CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[a chicago bearcat]

Originally Posted by headcase

Take that back! That is a great building, in fact like like the '86 tower alot more that than the '15 base. In fact it's the juxtaposition that makes the whole greater than either of it's parts.

SSDD

I disagree

you can have juxtaposition that complements the new and old
but this is not a some of the parts scenario
this building is 99% new
with the old tacked on to appease preservation
there are a few proposals out there that are not about the juxtaposition of old and new, but how the new can use the old to benefit itself

give a building some goddamn room if it's historic
this preserves a skin without the body,
like wearing gator boots and saying
"it's a testament to the everlasting beauty of the wild alligator"

I appreciate pappageorge haymes not encroaching on the footprint of the YWCA building on Michigan avenue with the footprint of the new tower.
but
this is a gut of the existing that does not preserve the historic lobby,
or any of the interiors, the equivalent of stuffing a cat
no guts just skin
and the stuffing is partly parking, but thankfully mostly condos

on the other hand we have the projects at 29-39 south Lasalle
and the Ritz Carlton on Michigan avenue
these two projects involve building in the footprint of a landmarked building
the farwell building we are all familiar with, but what puts the icing on the cake is that the ritz carlton takes up part of the farwells original footprint
and the entirety of it's volume to include parking
a terrible sentence for a "landmarked" building
simply blasphemous

29-39 Lasalle is just as guilty,
while they won't be tearing down the Monroe-Lasalle building
or filling it's interior with parking

the footprint of this new tower, and it's supports,
come down into the center of the Monroe-Lasalle building
obliterating it's lavishly decorated lobby
one of the defining aspects of it's importance to the tapestry and history
that makes this the greatest architectural city in the world

on this website something happens quite commonly

people get overexcited about the impact of a building on our skyline,
without looking at the scars it will be tearing in the world we,
the inhabitants of the city
have to live within
there are many open sites in this city
many prime locations for development of new structures
but the site of an existing historic landmark,
or a built upon site in a "landmark" district
are sacred grounds

I put forth this question

if I was to buy up 13 adjacent sites
in the Alta Vista Terrace Landmark district
tore down everything but the facades of the existing townhomes,
and built a 14 story condo tower, with first three floors parking
would this respect the district
is the "feel" we always talk about of a neighborhood
simply the skin you can touch
there's something deeper
it's the wolf in sheeps clothing

(it is true that there are some structural questions at hand with the YWCA and the farwell building, but as kamin said, opening the floodgates by allowing a neglected landmark to be torn down just mean the assholes who would tear it down in the first place, will neglect the building, find a structural engineer to deem it unstable by todays standards,

can anyone say LOOPHOLE?

also, there are precedents for the reconstruction of historic interiors
maybe saving the most grand and noteworthy interiors of a landmark
I had always assumed a landmark was a materpiece of it's time
being in architecture school we learn that you design spaces
as well as the exterior of a building
to say only the exterior of a building is important
is to miss what makes a good building truly good
you don't spend 70% of your lives looking at the facade of a building
you spend it inside, you are taken aback as much by the curtain wall of glass at the UBS building as by it's soaring steel structure
buildings like humans are more than a skin)

I apologize for the length of this post
but I'm FUCKING fed up with brian goeken
and the entire "landmark" process in this city
the people in charge of saving the history of this city
should have the guts to stand up
and exert their power for what is right
and the integrity of what made this city great is worth saving

[F1 Tommy]

You guys should be watching WTTW Chicago Tonight right now.

[vxt22]

precisely, bearcat, precisely. I've been thinking that Daley is a bit too pro development. We need balance.. if I could have registered to vote by the time of the election I would have. People here blindly trust our mayor for some reason.

It also seems cheaper to pick a surface lot to build on... stupid developers. You'd at least think that the landmark commission the city itself formed would have a bit of real power, at least to put the developers through so much hell that the lost time makes it noticeably more economical to just pick a less controversial site.

If anyone in the know would like to detail the situations at the YWCA building, 29-39 S. LaSalle, and the new Wabash tower with those pointless scaffolds protecting the "facade" that will be about 90% unoriginal anyways, I'd appreciate it. I'd been looking for information about how much of the existing infastructure was being sacrificed, but most of these buildings' forums didn't focus on this too much, and of course news articles are going to avoid it.

The treatment of the farwell is absurd. Simply outrageous. The proposal looks like a positively drab tower. You'd think that companies that spend loads of money building 40 some story towers might spend a bit extra to treat the past with respect. You can't tell me there isn't a creative architect that could have come up with a better solution.

Is there something I can do to help? I'd like suggestions. I suppose I could join Preservation Chicago or something. You all complain about preservationists, but there is once again a balance, and preservation is truly important. Especially real preservation. I mean, goddamn, must EVERYTHING be converted to condos or damned parking garages. This is Chicago. Give up your automobiles and use our immense public transportation system.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ However, I'd also suggest not too lump all of these projects together as part of the same evil trend. For example, they might not be perfect proposals, but on balance, I'm supportive of the overall Legacy and Park Michigan projects, while I think the 29-39 LaSalle and Farwell massacres are virtually indefensible...

[brian_b]

It also seems cheaper to pick a surface lot to build on... stupid developers

Come on, it's not like the owners of the surface lots are forced to sell if you have a proposal. A developer has to take what he can get.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by vxt22

precisely, bearcat, precisely. I've been thinking that Daley is a bit too pro development. We need balance.. if I could have registered to vote by the time of the election I would have. People here blindly trust our mayor for some reason.

It also seems cheaper to pick a surface lot to build on... stupid developers. You'd at least think that the landmark commission the city itself formed would have a bit of real power, at least to put the developers through so much hell that the lost time makes it noticeably more economical to just pick a less controversial site.

If anyone in the know would like to detail the situations at the YWCA building, 29-39 S. LaSalle, and the new Wabash tower with those pointless scaffolds protecting the "facade" that will be about 90% unoriginal anyways, I'd appreciate it. I'd been looking for information about how much of the existing infastructure was being sacrificed, but most of these buildings' forums didn't focus on this too much, and of course news articles are going to avoid it.

The treatment of the farwell is absurd. Simply outrageous. The proposal looks like a positively drab tower. You'd think that companies that spend loads of money building 40 some story towers might spend a bit extra to treat the past with respect. You can't tell me there isn't a creative architect that could have come up with a better solution.

Is there something I can do to help? I'd like suggestions. I suppose I could join Preservation Chicago or something. You all complain about preservationists, but there is once again a balance, and preservation is truly important. Especially real preservation. I mean, goddamn, must EVERYTHING be converted to condos or damned parking garages. This is Chicago. Give up your automobiles and use our immense public transportation system.

Most of us are both pro-preservation and pro-progress....and very critical of many (most?) of the designs we've been getting this boom.

By all means, you should join Preservation Chicago, though! They fight the fights worth fighting, unlike the NIMBY groups fighting to "preserve" the Prairie Avenue district.

I think it's also worth making a distinction between developers who use portions of historic buildings for usable space, as opposed to slapping the facades on a parking garage. If memory serves, behind those facades of the Legacy along Wabash will be actual office and classroom spaces. That helps, alot.

[vxt22]

It seems to me that this is little better, simply because there is no original structure remaining. Just a facade on the other building. Make no mistake; these buildings will be gone, even if there are a few bricks to smile at.

There have to be better ways of dealing with this. Engineering has come a long way, and if we can make buildings essentially "float"...

I say it's possible, if not economical, to build directly on top of the old. Example:

An exaggerated version of 600 N. Fairbanks. It would be possible to demolish the back half of the buildings, and perhaps use the original lobby of the center one to open in to the back of the Legacy's lobby. Then the legacy could rise where the back halves of the other buildings were, and extend out over the top of their footprints well over their heads. I think that would beautifully contrast old with new, and preserve the past sufficiently. Too bad it'd be so expensive. That'd have to be quite the strong core to support the extra weight up front. But with the latest engineering capabilities, it could be done.

[pyropius]

Speaking of parking garages, if you want to see a truly bad design check out page 19 of the Austin thread.

[honte]

Originally Posted by vxt22

There have to be better ways of dealing with this. Engineering has come a long way, and if we can make buildings essentially "float"...

Yeah, this is one solution I've been preaching for a long time. This has been done successfully in NY over landmarked theatres, in many places in Europe, and a few other US cities. Jahn's office did it stunningly in Germany, and tried to do it here with 600 Fairbanks too before settling on the taller (better IMO) tower with the smaller corbel. I really thought this could save the Hotel Dana, but obviously everyone else didn't think so.

Other options include use of air rights to boost density and height, which Chicago has used a few noteworthy times recently, but not often enough (the high-rise across from Contemporaine, Erie on the Park, the new proposal across from Gene and Georgetti's, etc). Preservation credits are another new tool we have in Chicago, which essentially do the same thing, but without using adjacent air rights. This is being used on a few new projects here (X/O for example). Another way to do this is simply to erect a long-span transfer beam with columns that straddle an existing building. There is a very successful example of this in Denver, with others I've seen in Western cities.

One of the chief problems with the structure of Chicago's government is that the Landmarks Commission reports directly to the department of Planning (and Development). It's never going to be an autonomous, overseeing body if this is the case. There should be a major revolt to get them out of this predicament. Also, the people who sit on the board are appointed by the mayor - not a good thing either IMO. Many of them are smart, great people, but I am not sure how passionate they really are, or how educated they are about these matters. It really is a rubber stamp, both bad and good - they typically vote yes when the Commission says landmark, they vote yes when the Commission says tear down the landmark, they vote No when Natarus or whoever else gets up and blabbers about "eyesores" or "troubled corners."

Bearcat, I agree, the Commission needs a real leader. There is zero vision coming out of that office. I am sick of the leadership too. There are some very good researchers at the Commission, but their hands are tied. Every year, people within the office and people without come in with great suggestions for landmarking, but these are - I'd say - 95% rebuffed, with idiotic excuses coming from the Commission. Then there are many OWNERS who actually go to the Commission and beg to have their buildings protected, and these too are shown the door. (Sometimes their buildings really wouldn't qualify, but for the ones that would, you'd think they would jump on this slam-dunk, zero opposition chance to landmark a building.) Basically, I think the whole thing needs to be reworked, starting not just with staff but with Chicago's view on Landmarking and its place in government.

There is yet another facadectomy and partial teardown proposal floating through the city right now in a very Farwell-like manner (eg settle the deal before the Landmarks Board knows what hit them - Goeken will likely come in with a shining endorsement). I don't know if it's concrete enough where I should talk about it, but what I will say: Can you imagine an entire 18 story facade of fake windows?

_____________

I put this response here because it concerns a lot of buildings in the Boom, especially the latter part (which unfortunately is intentionally vague). I would ask that if anyone wants to continue the discussion on landmarking specifically or has any issues with what I said above, we should move it over to the General Developments thread.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by vxt22

It seems to me that this is little better, simply because there is no original structure remaining. Just a facade on the other building. Make no mistake; these buildings will be gone, even if there are a few bricks to smile at.

I don't know how to delicately put this....but with a few certain and specific exceptions....who cares if the interior is gone? Just because something is old doesn't mean it's good or worth saving, rather it often means it is inferior, decrepit, unusable, and unsalvageable. You'll probably misconstrue this, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. Much of Chicago in the late 1800s and early 1900s was thrown up very quickly because of market demand, without an eye for everlasting quality. If the facade is where the attention and beauty were focused, what's wrong with saving that and ditching the rest? Property is still, and should be, governed by the laws of economics. Who's gonna pay for a complete restoration of a decrepit money-pit that's collapsing on itself, no matter how beautiful the facade? If the taxpayer's pay, is that fair to simply subsidize a lazy property owner? Does government have the right to seize the building, restore it, then sell it again on the market? What if it doesn't sell and the taxpayer loses money? Preservation/Restoration isn't black and white...

Now, when we're talking about demolishing the lobby at 39 S. LaSalle, for example, I'd agree with you whole-heartedly and join the fight til the bitter end. But in contrast, what was really worth saving, at any cost, from the interiors of those Jewelers Row buildings?

[Steely Dan]

hey honte, have you heard any further rumblings about the fountain square proposal in evanston that you said would be announced two weeks ago?

[honte]

^ Steely, I'm scratching my head as vigorously as you are. I know the rest of the stuff I've mentioned is accurate, but I guess all I can say at this point is that developers are finicky creatures...

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I don't know how to delicately put this....but with a few certain and specific exceptions....who cares if the interior is gone?
... But in contrast, what was really worth saving, at any cost, from the interiors of those Jewelers Row buildings?

I was in full support of the Legacy project, which didn't make me a very popular guy for a while in certain crowds. I suppose it is a bit hypocritical, but I felt that in this particular case, especially with the presence of the elevated and the structures in question, that it was a good trade. I still agree with these feelings, but I admit I was partly seduced by the proposal. If the Legacy were, say, only 50 stories (which in my mind would have had far less public benefit and would have been much less exemplary), I would have probably not been so happy about it.

I think the answer to your question though is that treating a building as a mere facade ignores its sense as a space and as a place with history. I think Kamin did a fair job of highlighting this. On the far end of the spectrum, for instance, consider the poor old Platt Luggage facade at McCormick Place. First it was stripped of its building, preserved in place and slapped onto the side of a parking garage. Then, to top it all off, when McPier changed its mind yet again, that facade was taken down brick-by-brick and relocated three blocks away as a billboard in front of a modern mechanical plant that it doesn't even cover up entirely.

You can either consider this a total sham, or you can look at it a different way, which is that the facade has been stripped of its role as "architecture" and reduced to simply a piece of art without architectural qualities. It's being traded around the neighborhood from place to place in the same way a Picasso jumps from a private collection into a museum and later gets sold, etc.

I think this "de-architecturalization" of the facade and deactivation as a part of the cityscape happens any time you do the facadectomy, regardless of how well it's done. There is a great risk in that, IMO.

[vxt22]

I agree with honte. Architecture is about context, and more important than the building itself is how it interacts with it's surroundings. Perhaps the Jeweler's Row buildings were not important individually, but they contributed to the feel and the context of the streetscape. I don't believe there is even any point in saving a mere facade. It isn't a building any longer, it's the Legacy with extra flourishes to satisfy the insufficient requirements of the city.

Additionally, as I believe was echoed in the radio program last night, by and large the buildings rising now are of far less quality than those of yesteryear. Sure the Farwell is an exception, but much of the remaining old architecture in the cbd is of a very high denominator.

In my opinion, though as it's been said we're getting higher quality than a lot of cities, even in our boom many of the buildings look expensive but cut corners and are actually really cheap. Would you ever see a building of the quality of the Reliance Building this decade or next? I don't think so. Granted that's an extreme example, but the point is made.

It's great to see the skyline pushing higher, but I disagree that height justifies any development.

[budman]

I saw a sign today on the 505 N. State St. property indicating that a request has been made to amend the planned development to include both residential and hotel units, and for an increase of 30 feet to the height of the building. I was in a hurry so couldnt get more info.

[BVictor1]

Silly me, I forgot to report this, but 2 piles have driven at Lexington Park

[spyguy]

April 19 Plan Commission Agenda

A proposed Waterway Business Residential Planned Development Application submitted
by Chicago P.O. Associates, LLC for the property generally located at 401-439 West Van
Buren Street. The application allows for the construction of 300 residential units, 240 hotel
keys, approximately 455,000 square feet of office space and 400 parking spaces. This
building is identified as potentially significant in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey.
(2nd Ward)

A proposed Business Planned Development Application submitted by M Development, LLC
for the property generally located at 1118 North State Street. The applicant proposes to
retain the façade of existing Cedar Hotel, then construct a new 250 foot tall building to
contain approximately 200 hotels keys. This building is identified as potentially significant
in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey. (42nd Ward)

A proposed Residential Planned Development and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront
Protection Application No. 495 submitted by South Shore View, LLC for the property
generally located at 6740-6756 South South Shore Drive. The applicant proposes to
construct a 21-story residential tower with approximately 132 residential dwelling units and
170 off-street parking spaces. The applicant proposes to demolish the “Brydon School”
building at 6740 S. South Shore Drive This building is identified as potentially significant
in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey. (5th Ward)

A proposed Business Planned Development submitted by JBC/155 Development LLC for
the property generally located at 155 North Wacker Drive. The applicant proposes to
construct a 660-foot office tower to contain approximately 1,100,000 square feet of office
space, ground floor retail and 177 below-grade parking spaces. (42nd Ward)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Silly me, I forgot to report this, but 2 piles have driven at Lexington Park

thanks for the news. page 1 has been updated accordingly.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by spyguy

April 19 Plan Commission Agenda


A proposed Residential Planned Development and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront
Protection Application No. 495 submitted by South Shore View, LLC for the property
generally located at 6740-6756 South South Shore Drive. The applicant proposes to
construct a 21-story residential tower with approximately 132 residential dwelling units and
170 off-street parking spaces. The applicant proposes to demolish the “Brydon School”
building at 6740 S. South Shore Drive This building is identified as potentially significant
in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey. (5th Ward)

Something doesn't add up here.....6740 is already the site of a high-rise, isn't it? Wasn't this South Shore proposal farther south? Either way, nice to see movement on it.

[altfelix]

Shouldn't the Blue Chip in Michigan City be moved to U/C, and shouldn't it be listed as a hotel, not residential?

[honte]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Something doesn't add up here.....6740 is already the site of a high-rise, isn't it? Wasn't this South Shore proposal farther south? Either way, nice to see movement on it.

Nope. There is a beautiful old Spanish Revival / Arts and Crafts mansion there (I guess it's the "Brydon School") as well as a cool brick modernist addition. There is a 1960s apartment building to the north, and the Quadrangle Tower building at 67th and South Shore - you're probably thinking of one of these.