HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1461  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 4:21 AM
Norsider Norsider is offline
Vox Clamantis In Deserto
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Am I missing something? Why is this rather small, 18-story development getting such a huge subsidy? The difficulties are far fewer than the Post Office, and it's a perfectly fine building already. Plus, with the hotel on tap, it seems pretty evident that the development is going to be a success.

Why is a tower atop Union Station a priority for the city anyway?

I'm sure the developer is complaining about how the city is requiring limestone facade, historic details, etc... but $58 Million? I don't get it.

I agree completely, honte. I've had it with TIF money going straight to the developers bottom line. TIF money is supposed to support infrastructure, not the developer's second home.

And,

The Post Office delenda est.
     
     
  #1462  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 6:55 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norsider View Post
The Post Office delenda est.
Too chicken to write it in English, eh!? Seriously, I am glad to see eye-to-eye on the TIF issue. The City continues to subsidize these Schaumburg-style, piddly office towers over in the West Loop, as if the train stations and cheap land weren't enough on their own. I think almost all of them got some kind of decent TIF subsidy. Meanwhile, the "real" office towers that have been built in this Boom have gone almost exclusively without subsidies (as I recall).


On another note, I haven't noticed any comment here on how the Low-end-bergers futzed with the facade of the Chandler. I've been trying to figure out why it's such a let-down from what I was expecting. Well, the cause is that the balcony placement is all screwed up versus the render that they used during sales. The "sales render" showed a much more organized facade, and the building looked a lot more attractive for it. I hope their more major developments don't get similar modifications.
     
     
  #1463  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 2:35 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,249
The St Clair officially has its website up...if you download the pdf brochure there is some very nice pictures and views from the building... http://www.cityfrontplaza.com/stClair/
     
     
  #1464  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2007, 3:18 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,809
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/a...1,1805344.story?coll=chi-leisurearts-hed

Between these WALLS
Two athletic clubs face uncertain future

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published June 10, 2007


They are magnificent anachronisms, jock palaces with drop-dead dining rooms, grand marble staircases and swimming pools fit for a laurel-wreathed Olympic champion. And their allure extends from inside to outside, from private to public. For they are bricks in two of the great walls that define the face that Chicago shows the world, one directly across Michigan Avenue from Millennium Park, the other more than a mile to the northeast on Lake Shore Drive. Both face an uncertain future.

One, the Lake Shore Athletic Club at 850 N. Lake Shore Drive, the perfect Beaux-Arts foil for Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's exquisitely skeletal 860-880 Lake Shore Drive residential towers, would be demolished for an 18-story condo high-rise whose design is supposedly not yet cooked. The other, the Chicago Athletic Association at 12 S. Michigan Ave., would be transformed into an Omni hotel, its richly layered Venetian Gothic facade and extraordinary front rooms restored to their original splendor, but its back hacked off for a 19-story tower that could blight views from Millennium Park.

Both proposals are now moving through the City Hall review process. And both demand the highest level of scrutiny as Chicago girds for the latest of its periodic battles over whether (and how) to make the past a part of the future.

The timing of this "tale of two athletic clubs" is fascinating, not only because Chicago is forging ahead with its bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games, but also because there's a new force to contend with downtown -- Brendan Reilly , the freshly sworn-in 42nd Ward alderman. Reilly ousted veteran Ald. Burton Natarus with a pledge to promote "balanced, responsible growth." Now we're going to see what that campaign slogan means.

Whatever the outcome, an era is clearly passing. The private athletic clubs were the legacy of a late 19th and early 20th Century movement that celebrated the betterment of the body and merged physical culture with social aspiration. The clubs "created these buildings that were quite elaborate and quite elegant -- not necessarily the sweaty gyms you might think," says Tim Samuelson, Chicago's cultural historian. "They often had the means to build impressive buildings. In some cases, it was one club trying to outshine the other through their architecture."

In the past, as is the case today, dwindling membership and a desire to cash in on prime real estate have separated the clubs from their architectural showcases.

Confronting the legacy, some developers and architects found creative ways to recycle the old buildings and preserve their visual bounty.

In 1989, for example, the Chicago firm of Harry Weese & Associates sensitively transformed the old Medinah Athletic Club at 505 N. Michigan Ave., into the Hotel Inter-Continental Chicago, saving its astonishing amalgam of Egyptian, Spanish, and other styles.

The Weese firm restored the exterior of the 42-story Jazz Age skyscraper, with its exotic bas-relief sculptures, and gave new luster to the club's polychromatic interior, which feels like an old movie palace. The public remains free to roam inside and take in the splendor of the lobby, corridors and other grand spaces.With that high standard of historic restoration and improved access in mind, it is hard to muster very much enthusiasm for the plan by developers Fifield Realty Corp. and Chicago architect Lucien Lagrange to tear down the 80-year-old Lake Shore Athletic Club, which was designed by Chicago architect Jarvis Hunt, whose other works include Kansas City's Beaux-Arts Union Station and the neo-Gothic office building at 30 N. Michigan Ave.

Good, but not great

Used since the late 1970s as a graduate school dormitory by Northwestern University, and vacant since 2005, the 19-story club is a good building, not a great one, its muscular limestone base relieved by scalloped, fan-shaped arches, its top a severe cliff of brick. But what it lacks in architectural refinement it makes up in solid urban design, turning the corner with sharply cleaved wall planes and deep recesses that give it the feel of a stripped-down castle.

In 1951, a scant 24 years after it was built, the club provided Mies with just the right backdrop for his revolutionary 860 and 880 North Lake Shore Drive towers -- a mass of masonry that came right down to the ground versus their skeletal, steel-and-glass construction, raised on stilts.

Inside is the kind of quality they don't build anymore -- a lobby sheathed in marble, plus a swimming pool adorned by colorful murals of golfers, runners, high jumpers and other athletes in the heat of competition.

The Fifield-Lagrange plan would wipe out all that for a luxury condo building, 217 feet high with up to 100 units. There would be a green roof to keep Mayor Richard M. Daley happy, yet the public would have no access to it. And what will the building look like? A Beaux-Arts number right out of the history books, if you peruse the developer's application to the Chicago Plan Commission. But Fifield Senior Vice President Alan Schachtman downplays those drawings, saying they are merely place-holders and that Lagrange will work up something more sophisticated.

Perhaps he will, but until we see the goods, it is impossible to tell whether the plans mean we are trading up or trading down in design quality.

I'm not convinced that the Lake Shore Athletic Club has the stuff to qualify as an official Chicago landmark, as the preservationists who demonstrated last Sunday claim, but it clearly brings real value to the cityscape. With the city's 90-day delay period on Fifield's application for a demolition permit set to expire in mid-July, the key is to deliberately explore how to reuse this building, not to hastily slap a landmark plaque on it. And that is what public officials, including city landmarks chief Brian Goeken and new alderman Reilly included, seem to be doing.Besides holding community meetings, Reilly said in an interview, "I'm also investigating other possible options for the site in the event that we determine this [plan] is not the best use for the property." He's also looking at the 1999 planned-development agreement that governs the site and whether it limits options for reuse.

All of which means he's hedging, but these are at least thoughtful hedges.

As the Lake Shore Athletic Club case comes to a boil, things are simmering at the Chicago Athletic Association, where the members are engaged in a messy fight over who could share the proceeds of a sale of the club's two linked properties.

The first of them, the original 11-story Venetian Gothic building at 12 S. Michigan Ave., is the right match for the frivolity of the Crown Fountain at Millennium Park. Designed by Chicago architect Henry Ives Cobb, it put on a show for the crowds visiting the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition, not just by evoking the picturesque Doge's Palace in Venice but also by flaunting stylized carvings that spoke to its identity as a cathedral of sweat -- lacrosse sticks, balls, rackets and other athletic equipment.

Thirteen years later, Chicago architects Schmidt, Garden & Martin designed a handsome annex at 71 E. Madison St., which grew to 18 stories in 1926 and remains a rare Chicago example of the iconoclastic Vienna "Secessionist" style of the early 20th Century.

Historically protected

The buildings, which form an interconnected "L," are safeguarded because they belong to the city's Historic Michigan Boulevard landmark district, which covers the clifflike wall of skyscrapers that faces Grant Park between Randolph Street on the north and 11th Street on the south. But except for individually designated landmarks within the district, that protection extends only to facades. And that is where things get tricky.

Designed for Songy Partners of Atlanta, whose development partner is Snider-Cannata Interests of Cleveland, the proposal from Chicago architects VOA is not a "facade-ectomy," one of those save-the-skin-and-destroy-everything-else exercises in architectural taxidermy that make a mockery of preservation. But neither does the plan save the entire building.

It calls, instead, for restoring the front 64 feet, which would preserve several major interior features. The most notable are the 2nd-floor "Cathedral Lounge," with its richly layered Venetian Gothic decoration, and the equally stunning 8th-floor main dining room, which once sported plaster ceiling decoration shaped like stalactites. As part of the deal, these features would be granted full landmark protection. They also would be open to the public.

But the remaining 100 feet of the building would disappear, to be replaced by a 19-story tower whose floors would align with the 18-story building on Madison and provide an extra floor to get the developers the 300-plus hotel rooms they say they need. The interior of the Madison building, meanwhile, would be rebuilt to modern hotel standards. The architects also promise to reconstruct the club's opulent pool, which sits in the targeted part of the building.

The appeal of a hotel at this showcase site is undeniable, but the proposal nonetheless represents a Faustian bargain: Even with two major setbacks from Michigan Avenue, the tower could stick above the original Venetian Gothic building like a ridiculous periscope. The city's landmarks staff needs to press the developers for additional drawings that will reveal precisely what thousands of visitors to Millennium Park are going to see when they look westward -- a disruptive eyesore or a quiet insertion.

More broadly, the plan could set a terrible precedent, encouraging more developers to save only the front sections of buildings in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District and erect condominium or hotel towers behind them. Millennium Park's soaring popularity makes that prospect a real possibility. The now-coherent district could easily become a visual patchwork.

On both Michigan Avenue and North Lake Shore Drive, Chicago has to run the design equivalent of an Olympic marathon before it satisfactorily resolves the future of its two endangered athletic clubs.

[email protected] See more photos online at www.chicagotri bune. com/walls.



Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #1465  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 2:47 AM
jjk1103 jjk1103 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 878
..........did anyone else notice the "200 n Dearborn" highrise in the Trib R/E Section today? ...is 200 N Dearborn actually Block 37 ?
     
     
  #1466  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 3:06 AM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575
^ No - 200 N Dearborn is a hideous 20?yr-old apartment building that American Invsco (they refer to themselves as a "developer" LOL) is just beginning to market for conversion to condos...
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #1467  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 3:10 AM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Am I missing something? Why is this rather small, 18-story development getting such a huge subsidy? The difficulties are far fewer than the Post Office, and it's a perfectly fine building already. Plus, with the hotel on tap, it seems pretty evident that the development is going to be a success.

Why is a tower atop Union Station a priority for the city anyway?

I'm sure the developer is complaining about how the city is requiring limestone facade, historic details, etc... but $58 Million? I don't get it.

Completely on the same page here - had a similar reaction upon hearing the news. How is this for a public (ie infrastructure) improvement?? The Post Office is a much different situation at least imo because you are talking about an existing massive vacant building (not contributing taxes) in which, as you mention, the challenges are more numerous (and more daunting)...
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #1468  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 3:15 AM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575
Solarwind's Photos

Fantastic photos as always - thanks.

Parkview West and 600 Fairbanks are going to be two indisputable gems.
MoMo (I have a feeling) is going to require much more time to properly digest (I am still excited about this addition, and am thrilled glass installation has finally resumed, but I am at the very least going to need to see a finished project here before I'm comfortable tossing around judgements - the curtain wall at the base gives me some pause)...
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #1469  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 6:22 AM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575
Lincoln Park 2520

I attended Lucien Lagrange's presentation last week at Friends of Downtown. He presented a number of current projects, including (most interesting) X/O.

In regards to what the market wants, Lagrange just doesn't get it. Most sickening was what happened with Lincoln Park 2520. I did not know this, but the developers initially wanted to go with a modern design. The rendering he showed of this design imo looked great. It was Lagrange who persuaded the developers to go with the POS design that they ended up with!
Lagrange claims that for the highest-end buyers, they still primarily want retro. I think this is nonsense - some of course do, but the current market (recently built projects and those currently in development) suggests that just as many if not more are demanding modern. It is the goofy NIMBYs around Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Prairie Ave., etc. who crave traditional, ie don't spoil the feel of MY neighborhood. Lagrange proved that he doesn't get it when he made the riciculous comment that (paraphrasing) no one is paying $8 (or whatever) million for a condo at X/O (while they are at Lincoln Park 2520)!! No one in the South Loop is paying $8 mil for anything! It's a completely different type of building (much smaller and intentionally much more affordable units, much different, less expensive neighborhood, etc), and he still made this idiotic comparison! Lagrange should find more work in another city quite frankly - he showed brilliance with Erie OTP, a lot of promice with Kingsbury OTP and now X/O, but he doesn't seem to really learn anything from his past failures - he churns out the same silly retro bs nonsense whenever given half a chance - enough is enough already!
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #1470  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 12:41 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukecuj View Post
^ the Feds are rediculi. They are planning to inject south State Street for a 1 plus million sqf. office development and yet they are walkng away from all this space.


This is the biggest travesty if this goes through.

Honestly I would be doing the exact same thing if I were in charge of the Fed's real estate in Chicago, the particulars of Walton Street's redevelopment plan of the Post Office notwithstanding (it's not as if the post office would suit the fed's needs for an expansion of their downtown campus - or perhaps suit anybody's needs in its current form and location...)
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #1471  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 2:14 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
I attended Lucien Lagrange's presentation last week at Friends of Downtown. He presented a number of current projects, including (most interesting) X/O.

In regards to what the market wants, Lagrange just doesn't get it. Most sickening was what happened with Lincoln Park 2520. I did not know this, but the developers initially wanted to go with a modern design. The rendering he showed of this design imo looked great. It was Lagrange who persuaded the developers to go with the POS design that they ended up with!
Lagrange claims that for the highest-end buyers, they still primarily want retro. I think this is nonsense - some of course do, but the current market (recently built projects and those currently in development) suggests that just as many if not more are demanding modern. It is the goofy NIMBYs around Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Prairie Ave., etc. who crave traditional, ie don't spoil the feel of MY neighborhood. Lagrange proved that he doesn't get it when he made the riciculous comment that (paraphrasing) no one is paying $8 (or whatever) million for a condo at X/O (while they are at Lincoln Park 2520)!! No one in the South Loop is paying $8 mil for anything! It's a completely different type of building (much smaller and intentionally much more affordable units, much different, less expensive neighborhood, etc), and he still made this idiotic comparison! Lagrange should find more work in another city quite frankly - he showed brilliance with Erie OTP, a lot of promice with Kingsbury OTP and now X/O, but he doesn't seem to really learn anything from his past failures - he churns out the same silly retro bs nonsense whenever given half a chance - enough is enough already!
Wow, that's unbelievable. Thanks for this info. I remember when the new developers came in, they were saying, "We're going to have a great, new, more current design." Then I saw that fake mansard roof...

Claiming that something modern along Lincoln Park wouldn't fit in is pure garbage. Mies, Weese, Lohan, SCB, hmmm... Meanwhile, let's see: Trump is something like 80% sold, while that POS Ritz-Carlton thing by you-know-who is sitting pretty at 40% still, I think, with fewer units.

Now, I have even less respect for poor old Chien. He tried to play the retro thing off for so many years as good for its surroundings, but really it seems market-motivated and nothing else. Or, if these really are his beliefs, deals like the new Intercontinental tower proove that he is just a puppet.

Honestly, I think that he is desperate for a niche and feels a lot of pressure from all of the other great modern firms working (or potentially working) in Chicago. I mean, the architect cares of course if the units move, but there are so many factors involved, he could easily explain that the units weren't priced well enough, or the market in LP got soft, or the developers screwed something else up (which all might happen anyway). I doubt too many would say, "Hey, that crappy modern architecture ruined the project."

When the Calatrava project hits the streets, these guys are going to wish they'd had some better advice.
     
     
  #1472  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 2:42 PM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 9,289
I'm not sure if any of you guys are watching the NBA Finals, but they've been running a GMC commercial that features some great recent shots of the Chicago skyline. The opening shot in particular is very nice. It's a helicopter shot from the lake, just north of the river looking southwest. When I paused it I was able to see 600 N Lake Shore Drive and the Fairbanks under construction. It's definitely TiVo-worthy for Chicagoans (is that the right term?).
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
     
     
  #1473  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 4:13 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Lake Shore dogfight
New alderman faces first test as builders, preservationists clash over condo plan

By Eddie Baeb

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=27912

Sporting flip-flops and walking his girlfriend's Yorkshire terrier, Buster, Alderman Brendan Reilly (42nd) was an unassuming figure at a June 3 rally held by preservationists seeking to halt the demolition of the Lake Shore Athletic Club building.

But the new alderman's presence may have signaled a major change for Chicago and the future of how controversial development proposals will play out in the 42nd Ward, which includes much of downtown and the Near North Side. The fate of the 80-year-old building poses the first big test for Mr. Reilly, with neighborhood residents and builders anxious to see whether he's as anti-development as his campaign rhetoric suggested.

"He ran for office in the most difficult ward in the whole city, and now he's getting a baptism by fire," says Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago, which organized the protest. Residents of the 42nd Ward, home to the Streeterville neighborhood and North Michigan Avenue, are "waiting with bated breath to find out if the leadership of the ward has changed direction, or if it will remain business as usual."

Mr. Reilly's decision on the Lake Shore Athletic building — he won't say which way he's leaning — may hint at his stance on other development projects in the ward, where residents have grown increasingly restive as a wave of high-rise condominium towers and tourist attractions sprouted in recent years. During his election campaign earlier this year, Mr. Reilly blasted his opponent, 36-year council veteran Burton Natarus, as being too cozy with developers and striking deals without enough public input.

Chicago development firm Fifield Cos. plans to raze the 19-story Lake Shore Athletic building, at 850 N. Lake Shore Drive, for a condominium tower. Other issues Mr. Reilly faces include the Chicago Children's Museum's plan to move from Navy Pier to the north end of Grant Park, and the prospect that a developer may revive plans for a high-rise next to the Fourth Presbyterian Church on Michigan Avenue. Last month, the Children's Museum rolled out a plan to move the site to Daley Bicentennial Plaza, a location Mr. Reilly opposed during the campaign.

"One hopes the alderman will take a position and lead rather than abrogating responsibility to community groups," says David "Buzz" Ruttenberg, chairman of Chicago developer Belgravia Group Ltd. "When an alderman follows a show of hands, that's kind of a form of anarchy."

Mr. Reilly says his handling of the Lake Shore Athletic building debate is consistent with his campaign pledge to oversee a thorough, public review of development projects. He says he's gathering information from industry experts and the city to determine if there are viable ways to preserve the building — previously a Northwestern University dormitory but vacant for about two years — and may announce a decision in a few weeks.

"When someone proposes to take down a building like this one, you really need to think long and hard," says Mr. Reilly, a 35-year-old New Hampshire native and former aide to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.

In this case, Mr. Reilly doesn't have the luxury of taking his time. Since the building is one of 9,600 in Chicago with an "orange" rating, making it "potentially significant" architecturally or historically, Fifield's demolition request triggered a 90-day review period by the city's Department of Planning and Development that ends July 17.


LANDMARK STATUS

Preservation groups and the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents are pressing the city and Mr. Reilly to have the building declared a landmark, killing Fifield's plan, or at least to seek a preliminary landmark designation that would further delay the wrecking ball.

Fifield, which has a contract to buy the property from Northwestern for more than $40 million, says renovating the building would be a big money-loser because large interior public spaces — once used for dances and boxing matches — account for more than half of the building's square footage.

"It was designed and built as a club. That's a use that in modern times doesn't really exist," says Alan Schachtman, senior vice-president at Fifield.

Northwestern, in a May 21 letter to Soar, says that a landmark designation would cause the school "substantial financial harm," could lead to the building sitting vacant for many years and would "raise serious legal issues that we would feel compelled to address." A university spokesman declined to comment.



42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly isn't saying yet whether he will work to halt demolition of the Lakeshore Athletic Club building, behind him. Photo: John R. Boehm

Last edited by honte; Jun 11, 2007 at 4:38 PM.
     
     
  #1474  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 5:39 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
I attended Lucien Lagrange's presentation last week at Friends of Downtown. He presented a number of current projects, including (most interesting) X/O.

In regards to what the market wants, Lagrange just doesn't get it. Most sickening was what happened with Lincoln Park 2520. I did not know this, but the developers initially wanted to go with a modern design. The rendering he showed of this design imo looked great. It was Lagrange who persuaded the developers to go with the POS design that they ended up with!
Lagrange claims that for the highest-end buyers, they still primarily want retro. I think this is nonsense - some of course do, but the current market (recently built projects and those currently in development) suggests that just as many if not more are demanding modern. It is the goofy NIMBYs around Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Prairie Ave., etc. who crave traditional, ie don't spoil the feel of MY neighborhood. Lagrange proved that he doesn't get it when he made the riciculous comment that (paraphrasing) no one is paying $8 (or whatever) million for a condo at X/O (while they are at Lincoln Park 2520)!! No one in the South Loop is paying $8 mil for anything! It's a completely different type of building (much smaller and intentionally much more affordable units, much different, less expensive neighborhood, etc), and he still made this idiotic comparison! Lagrange should find more work in another city quite frankly - he showed brilliance with Erie OTP, a lot of promice with Kingsbury OTP and now X/O, but he doesn't seem to really learn anything from his past failures - he churns out the same silly retro bs nonsense whenever given half a chance - enough is enough already!
Exactly...

I actually asked this question about all the PoMo architecture. I think I kind of pissed him off

He actually gave the comment that a lot of the recent modern residential buildings didn't have good architecture, which is one reason for all the PoMo. Being the "world renowned" that articles claim, I feel that it's his job to change peoples perception about architecture. Encourage them the think forward.

Oh well!!!!!

This is what we could have had at Lincoln Park 2020, it ain't the greatest, but it's better than what's currently proposed.

__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #1475  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 5:50 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,946
Speaking of Lagrange, the Tribune article has an image of his "place holder" design for 850 N. LSD


And an image of VOA's proposal
     
     
  #1476  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 6:35 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,510
^ Legacy on the left, I assume
     
     
  #1477  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 6:54 PM
SevenSevenThree's Avatar
SevenSevenThree SevenSevenThree is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
^ Legacy on the left, I assume
The moment I read your post, I automatically thought about what someone said awhile ago regarding a new project from the same development company that would be taller than the Legacy. I thought about it being Legacy but I discarded that when he stated proposal. I dont know. Maybe Im completely overlooking something obvious.



Moving on.
__________________
Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar," 1897
     
     
  #1478  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 7:34 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,946
^The VOA proposal is explained in the article BVictor posted.
     
     
  #1479  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 7:56 PM
SevenSevenThree's Avatar
SevenSevenThree SevenSevenThree is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
^The VOA proposal is explained in the article BVictor posted.
I actually read the article but my eye was immediately drawn to the large sketch and what was posted in the article didnt immediately jump out at me.

Im out. Later.
__________________
Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar," 1897

Last edited by SevenSevenThree; Jun 11, 2007 at 8:03 PM.
     
     
  #1480  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 9:24 PM
Eventually...Chicago Eventually...Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 450
just recieved this in electronic mail format:

http://www.belgraviagroup.com/565quincy/eBlasts/061107quincy/061107quincy_eblast_abs.html

[edit] for anyone looking for a west loop place to live, i looked here for a little while, seemed like a sweet building.
__________________
"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
     
     
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 2:42 PM.

     

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