CHICAGO: boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v4

[Monkey36]

Originally Posted by Pandemonious

^^^^I can see that site from my balcony. Unless they are on the FAR east side of the site, which for me is blocked by the UniTrin Bldg, I don't see anything or anyone over there. If they were demolishing that smaller building to the east, I wouldn't be able to see it from here though.

It was about 7:30 this morning and the buldozer was parked on the south end of the site but they guys were standing on the street that runs between there and 1 e wacker next to the gate (which was open).

[aaron38]

Great LSE/Streeterville set there Adrian.

[Eventually...Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Pardon my ignorance, but what are you referring to when you mention 'Tower IV'?

Sorry, my bad. I really meant museum park west. Tower IV is another building in that complex.

The realtor in the sales center told me the developer has put this project on hold until their inventory of new units was reduced. I was just wondering if it was in "Site Prep/Demo" for a reason.

[Monkey36]

Blurb from "Ward races zone in on development plans" in Trib.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0702090274feb09,1,2969525.story?coll=chi-news-hed

In the 43rd Ward, where the debate over gentrification has raged along the lakefront for three decades, a plan to replace the shuttered Columbus Hospital with an upscale condo tower has been a hot topic in the campaign.
"We don't need a 36- to 38-story high-rise" at the edge of Lincoln Park, said Michele Smith, a former federal prosecutor and one of four challengers to Ald. Vi Daley, who joined the council in 1999.
"The alderman doesn't take leadership on development in the ward," said Smith, 51. "Lincoln Park has resisted efforts at becoming so dense."
Daley, 63, said plans for the high-rise on the hospital site were bigger until she stepped in.
"This has had plenty of community input over 18 months, including two public meetings," she explained. "The people who were most affected were involved."

[honte]

^ I actually agree that Daley has done a poor job controling development in Lincoln Park. She hasn't done enough to steer development in the area overall, with all the junk condos being built and McMansions destroying the wonderful fabric near DePaul by replacing historic buildings.

Ironically, it's the the high-rise that seems to be the point of contention - one of the only balanced developments in the area.

[DANTHEDISCOMAN]

Just an obesrvation: It seems quite a few of the construction sites have been working with skeleton crews ever since this cold snap set in and I know for sure that Marriot Suites and 550 St Clair have not poured concrete in almost two weeks and both sites have not had any crane activity either...so is it too cold to pour concrete (I know concrete generates heat but is there a point when it can't because of the severe cold) or just too cold for liability reasons to have a full construction crew out in this dangerous weather?

[DANTHEDISCOMAN]

Glashaus.

Visited the Sales center that opened this weekend judging by the previous renderings and the model, it looks like it will be another fine addition to the S. Loop.





15-20% were already sold before the sales center opened this weekend. Not bad at all, hope she gets built!

[SamInTheLoop]

Thanks for posting these. Looks very nice. I had read that they are going for a very unique look to the glass on this one...

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by DANTHEDISCOMAN

Just an obesrvation: It seems quite a few of the construction sites have been working with skeleton crews ever since this cold snap set in and I know for sure that Marriot Suites and 550 St Clair have not poured concrete in almost two weeks and both sites have not had any crane activity either...so is it too cold to pour concrete (I know concrete generates heat but is there a point when it can't because of the severe cold) or just too cold for liability reasons to have a full construction crew out in this dangerous weather?

I'm not sure, but hats off to the workers who have been out there all day long during the last week - most people just wouldn't be able to do that...

[SamInTheLoop]

In the Sunday Tribune, Blair Kamin offers an assessment of the current state of the building boom - he gives it mixed reviews. I think he has largely redeemed himself with this one (after imo a long series of sub-par critiques and commentaries), as I really do agree with most of his opinions. I want to point out what may be a very telling indicator on how the standard of architecture and urban design downtown has dramatically approved in just a few short years - Kamin offers up Left Bank at K Station as one of the biggest RECENT disappointments from the boom. (fyi - he infers that its high-profile location has something to do with its selection). I generally agree that this tower could have and should have been better, and I think his critique of it is pretty solid. But consider - what would the worst offenders have been just 3 0r 4 short years ago: the list would be huge imo - and the buildings were considerably worse than Left Bank - you could go on and on listing them - Grand Plaza, Park Millennium, the early Museum Park towers, countless examples in River North - many of them smaller Low-end-burg designs, etc. Now, of course we have much more progress to make as far as overall design quality, but there can be no doubt that major positive strides have been made over the last few years...

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I had read that [Brininstool + Lynch] are going for a very unique look [for Glashaus]

This actually worries me quite a bit. What they want to do is vary the opacity of the glass along each floor, but in a random fashion.

Now that's striking, it's different, it's avant-garde, it's gutsy, it's cool, etc., etc. What I'm worried it won't be is timeless. I'm worried that 20 years from now it will look just as goofy as the late-60s stuff done with random fenestration, none of which are things we admire today. With the possible exception of Sofitel Water Tower, I can't think of any building anywhere in the world with random exterior patterning that has worn well and is still admired 20 years after construction.

[honte]

^ Many of us, myself included, do admire those 1960s buildings.

A lot of what's going on in the architecture world these days will definitely be tomorrow's kitsch, but I am not sure many people care. I'd gladly trade a stale PoMo tower for something stylish, even if it's only in vogue for a few years.

On another note, The Streeter's roof has been lit, and it looks quite nice, if nothing too exciting.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

In the Sunday Tribune, Blair Kamin offers an assessment of the current state of the building boom - he gives it mixed reviews. I think he has largely redeemed himself with this one (after imo a long series of sub-par critiques and commentaries), as I really do agree with most of his opinions. I want to point out what may be a very telling indicator on how the standard of architecture and urban design downtown has dramatically approved in just a few short years - Kamin offers up Left Bank at K Station as one of the biggest RECENT disappointments from the boom. (fyi - he infers that its high-profile location has something to do with its selection). I generally agree that this tower could have and should have been better, and I think his critique of it is pretty solid. But consider - what would the worst offenders have been just 3 0r 4 short years ago: the list would be huge imo - and the buildings were considerably worse than Left Bank - you could go on and on listing them - Grand Plaza, Park Millennium, the early Museum Park towers, countless examples in River North - many of them smaller Low-end-burg designs, etc. Now, of course we have much more progress to make as far as overall design quality, but there can be no doubt that major positive strides have been made over the last few years...

But what was up with the end of the article? I was dumbfounded when he seemed to congratulate P/H for the Allure! Left Bank isn't pretty, but I think I would rather have that than Allure.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Many of us, myself included, do admire those 1960s buildings.

Name one with random fenestration that you admire . . .

[honte]

^ There are buildings all over the city with features like this that I like - many of them are not high-rises. I'll start trying to make a note of them as I see them, but the first thing that comes to mind (I'm going to really take a blow for saying this) is the building at St. Clair and Ohio. It was done in the late 1950s by Barancik - Conte. I think it's awful and really great at once. Not necessarily a preservation fight, but worth photographing...

Another that comes to mind is that crazy tower on the N. side of the Eisenhower, somewhere around Addison. I don't know who designed that one.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Many of us, myself included, do admire those 1960s buildings.

A lot of what's going on in the architecture world these days will definitely be tomorrow's kitsch, but I am not sure many people care. I'd gladly trade a stale PoMo tower for something stylish, even if it's only in vogue for a few years.

On another note, The Streeter's roof has been lit, and it looks quite nice, if nothing too exciting.

Couldn't have said that better myself - I would easily take a visually interesting and unique building that you could roughly guess when it was built than a tower of timeless banality

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

This actually worries me quite a bit. What they want to do is vary the opacity of the glass along each floor, but in a random fashion.

Now that's striking, it's different, it's avant-garde, it's gutsy, it's cool, etc., etc. What I'm worried it won't be is timeless. I'm worried that 20 years from now it will look just as goofy as the late-60s stuff done with random fenestration, none of which are things we admire today. With the possible exception of Sofitel Water Tower, I can't think of any building anywhere in the world with random exterior patterning that has worn well and is still admired 20 years after construction.

I must say that I am not one of the admirers of those 60's buildings. Personally 90% of those towers along Sheridan Road could be demolished and i wouldn't shed a tear. The good thing about the glass is that it can be easily replaced. I think that it could be tasteful, but I do think that the developers should release renderings expressing their vision of what the articulated opaqueness could look like. Those those goofy 60's buildings are unfortunately going to be around for a much longer time.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by honte

Another that comes to mind is that crazy tower on the N. side of the Eisenhower, somewhere around Addison. I don't know who designed that one.

you must be talking about the lovely brookwood tower out along the lake street extension in wood dale.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by honte

the building at St. Clair and Ohio

I remember that as a checkerboard fenestration pattern, not random. The 70s residential building you see near the 290 Extension in Itasca is asymmetric and irregular, but not random.

[Steely Dan]

What about weese's metropolitan correctional center? i'd say the pattern of the window slits appears to be fairly random, and that is certainly a highly regarded structure, at least within the architectural community.