CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by honte

The brick-sided buildings are more valuable once you consider the history and their place in the development of modernist high-rise apartments. I disagree that they all should be torn down. I have friends who live in them, and they are quite pleasant for their age / level of maintenance, and especially considering that they were never meant to be exquite accommodations.

As far as mazes, who cares? Try to tell me that Rome, London, Paris, most of the world's great cities aren't mazes. Chicago is way too hooked on street grid.



I think it's a fair start - certainly a lot better than wiping the slate clean. I can't agree with removing the tennis club though.

The other question: Why do we need the townhouses? I say, keep the nice parts about the place if at all possible. One of the nice features is how open and airy it is, how much green space is available. Once they add density and retail, people are going to be glad there is so much green space.

Because this and South Commons scream "Fuck You Pedestrian". I looked at aprtments in South Commons but turned it down because I cannot live a car free lifestyle there. Lake Meadows as it stands now has the same result, and I turned it down too, and did even bother to look at units that were available. It is a huge hole in our urban fabric that needs to be patched, starting with leveling the god awaful strip mall.

If they can work most of the existing stock into plan then great, and it would allow for the preservation of some affordable housing. But I am not going to shed a tear if most of what is there is lost, Prairie Shores though would be a different story. 2,033 units over 72 acres is pitifully low density considering what was demolished was probably atleast twice as dense.

There are multiple ways to approach it, and I am sure the new plan will be re-tooled over time as Central Station was. The phased development would lessen the displacement factor for existing residents. The plan that was drafted is really good, and I think if it was avialable some people on here would be really supportive of the idea.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Yes, basically I don't think anyone would demand that they not do anything (although personally I think something will be lost when more buildings are built, no matter how good they are).

So, the best idea here, I believe, is:

1) Rehab the existing buildings in a historically- and environmentally-sensitive fashion. This includes both generations of towers, tennis club, the elementary school, and the office building, all of which are award-winning SOM designs.

2) In-fill new architecture that is sensitive to the original design and master plan, starting with the parking lots. No more PoMo crap intrusions, which has already happened once.

3) Possibly reclaim some park land by decking over the tracks.

I am not in favor of restoring the street grid, personally. I don't see why it's necessary for all of the city to have the same boring, monotonous street grid. Furthermore, I think the layout of the blocks - however "suburban" - is a part of the planning and should be treated as a historic element.

Edit: Also, I would add that the streets in this area were not a pure grid, even before Lake Meadows. If they restore anything, Vincennes and Cottage Grove should be put back along their unique courses.

There's nothing historic about Lake Meadows other than it's on the former Camp Douglas.

Some of the shit over there needs to go. It's ugly and rundown.

This is a new master plan, so why does anything need to follow the orignial design? The development, as is, is nothing more than Stateway Gardens with a glass facade treatment.

I'd be in favor of decking over the tracks, but a station needs to be added at eitherr 35th or 31st.

I also agree with you that Cottage Grove and Vincinnes should be put back.

If this project is to happen, I don't want the whole thing being designed by one architect ALA Central Station. Get some innovation and diversity over there.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

The brick-sided buildings are more valuable once you consider the history and their place in the development of modernist high-rise apartments. I disagree that they all should be torn down. I have friends who live in them, and they are quite pleasant for their age / level of maintenance, and especially considering that they were never meant to be exquisite accommodations.

As far as mazes, who cares? Try to tell me that Rome, London, Paris, most of the world's great cities aren't mazes. Chicago is way too hooked on street grid.



I think it's a fair start - certainly a lot better than wiping the slate clean. I can't agree with removing the tennis club though.

The other question: Why do we need the townhouses? I say, keep the nice parts about the place if at all possible. One of the nice features is how open and airy it is, how much green space is available. Once they add density and retail in appropriate locations, people would be glad there is so much green space. So, just do super-dense and tall towers where they are appropriate.

I really like the idea of getting rid of the parking deck, but unfortunately it is one of the very few privately-owned properties on the site.

Well Chicago isn't Rome nor is it Paris now is it?

I know people who live over there as well.

Their only place in history is that they should be history (Pun intended)

The green space over there isn't used. I've never seen a family having a picnic out on the lawn, or a football or baseball game. The green space is hardly used. With the new proposal, maybe a true park setting could be laid out.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Because this and South Commons scream "Fuck You Pedestrian". I looked at aprtments in South Commons but turned it down because I cannot live a car free lifestyle there.

I didn't say you could. But to equate street grid with pedestrian lifestyle is entirely wrong.

Also, I have to say, all of this "I can't live my lifestyle there so it's wrong" that I hear on this board sounds awfully fascist.

And BVictor, I've been down this road with you on other projects and I'm not going there again because it was fruitless. But you can't rewrite history... all you can do is learn more about it.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by honte

I didn't say you could. But to equate street grid with pedestrian lifestyle is entirely wrong.

Also, I have to say, all of this "I can't live my lifestyle there so it's wrong" that I hear on this board sounds awfully fascist.

I know that, but to promote preservation as a sustainable approach doesn't mean anything if all the residents have to drive everywhere, now does it?

[honte]

^ Shawn, if you re-read my position above, the idea was not to keep everything as-is. The idea was to be more thoughtful and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Lake Meadows can be improved; I am not arguing against that. I think there are ways to keep the good parts and make it more of a real city neighborhood through careful planning and new construction.

Originally Posted by BVictor1

This is a new master plan, so why does anything need to follow the orignial design?

I didn't say that new buildings built here should "follow the original design." My point was to do something SENSITIVE to the original design.

I would actually prefer to see cutting-edge infill, which would be in keeping with the cutting-edge architecture that was built here in its day.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Shawn, if you re-read my position above, the idea was not to keep everything as-is. The idea was to be more thoughtful and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Lake Meadows can be improved; I am not arguing against that. I think there are ways to keep the good parts and make it more of a real city neighborhood through careful planning and new construction.

Alright, I think we can agree on that note.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

And BVictor, I've been down this road with you on other projects and I'm not going there again because it was fruitless. But you can't rewrite history... all you can do is learn more about it.

True,

But you can also make new history by righting a wrong...

[Jaroslaw]

Here is the architectural "achievement" in question, a typical example of inane ideology-driven modernist blight replacing a diverse human-scaled organic urban fabric. Unfortunately, the high-rises on the northwest side (in the second pic) are in fine shape physically.

In the second pic, the parking lot to the left is indeed the proposed site for the Olympic village, Michael Reese Hospital is the brown pile in the middle.

[BVictor1]

^The highrises in the 2nd picture is Prairie Shores. There are no plans to demolish them. But the parking lots there need to go away also.

I believe that the city actually wants to purchase Michael Reese there instead of placing it over the truck staging yard.

[Loopy]

Here is a photo of the development from about 1956. You can still see some of the old neighborhood fabric.

[honte]

^ Great photo, Loopy. Thanks for that.

Actually, all of the neighborhood fabric that you see in that shot still survives, except for some of the SE corner.

It's clear here that a significant amount of land could be gained just from using the parkland closer to the lakefront and the shopping center.

[Busy Bee]

Well that looks like progress to me!

[Mr Downtown]

An earlier scheme published in Architectural Forum August 1950:

[Loopy]

^Cool. That was SOM's (Ambrose Richardson) first concept.

Those were single-loaded blocks that allowed each unit to have both a North and South view!

[Jaroslaw]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

^The highrises in the 2nd picture is Prairie Shores. There are no plans to demolish them. But the parking lots there need to go away also.

Sorry, I thought all that was that, so to speak.

There is a very neat little cul de sac neighborhood E of Meadows, rowhouses facing a park, at the end of 33rd.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Loopy

^Cool. That was SOM's (Ambrose Richardson) first concept.

Those were single-loaded blocks that allowed each unit to have both a North and South view!

I was just about to ask if they were single-loaded corridors... They look impossibly thin. Thanks again.

[Loopy]

I'm going to have to throw down with Honte on this one. This development deserves to be given some consideration before being tossed away whole. Surely, many of these "Urban Removal" schemes were disasters, but some were more successful than others, and this was one of the better examples.

It was also one of the first. In fact it was the first project to make use of the land acquisition powers granted to local authorities in "Title 1" of the 1949 Housing Act. It also represents some architectural firsts:

It is said to be the first use of shear-wall concrete framing. And it was the first high-rise housing in the US to use the flat-plate slab sytem pioneered by Mies in his Promontory Apartments.

There is a lot of history worth preserving in this parcel. Like it's neighbors, IIT and Michael Reese Hospital, Lake Meadows was an international modernist experiment. And with IIT universally recognized as treasure and Michael Reese going under the ball, maybe we should give some thought to what we might want to save here.

Here are some more photos I scrounged up:

These were the first types of structures erected in 1953. The first two were by Ambrose Richardson and three later ones were designed by Walter Netsch and Charles Wiley.



Four of this type were erected in 1955;



1956 by James ScheelerThere is only one of this type.

[Tom Servo]

hey look it's the tops of some buildings and stuff....

300 n lasalle is exploding skywardzz and the joffrey twoer is almost donez

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Loopy

Four of this type were erected in 1955;



1956 by James Scheeler. There is only one of this type.

Imagine how fantastic these would look if not stand-alone but tightly integrated into the urban fabric.

The redevelopment of a parcel like this needs to take into consideration the successes and failures of urban renewal. From the look of it, the success here seems limited to some beautiful, effective architecture that comes straight out of The International Style. Otherwise, it fails. The original plan was auto-centric and isolating. Those parks hardly look like the kind of place you'd want to sit and enjoy the weather, and for all the times the weather is shit they mean an extra block or half-block of braving the elements. (Really, this is the problem of most urban renewal projects. Yeah, they were supposed to be "open and airy" garden temples, but the parks, in keeping with the architecture, are so geometric as to be dehumanizing. And I really do dig the architecture, but only in a more urban context where rectilinear geometry has a clearer place. As is, the buildings are un-natural monoliths.) The segregation of residence and retail is another obvious -- maybe the biggest? -- mistake.

Cities aren't museums; they're first and foremost machines. Architecture and design are meant to enhance their processes; and, if in the course of a city's history an architecture develops that ultimately proves unsuccessful in doing this, then you have to sack it or at least rework it in such a way that it helps not hinders.

With reverence to the "archo-philosopher" planners here, what do you preserve? It seems to me: only the architecture. As for the plan, there's nothing about it that contributes to or helps the day-to-day urban experience. Parks are definitely a good thing, but not when they're designed like this.