waht happened, and was mentioned today at the meeting. John Buck worked out a deal with the city in order to demolish the building. As a result the facade was landmarked in the process, but destine to be re-inserted on a new structure with very strict stipulations on the process. McGraw-Hill was not a landmark building before the John Buck transaction, that is why this is different than Farwell, which is a designated landmark building.
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 10:44 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Not sure there's anything new in here, but it provides an overview of K Station.


Building exec looks to the future of market

http://www.suntimes.com/classifieds/homes/homelife/197946,HOF-News-digest05c.article

January 5, 2007

BY BILL CUNNIFF Real Estate Reporter
In the residential real estate industry, the lag time from project inception to completion is about two years, and the time frame is even longer for larger developments. So builders have to anticipate the future of the market.

Steven Fifield, chairman of Fifield Companies, a national developer of high-rise condominiums and rental apartments, has developed a forecast for the new year.

Here are six trends he predicts will shape the market in 2007:


The over/under on supply

Industry experts agree that the positive market conditions and abundance of available credit two years ago resulted in the current oversupply of housing in most markets. In fact, in October the national housing inventory reached its highest level since 1993.

Fifield said that this oversupply will cause many developers to limit construction starts in the new year. But his company instead is planning to ramp up in 2007 to take advantage of what he predicts will be the resulting undersupplied market by 2009.

"It's easy to exaggerate the state of the housing market by comparing quarter to quarter and year to year. But construction is a long process, and we have to look farther out," Fifield said.

"With so many builders canceling or postponing projects in reaction to the current oversupply, we see the pendulum swinging the other way to low inventory in the next two or three years -- at which time we'll just be delivering on the projects we begin today," he said.


The urban village

While the majority of residential growth in past decades has been in suburban areas, Fifield said many of today's home buyers want to simplify their busy lives by purchasing in an "urban village" where they can reside, wor play.
"We'll continue to see significant population growth in major cities as buyers embrace the convenience of having shopping, restaurants and the arts at their fingertips," he said.

Fifield noted his company is focusing on high-density urban developments that combine the elements buyers want in their homes as well as the surrounding neighborhood.

"Over the next five years, we'll be developing an 8-acre master-planned community in downtown Chicago that will include 2,400 residential units, a new city park, a grocery store and other retail businesses, as well as a location near public transportation and a major expressway," he said. "It's a great model of the lifestyle today's buyers want."


Cream of the housing crop

In today's more restrained real estate market, Fifield predicts developers who focus on the ultra-luxury condominium niche in 2007 will continue to prosper.
"While there may be an overall downturn in the market, buildings that attract wealthy buyers who are more concerned about lifestyle than mortgage rates and price will continue to do well," he said.


A new lease on luxury

The luxury rental market is another area of opportunity for developers in 2007, according to Fifield, with recent data from the National Association of Homebuilders showing demand for upscale rental units reached its highest level on record in 2006.
"Rental occupancy levels are at 98 percent in downtown Chicago, so there's a growing need for additional rental units," he said.

Fifield Companies recently completed construction at Left Bank at K Station, a 37-story apartment building at 300 N. Canal in the West Loop. First occupancies began in November. Near North Properties is overseeing leasing for the high-rise.

The apartment tower has 451 units. Monthly rents range from $990 to $2,724. Eighteen floor plans include studio, 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom layouts. Sizes range from 442 to 1,738 square feet. Units have 1 to 3 baths. Parking for 360 cars is in an adjoining six-story structure. The building also includes a club room, a business center, a fitness center and a terrace.

"Left Bank at K Station anchors the east end of a fast-emerging neighborhood north of the Fulton River District, near the bend of the Chicago River," Fifield said.

The high-rise is the company's second of seven planned apartment high-rises just west of the Loop.

It's the first of six buildings Fifield Companies is developing within a new 2,400-unit master-planned development.

"Many Left Bank residents are people who can afford to purchase a condo, but they prefer the lifestyle, amenities and flexibility of living in a high-end rental property," said Rick Cavenaugh, president of Fifield Companies.

Fifield's first apartment high-rise in the neighborhood was 180 N. Jefferson, which was completed in 2005. Its third rental high-rise in the area will be the 39-story Allure at K Station, which recently broke ground.


Hotel-style amenities

In the high-end luxury market, Fifield said home buyers are searching for a lifestyle as much as they are a dwelling. The result is a trend toward condos offering hotel-style amenities that free up time and add convenience to busy lives.


Renewed focus on design

As home buyers have more choices available to them in the current market, Fifield predicts architecture and design will become a key point of differentiation among high-end developments. "With so many homes on the market, luxury buyers can afford to be choosy," he said. "The most successful new developments will be those buildings that become modern-day landmarks and the most sought-after addresses in their respective markets."
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2007, 3:34 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,340
Quote:
Can you believe it? 12 floors for of parking for only 89 units, re-friggen-diculas.
I talked about this on the Trump tower thread, but I think we are going to look back and find the current fad of the parking garage podium to be a pox upon our city.
It doesn't matter if there's a tower on top or not, the pedestrian is still walking past a parking garage. To me, parking garages should be torn down, not rebuilt in a glorified, on steroids fashion. A parking podium is akin to an urban sprawl strip mall. It's short sighted and wasteful.

And we should be discouraging car ownership in the city core, not enabling it. When every planned development is built and occupied, what are people going to do with their car when the street is bumper to bumper? The buildings being built today are going to stand for at least 100 years. What are we going to do with parking podiums when we're not driving cars anymore?
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:52 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.