CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by vxt22

No, it isn't solid. Another fucking facademy. Architects and engineers are not being creative enough in building in ways which respect the past. Buildings like this will one day be near gone in Chicago. We pride ourselves in having diverse architecture from all periods. The increase in height isn't worth the loss of often superior older buildings. Built less "cheaply," if not as modern. Is the Cedar Hotel orange? Facademy is even worse than ripping it down. It shows no respect at all for the past. It's the developer saying, "here city, I'll throw a bit of money at this facade, if you'll say 'fuck our landmark rules.'" It isn't a compromise. The developer wins.

Anyone have word on how the Athletic Association is faring?

I disagree. Preservation of the facade, if done properly, helps to preserve the part of the building that we, the public, have the greatest stake in: the exterior. We really don't have that much interest in preserving the part of the building that's we will rarely experience and that minimally affects us. We also leave incentive for developers to make better use of the limited land that we have which in turns helps keep housing and office space more affordable.

[honte]

Originally Posted by vxt22

No, it isn't solid. Another fucking facademy. Architects and engineers are not being creative enough in building in ways which respect the past. Buildings like this will one day be near gone in Chicago. We pride ourselves in having diverse architecture from all periods. The increase in height isn't worth the loss of often superior older buildings. Built less "cheaply," if not as modern. Is the Cedar Hotel orange?

Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Yes, the Cedar Hotel is Orange-rated.

Re: the facade problem, I have mixed feelings about it. I guess I have resigned myself to being happy with what we can get. In cases like Cedar, it's much more difficult to judge, since it really is a fairly average building behind the facade. The more "three-dimensional" the great parts, the worse facadectomy is, of course. It's important to remember that our preservation situation is far, far better than it was even 10 years ago. Hopefully there are even brighter days ahead.

[honte]

Originally Posted by vxt22

Anyone have word on how the Athletic Association is faring?

Sorry for the consecutive posts... Anyway, someone made a video of the rally, so people can check it out here if interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw7F64WH8cQ

Not blockbuster entertainment, but an interesting bit of information from the video is the statement that the new alderman was actually present for some time. I've never heard of a Chicago alderman actually going to a preservation rally before, with the exception of Alderman Troutman... (but let's not go there!).

[a chicago bearcat]

Originally Posted by Marcu

I disagree. Preservation of the facade, if done properly, helps to preserve the part of the building that we, the public, have the greatest stake in: the exterior. We really don't have that much interest in preserving the part of the building that's we will rarely experience and that minimally affects us. We also leave incentive for developers to make better use of the limited land that we have which in turns helps keep housing and office space more affordable.

yeah, interiors aren't worth preserving, it's not like it's an art that caaptures the ideals and spirits of the time it's created, interiors aare just function, architecture is the form

form follows function

but seriously, wasting our precious building materials by building something behind an existing structure ends up defacing acres and acres more of land across the world, than a high rise development in a city with this many surface parking lots and drive thru restaurants. Plus demotioning interior spaces because they are deemed not as profitable by a developer, and don't have 12 foot ceilings. Some of the spaces within could become within the public realm, and preserving masterpiece interiors is one of the pressing issues of our time design wise. these spaces are lost to fires and the economy. true new uses need to be found, but gutting a building of both it's guts and it's structure seems mighty wasteful.

as usual I could go on and on about how not all facadectomies are horrible, but for the sake anyone scrolling through, I'll stop here

[psumase]

Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat

yeah, interiors aren't worth preserving, it's not like it's an art that caaptures the ideals and spirits of the time it's created, interiors aare just function, architecture is the form

form follows function

but seriously, wasting our precious building materials by building something behind an existing structure ends up defacing acres and acres more of land across the world, than a high rise development in a city with this many surface parking lots and drive thru restaurants. Plus demotioning interior spaces because they are deemed not as profitable by a developer, and don't have 12 foot ceilings. Some of the spaces within could become within the public realm, and preserving masterpiece interiors is one of the pressing issues of our time design wise. these spaces are lost to fires and the economy. true new uses need to be found, but gutting a building of both it's guts and it's structure seems mighty wasteful.

as usual I could go on and on about how not all facadectomies are horrible, but for the sake anyone scrolling through, I'll stop here

Keep in mind that in this particular case (Cedar Hotel), the interior of the building has got to be horrendous. I've only ever been in the two bars in the base of the building, but I can say that I'd never, ever want to wander to the upstairs after seeing the shady characters that make their way in and out of the Cedar Hotel on a regular basis.

[vegetagd]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ birds are pretty stupid. if they're dumb enough to fly into a skyscraper and kill themselves, then good riddance, it helps keep their species' gene pool clean. kinda like how children who play in the street get killed by cars. natural selection for stupidity is a good thing. we should be building even taller buildings in hopes of eliminating all bird stupidity from the many species in our area. when a stupid bird dies before it can breed, that's good news for birds at large.

taller skyscrapers = smarter birds.

I like your philosophy here, but I worry that 10,000 years from now when mankind is in the midst of a 1000 year war with highly intelligent eagle people, scholars will look back to this moment, and realize people like yourself made the rise of the eagle people possible.

[Norsider]

** Deleted for copyright infringement **

- Dylan Leblanc

[Norsider]

Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat

yeah, interiors aren't worth preserving, it's not like it's an art that caaptures the ideals and spirits of the time it's created, interiors aare just function, architecture is the form

form follows function

but seriously, wasting our precious building materials by building something behind an existing structure ends up defacing acres and acres more of land across the world, than a high rise development in a city with this many surface parking lots and drive thru restaurants. Plus demotioning interior spaces because they are deemed not as profitable by a developer, and don't have 12 foot ceilings. Some of the spaces within could become within the public realm, and preserving masterpiece interiors is one of the pressing issues of our time design wise. these spaces are lost to fires and the economy. true new uses need to be found, but gutting a building of both it's guts and it's structure seems mighty wasteful.

as usual I could go on and on about how not all facadectomies are horrible, but for the sake anyone scrolling through, I'll stop here

As always, I am a little confused by the anti-developer bias so prevalent on this forum. It's sort of like being a movie buff and being anti-producer. I suppose that the big studios/developers occasionally produce shit (Pearl Harbor), ruin old favorites (Blues Bros. 2000), or basically screw up some great potential (both Matrix sequels), but what are you going to do? Developers are why our favorite buildings are there in the first place. Do you know what THOSE developers tore down to put them there?

And urban commercial architecture absolutely does NOT capture the ideals and spirits of a time. Rather, it is a distillation of economic expedience. People build what they can afford to sell.

[jpIllInoIs]

** Deleted for copyright infringement **

- Dylan Leblanc

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat

yeah, interiors aren't worth preserving, it's not like it's an art that caaptures the ideals and spirits of the time it's created, interiors aare just function, architecture is the form

form follows function

but seriously, wasting our precious building materials by building something behind an existing structure ends up defacing acres and acres more of land across the world, than a high rise development in a city with this many surface parking lots and drive thru restaurants. Plus demotioning interior spaces because they are deemed not as profitable by a developer, and don't have 12 foot ceilings. Some of the spaces within could become within the public realm, and preserving masterpiece interiors is one of the pressing issues of our time design wise. these spaces are lost to fires and the economy. true new uses need to be found, but gutting a building of both it's guts and it's structure seems mighty wasteful.

as usual I could go on and on about how not all facadectomies are horrible, but for the sake anyone scrolling through, I'll stop here

Sure in the ideal world we would preserve the entire building. But we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We must balance the interests of preservation without stifling new development. Facecdomies aren't perfect, but they are a good compromise between the two goals. And without them, we wouldn't have projects like the Legacy and Park Michigan.

And I think we would all prefer prefer that a developer replace a surface lot or a drive-thru bank, but most developers buy the land they can get at the time for the cheapest possible price. Surely you can see that limiting developers' choices would essentially result in having them pay a higher price for land. And in an industry where margins are already fairly thin, it would likely be reflected in the price of real estate at the consumer level. The last thing we would want in Chicago is to have prices reach the point of San Francisco.

[VivaLFuego]

28 n. franklin is an itty bitty site (maybe 1/8 of a square downtown block) if i'm not mistake, just north of UBS tower?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=...5107&spn=0.001861,0.004603&t=h&z=18&om=1

[honte]

Originally Posted by Norsider

As always, I am a little confused by the anti-developer bias so prevalent on this forum. It's sort of like being a movie buff and being anti-producer. I suppose that the big studios/developers occasionally produce shit (Pearl Harbor), ruin old favorites (Blues Bros. 2000), or basically screw up some great potential (both Matrix sequels), but what are you going to do? Developers are why our favorite buildings are there in the first place. Do you know what THOSE developers tore down to put them there?

I know your question wasn't directly posed to me. But yes, I know virtually every block's history in the downtown area, as I am sure most of the highly educated people on this forum do.

I post on this forum and am a part of the larger architecture community because I love Chicago and want to build the best city possible, not because I want to develop every parcel to its "fullest" and squeeze every living cent out of the land.

I am not "anti-developer." I am anti-stupidity and anti-greed. Some developers are "with it" and make their cash while improving the city, while others are simply shrewd businessmen out to make the greatest buck in the quickest amount of time. Of course, most of the cases fall somewhere in between. This is where the discussion and debate begin, and I can't see any harm in it.

Originally Posted by Norsider

And urban commercial architecture absolutely does NOT capture the ideals and spirits of a time. Rather, it is a distillation of economic expedience. People build what they can afford to sell.

If this were universally true, how can you explain the first and second Chicago School? These are classic examples of great, innovative, artistic buildings that met economic needs.

[honte]

June 06, 2007

Developer switches to apartments for West Loop site
By Alby Gallun
http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=25246


Adjusting to the shifting currents of the Chicago housing market, Evanston developer Robert Horner has dropped a plan for a condominium high-rise on a West Loop site next to the Eisenhower Expressway, deciding to build apartments there instead.

Renting apartments is much easier than selling condos these days, a big reason for the change, Mr. Horner says. He aims to break ground by early fall on the $80-million, 325-unit rental building at 1035 W. Van Buren St.

Amid a sluggish condo market, it would have taken a lot longer to sell enough units to secure financing for a condo project. Lenders generally won’t loan money to a condo development until buyers have signed contracts for about half of its units.

“We just felt that though there probably would be a market for this building as condos, it would probably be a very long presale period and (buyers) would be waiting for a long time” to move into their units, Mr. Horner says.

The apartment market, by contrast, is the best it has been since the beginning of the decade. Demand for apartments is strong amid a healthy job market, and supply has shrunk as developers have converted thousands of units into condos. Rents are rising and occupancies, though lower than a year ago, remain high by historical standards.

Though he has yet to secure a construction loan, Mr. Horner says he has received a term sheet for the project from HSBC Holdings PLC. With the University of Illinois at Chicago, Rush University Medical Center and the downtown financial district nearby, "We think there's a strong market, a consistent market that will support a building like that," he says.

Mr. Horner’s firm, Winthrop Properties LLC, has developed condos in Evanston and Chicago and owns about 2,000 apartments in both cities as well. Mr. Horner recently proposed his most ambitious project ever, a 37-story condo tower in the heart of downtown Evanston.

The West Loop project, designed by Chicago-based Fitzgerald Associates Architects, would be 23 stories under a zoning change approved by the Chicago City Council. A company led by Mr. Horner paid $8.2 million for the development site in March 2006.

The project has moved forward despite initial opposition from West Loop Community Organization, because the tower exceeds the 115-foot height limit the neighborhood group favors.

“The battle’s over on that one,” says Eric Sedler, the organization’s president.

Mr. Sedler also notes that the group has become more amenable to taller buildings that, like Mr. Horner’s, are near the neighborhood’s borders.

(Eddie Baeb contributed to this story.)

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

I know there will be a Debbie Downer saying. "why not 50 storeys?"
This is a good project for that location and on a surface lot is icing on the frosting.

Assuming they got the address right, that's a TINY site next to the rear plaza for the UBS Tower. It's mid-block, roughly 100 feet along Franklin, and 75 feet deep from the curb. Only a little larger than the plaza where Millennium Park Plaza Annex is going. 24 stories is reasonably all we can expect from such a small site, assuming they aren't demolishing any surrounding buildings.

As for the 1035 West Van Buren news... great! I thought that project was dead. It's also nice to hear the WLCO is relaxing its grip on parcels at the edge of the neighborhood (Eisenhower/Kennedy corridors). That bodes well for the Metro Center 290 project, too.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

I know there will be a Debbie Downer saying. "why not 50 storeys?"
This is a good project for that location and on a surface lot is icing on the frosting.

That would be me.

If it's by the Harp Group, I'd expect something dull and suburban-like similar to their new hotels in Wheeling, Lombard, and Rosemont.

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

28 n. franklin is an itty bitty site (maybe 1/8 of a square downtown block) if i'm not mistake, just north of UBS tower?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=...5107&spn=0.001861,0.004603&t=h&z=18&om=1

Yeah it looks like your right. Even though its small, Im sure they could build something taller than 24 stories. Still, Im happy with anything being built there. I hate walking by on Franklin street and seeing that waste of space, there and one block north.

Originally Posted by honte

The West Loop project, designed by Chicago-based Fitzgerald Associates Architects, would be 23 stories under a zoning change approved by the Chicago City Council. A company led by Mr. Horner paid $8.2 million for the development site in March 2006.

The project has moved forward despite initial opposition from West Loop Community Organization, because the tower exceeds the 115-foot height limit the neighborhood group favors.

“The battle’s over on that one,” says Eric Sedler, the organization’s president.

Mr Horner is my hero; fought WLCO and somehow emerged victorious.

[a chicago bearcat]

I am not "anti-developer." I am anti-stupidity and anti-greed. Some developers are "with it" and make their cash while improving the city, while others are simply shrewd businessmen out to make the greatest buck in the quickest amount of time. Of course, most of the cases fall somewhere in between. This is where the discussion and debate begin, and I can't see any harm in it.

If this were universally true, how can you explain the first and second Chicago School? These are classic examples of great, innovative, artistic buildings that met economic needs.[/QUOTE]

honte, you are reading my mind

I'd say this forum has just the same variety, of people who are pro developer, and pro preservation, and many in between. Which is why the discussion on this forum is so passionate, in depth, and informative.

[X-fib]

Although I am a strong supporter of a forward movement in modern architecture (obviously or I would'nt frequent this site) I fully appreciate the need to preserve key architectually and historically significant buildings. Future generations deserve to enjoy them as we do. The problem of course is determining when to save and when not to. By no means is this difficult issue restricted to Chicago. In my county I am one of those that helps makes these decisions so I share a great deal of comradry with others that share a similar responsibility, regardless of the scale of the buildings or size of the community.

[Chicago Shawn]

I am doing a massive clearing out of piled up pics, getting them edited and uploaded. Here are a few of the Columbain...








Oak Park's Harlem-Ontario Apts...
When I was there, they were breaking up a freshly poured foundation wall. Someone must have royaly fucked up.

[hoju]

I hope that we see the demise of that BP gas station at Wabash/Roosevelt someday soon. With all the density that roosevelt/michigan will be seeing in the next few years(columbian, museum parks, two more rumored 80 story buildings on the southeast corner) and 3 or 4 grocery stores coming up in the area, that BP will soon be one of the most underutilized parcels in the city.