CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 100

Tom Servo · #**1981** Posted **Jul 9, 2007, 8:58 PM**

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Nowhereman1280 · #**1982** Posted **Jul 9, 2007, 10:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

yeah i know... and that's going to look awful. and feel really strange... at least the area around the Columbian is urban. and the two story thing behind it is fits into the urban landscape. those townhomes next to the spire site feel like the suburbs. that whole area is really strange. i think they need to get rid of a lot of stuff in that area and built up some rest., some retail, something to wake that sleepy suburban pocket of inner city chicago up. something needs to be done about that... but since this is chicago, i don't think it'll happen.

Something is being done to wake that area up, it is called the Chicago Spire... Think about it, there will probably be at least 1200 people in that building at all times (and that is a low guess based on the assumption that many of the owners are out of town at any time) that alone will wake that area up. Also, the CS will become a tourist attraction and Dusable will become a mini-melinium park with two sculputures instead of one (the Calatrava Sculpture in CS plaza and the other Calatrava scupture being CS itself)... That area will be crawling with people in just a few years time, especially with the addition of the Dusable footbridge (could be yet another Calatrava functional sculpture there) bring all the Lakeshore path traffic through. That should stimulate some signifigant retail in the area in the near future...

honte · #**1983** Posted **Jul 9, 2007, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

yeah i know... and that's going to look awful. and feel really strange... at least the area around the Columbian is urban. and the two story thing behind it is fits into the urban landscape. those townhomes next to the spire site feel like the suburbs. that whole area is really strange. i think they need to get rid of a lot of stuff in that area and built up some rest., some retail, something to wake that sleepy suburban pocket of inner city chicago up. something needs to be done about that... but since this is chicago, i don't think it'll happen.

I think you're being incredible unfair and unreasonable, and forgetting that there is room enough in this city for many different lifestyles and ideas to coexist.

And the "well, this is Chicago" comment? I don't know what other American city you can fill in the blank to make your statements work. Maybe Shanghai, where they run rough-shod over everything?

Tom Servo · #**1984** Posted **Jul 9, 2007, 11:10 PM**

SolarWind · #**1985** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 12:16 AM**

I apologize if this has been discussed before - is a sales center being opened at the site of The Peshtigo? I saw Fritkin Jones Design Group sprucing up a temporary structure at the 500 N LSD site (they had their name everywhere). There's signage for a new residential tower. It lists a website http://www.buildingcomedy.com/.

The tag line is "57 new stories in the city, which one is yours?" I'm guessing "stories" has a double meaning - 57 floors and 57 cutesy vignettes about urban living. No rendering yet.

Busy Bee · #**1986** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 12:51 AM**

This is my shockingly bad attempt at showing what 55 Monroe would look like if it wasn't "half and half." Conclusion: Like the Photoshop hack job— still shockingly bad.

Sir Isaac Newton · #**1987** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 1:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

maybe i am. but something about that area and to an even greater extent, museum park area, rubs me the wrong way.
and all i meant about the 'this is chicago' thing was this: a lot of people in this city seem to reject urbanity. it seems as though they want the comfort and sleepyness of the suburbs, but they want that inside the city. maybe i'm wrong, but when i look at the state of chicago over-all, i see a city that is becoming a townhome and car centric place that is becoming a very (midwestern) city. i don't want to get to deep with my comments, so yeah...

There is a minority of people like that in Chicago....and Chicago is less "urban" than Manhattan....but I would say that for the most part, you are somewhat off base. If anything, Chicago is becoming more urban in the past few years and is definitely not a townhome and car centric place. Have you paid attention to this thread and how many high rises full of condos are currently going up in the city? There's quite a few more condos out there in the core area of Chicago than townhomes.

Tom Servo · #**1988** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 1:05 AM**

headcase · #**1989** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

if they were to do that to the entire building it would look 100 times better.

It would look the best if they just left it alone.

SSDD

honte · #**1990** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 1:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

maybe i am. but something about that area and to an even greater extent, museum park area, rubs me the wrong way.
and all i meant about the 'this is chicago' thing was this: a lot of people in this city seem to reject urbanity. it seems as though they want the comfort and sleepyness of the suburbs, but they want that inside the city. maybe i'm wrong, but when i look at the state of chicago over-all, i see a city that is becoming a townhome and car centric place that is becoming a very (midwestern) city. i don't want to get to deep with my comments, so yeah...

I don't disagree with you overall: Dearborn Park (and, as you say, Museum Park to a large degree) rub me the wrong way too.

Well, it's interesting. I was just down in Dearborn Park I the other night with an architect friend of mine. We went down there because he was reminiscing on growing up in the North Shore and his earliest experiences in the city.

When Dearborn Park I opened, he specifically remembers his mom wanting to go downtown and check out the "new neighborhood." His uncle had called on the phone and read the article about it in the Trib, exclaiming "Who in living hell would want to live down there? And the buildings look like little jails." He recalled driving down the streets filled with flophouses and porn shops, and somehow ending up in this little oasis. For my friend, this was the experience that opened his eyes to city living, and at that very moment he decided he would one day move into the city.

So, as much as we all despise Dearborn Park, I think it was highly instrumental in making this Boom possible and in establishing the South Loop as a decent place to live. I would have far preferred to see the original, Bruce Graham towers scheme built... but I wonder if it would have worked out as well in the end?

the urban politician · #**1991** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 2:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

maybe i'm wrong, but when i look at the state of chicago over-all, i see a city that is becoming a townhome and car centric place that is becoming a very (midwestern) city. i don't want to get to deep with my comments, so yeah...

In the past 8 years, 120 and counting highrises have been built in Chicago. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

This coming from one of the biggest Dearborn Park haters on the planet..

Alliance · #**1992** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 2:44 AM**

CBOT AND MERC TO MERGE

Cheers all. This is a great day for Chicago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by headcase

It would look the best if they just left it alone.

SSDD

Yeah, or...if they wanted bigger windows...do a reverse WTC1/2 base, bending every triplet of colums together into one. It would actually be logical and might look ok...but at least it would be continuous.

Though honestly, the only time I like Park Monroe is at night, it looks great as a black anc blue stand-alone behind the lit stone facades of Michigan Ave.

Eventually...Chicago · #**1993** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 5:04 AM**

These have been flying around the OMP thread and they should be posted here!

Give credit to alex for tracking these down!

forumly_chgoman · #**1994** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 5:16 AM**

^^^^^What is tha t a model for?

Chicago Shawn · #**1995** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 5:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

So, as much as we all despise Dearborn Park, I think it was highly instrumental in making this Boom possible and in establishing the South Loop as a decent place to live. I would have far preferred to see the original, Bruce Graham towers scheme built... but I wonder if it would have worked out as well in the end?

Say what? We could have had Bruce Graham designed towers instead of the disconnected schlock that exists now? Oh man that just adds salt to the open wounds. You wouldn't happen to have a rendering of SOM scheme would you, or at least know where I could find one?

honte · #**1996** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 5:38 AM**

^ Sorry, Shawn. I don't have any renders of the thing as originally proposed.

There were a number of earlier, better proposals. Harry Weese tried valiantly to save the train sheds from Dearborn Station, and there also was a plan to put UIC there (now, that would have been something).

Bruce Graham did do the final master plan, but the original was far denser and included a number of towers. As I recall, it also called for construction of all of the parking within a garage beneath the buildings, with landscaping and large amounts of greenspace overhead, somewhat similar to the good parts of Sandburg Village.

It was also his idea to bring in a number of different architects, to mix things up a bit, and I believe he was the one who chose them. So, the towers might not have all been SOM designs - in fact, I can't remember why, but there was some political reason why SOM was only doing the planning and not any of the actual design work.

Perhaps Mr. Downtown will be able to fill in the blanks and/or correct anything I have wrong above.

ardecila · #**1997** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 7:49 AM**

To be honest, that would have been a far better location for UIC - more central to the downtown area, occupying land previously used by railyards. The Little Italy neighborhoods would have been saved, and the students would be far better connected to downtown. University Village would not have been built, and Maxwell Street would still be intact.

It's fun to dream sometimes.

BTW, that Central Station tower looks a lot like a Lucien LaGrange modern design... sort of like a more whimsical version of the InterContinental Tower, with roughly the same proportions.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**1998** Posted **Jul 10, 2007, 8:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

maybe i am. but something about that area and to an even greater extent, museum park area, rubs me the wrong way.
and all i meant about the 'this is chicago' thing was this: a lot of people in this city seem to reject urbanity. it seems as though they want the comfort and sleepyness of the suburbs, but they want that inside the city. maybe i'm wrong, but when i look at the state of chicago over-all, i see a city that is becoming a townhome and car centric place that is becoming a very (midwestern) city. i don't want to get to deep with my comments, so yeah...

I don't think your assessment is based in fact. Apologies for preaching to (some of) the choir, but the Loop and its environs (including those immediately north) were lifeless till very recently. I believe that unlike most other major US cities -- Boston, New Haven and New York come to mind -- this wasn't due to calamitous Urban Renewal projects but rather historical development patterns (i.e., a sleepier business core vis-a-vis residential and therefore livelier communities on its outskirts).

Transforming this area into an equally lively community takes time, and is, in fact, still in process. The town homes neighboring the site of the Chicago Spire? Think of how their property values are going to skyrocket in a few years. I doubt they were constructed out of someone's nostalgia for suburbia so much as real estate savvy, which means they will probably yield to a much larger structure one day. In general, urbanism develops incrementally.

Anyway, that's assuming there's something un- or even anti-urban about row houses and town homes, which I think is silly/outright wrong. (See: Beacon Hill, San Francisco, etc.)

Regarding transportation, are you at all aware of the tentative plans for expanding the "L" by creating an outer ring? It's my understanding that if Chicago gets the 2016 Olympics, it'll almost certainly happen.

In other words, your fears are pretty much for naught.