CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[lalucedm]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I wonder if you realize how banal and undistinguished those apartment hotels seemed to critics when they were new? They were the Loewenberg designs of their day.

That's true. We have this idea that cookie-cutter mega-developments are a new thing. In fact, Chicago's been doing them since the 1880s. True, they're a bit more mega- nowadays, but they've always been happening. Graystones were truly the tract housing of their day. They've just grown on us over the past 100+ years.

There are several reasons that we don't build things anymore the way they were built in the 1920s and before. One of the biggest reasons is that back then, brick and terra cotta were cheap. So was the labor needed to carve stone, make mosaics, and the like. Back in the 1940s, near the end of that era of architecture, Chicago had four major brickyards. Nowadays it has none (or so I've heard,) so these materials would have to be imported. Chicago also used to have the Southworks. Obviously, the first Chicago School was based on the steel frame, but steel is no longer available so easily here. Further, the great artistic standards of craftsmanship of that age have pretty much been lost. I've discussed this issue with a preservation architect, and it seems that for the most part, the skilled labor to do the elaborate detailing of the 20s is just very hard to find nowadays, and when you can find it, it's very expensive. It's as if it was just never passed down thru the generations as demand waned as the architecture of Mies and SOM took over. Anyways, nowadays, glass, cinderblock, and concrete is the cheap way to go, so that's how we build.

There are architects that try to emulate that lost era, or at least try to get people to believe that they do. Take Lucien Lagrange. Most of us puke at what he creates, because it's such a pale imitation of what was created back then. Precast concrete just isn't exquisitely-carved stone, no matter how hard you try. For that reason, most self-respecting architects don't even try to imitate a past that modern technology and materials are not well-suited for. The materials, technologies, and labor arrangements of our day are well-suited for something great as well. Many architects are trying very hard to find what that is. And some, like, Jeanne Gang, may just have found it. Stay tuned...

[GregBear24]

That was really well put and thorough. I enjoyed reading that.

[Mr Downtown]

But it's important for us to remember that the "hand-carved ornament" on buildings from the 1920s was simply stick-on decoration ordered from a catalog or drawn from a picture-book. It's only our foggy ignorance about classical architecture that makes it look harmonious and admirable to apply a broken limestone pediment to a 20-story apartment building or have quoins on a steel-frame hotel. Is what Lagrange is doing any more dishonest?

[Ataraxy]

Originally Posted by lalucedm

That's true. We have this idea that cookie-cutter mega-developments are a new thing. In fact, Chicago's been doing them since the 1880s. True, they're a bit more mega- nowadays, but they've always been happening. Graystones were truly the tract housing of their day. They've just grown on us over the past 100+ years.

There are several reasons that we don't build things anymore the way they were built in the 1920s and before. One of the biggest reasons is that back then, brick and terra cotta were cheap. So was the labor needed to carve stone, make mosaics, and the like. Back in the 1940s, near the end of that era of architecture, Chicago had four major brickyards. Nowadays it has none (or so I've heard,) so these materials would have to be imported. Chicago also used to have the Southworks. Obviously, the first Chicago School was based on the steel frame, but steel is no longer available so easily here. Further, the great artistic standards of craftsmanship of that age have pretty much been lost. I've discussed this issue with a preservation architect, and it seems that for the most part, the skilled labor to do the elaborate detailing of the 20s is just very hard to find nowadays, and when you can find it, it's very expensive. It's as if it was just never passed down thru the generations as demand waned as the architecture of Mies and SOM took over. Anyways, nowadays, glass, cinderblock, and concrete is the cheap way to go, so that's how we build.

There are architects that try to emulate that lost era, or at least try to get people to believe that they do. Take Lucien Lagrange. Most of us puke at what he creates, because it's such a pale imitation of what was created back then. Precast concrete just isn't exquisitely-carved stone, no matter how hard you try. For that reason, most self-respecting architects don't even try to imitate a past that modern technology and materials are not well-suited for. The materials, technologies, and labor arrangements of our day are well-suited for something great as well. Many architects are trying very hard to find what that is. And some, like, Jeanne Gang, may just have found it. Stay tuned...

Very well put

[pip]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Ya know, I'm gonna get bitch-slapped for saying this, but I actually kind of like this development.

It's a fresh change from a highrise. It not only has more of a 'human' scale, but more importantly, we're not getting stuck with another damn parking podium. The south loop is getting rammed up the wazoo with a dead zone of parking for a good 30-50 feet above ground level, and being that much of the south loop is vacant anyway, there aren't really a lot of historic prewar buildings to dampan the podium effect, as is the case in River North or Streeterville.

A building like this has balconies right above street level. Despite its rather dull design, it scores points in my book just for this reason.

(Never fear, I still love tall, thin, and modern buildings, but I had to say my peace..)

Yup. Posting from Boston right now. Seeing with my own eyes what to do, parking podiums and parking podiums are not the way to go. Just look at human scaled Boston. Yeah these highrises in Chicago look cool from a distance but from my beloved pedestrain experience they are not my favorite.

I am torn though. Who wants to pay double for a condo as Chicago costs for a much less active city? Not me.

Where is the balance?

[honte]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

But it's important for us to remember that the "hand-carved ornament" on buildings from the 1920s was simply stick-on decoration ordered from a catalog or drawn from a picture-book. It's only our foggy ignorance about classical architecture that makes it look harmonious and admirable to apply a broken limestone pediment to a 20-story apartment building or have quoins on a steel-frame hotel. Is what Lagrange is doing any more dishonest?

That's not entirely true. Most of the bigger buildings had custom ornament and detail work, even through the 1920s. The stock stuff was found on the smaller structures typically. And don't forget, we had masters designing some of the stock stuff, such as Louis Sullivan.

The major difference between LaGrunge applied ornament and that of yesteryear is that in the 1920s, the architects were often classically trained from the Beaux Arts. They knew what to do with the classical styles they were "applying." Hence, the buildings are much better proportioned and far more honest than what we see today, which is much more of a "slap it on" approach.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Thanks for the updates, Monkey36. You really put in work.

[Knightwing]

Thanks for the pics monk, I nearly broke my neck trying to look at them.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

That's not entirely true. Most of the bigger buildings had custom ornament and detail work, even through the 1920s. The stock stuff was found on the smaller structures typically. And don't forget, we had masters designing some of the stock stuff, such as Louis Sullivan.

The major difference between LaGrunge applied ornament and that of yesteryear is that in the 1920s, the architects were often classically trained from the Beaux Arts. They knew what to do with the classical styles they were "applying." Hence, the buildings are much better proportioned and far more honest than what we see today, which is much more of a "slap it on" approach.

You've hit it directly on the head.

There was craftsmanship, class, quality and style. The material was durable, cheap and easy to come by.

I believe that Lucien Lagrange is trained in classical architecture, but it's not the classical architecture of 1900. The main source of the situtation though are the developers, unwilling to spend any real money on quality designs or designers. However that tide seems to be shifting.

[sentinel]

Well I'm back from banishment to the land of winds and ghosts, and have some minor news about the Peshtigo: I just got a call from the realtor that is marketing the units and this building is still definitely in the works - not cancelled, scaled back or anything; they are shooting for Spring 2008 construction start - and the units, as described to me (for 1 & 2 bedrooms) are relatively large - and expensive (1 bedrooms start around 480K, but given the location, I guess that is understandable) - as soon as I get renderings I will post them here. Btw, it's good being back, and I promise to behave in the threads until the end of time...or until another forumer from another city pisses me off again

[SevenSevenThree]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Well I'm back from banishment to the land of winds and ghosts, and have some minor news about the Peshtigo: I just got a call from the realtor that is marketing the units and this building is still definitely in the works - not cancelled, scaled back or anything; they are shooting for Spring 2008 construction start - and the units, as described to me (for 1 & 2 bedrooms) are relatively large - and expensive (1 bedrooms start around 480K, but given the location, I guess that is understandable) - as soon as I get renderings I will post them here. Btw, it's good being back, and I promise to behave in the threads until the end of time...or until another forumer from another city pisses me off again

A friend of mine is possibly thinking about the units there and was told that the sales center opens in September. Unless the first page has one and I havent seen it because my computer does not care for the front page, shouldnt we be seeing some type of rendering? Just seems so close to sales and nothing, outside of the massing that was released long ago, has been leaked.

[SamInTheLoop]

340 is a true beauty from every angle - sideways, upside down, it simply does not matter. It's so satisfying to once again have flawless (or at least very nearly flawless) structures being built in Chicago. Although it's a difficult call, I think my favorite vantage point may be from the SSE. I really hope we get the same kind of quality out of Martin Wolf's Mandarin Oriental Tower....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by SevenSevenThree

A friend of mine is possibly thinking about the units there and was told that the sales center opens in September. Unless the first page has one and I havent seen it because my computer does not care for the front page, shouldnt we be seeing some type of rendering? Just seems so close to sales and nothing, outside of the massing that was released long ago, has been leaked.

Yeah - can't wait to start seeing some detail on this design. I'm wondering how close it is to the version some of us saw a couple years ago...

Also, I wonder if this is a JV with equity partner JER, and if so how much $ JER is putting into the deal - perhaps this is one reason Related seems to be moving (imo) very aggressively with this one given the market...

[Monkey36]

Originally Posted by Knightwing

Thanks for the pics monk, I nearly broke my neck trying to look at them.

Sorry, anyone know any free photo editing software that I can use to easily rotate my photos? (and will run on a mac)

[SamInTheLoop]

Hom Chicago's (formerly Aristocrat Tower) website states "Sorry, we are no longer taking contracts". I have a feeling it is not because they are sold out...

I'd like to think this project's apparent failure (for the 2nd time, no less!) has more to do with the lousy design than with the health of the market...

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Monkey36

Sorry, anyone know any free photo editing software that I can use to easily rotate my photos? (and will run on a mac)

Picasa from Google http://picasa.google.com

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Monkey36

Sorry, anyone know any free photo editing software that I can use to easily rotate my photos? (and will run on a mac)

Preview is already on your Mac.

[Monkey36]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Preview is already on your Mac.

Preview automatically rotates when I open the photos up and then if I rotate them again, they only show up sideways (either top on left or right, only).

I'll give Picasa a try.

[SkokieSwift]

Try iPhoto.

[Monkey36]

Okay, got it. Thanks guys. Next update from me will be all right side up, no more neck straining.