CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

Amen

Of course, it's also full of a mixed-income, mixed-background demographic, (emphatically unlike Stateway Gardens), but whatever.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Cogent points that all here should keep in mind. Often I feel that some of the more fervent preservationists would rather keep all of the architecture they personally find appealing than have a functioning city and individual neighborhoods.

So why demolish a functioning neighborhood that embodies what planners already want (from the demographic perspective)? Isn't that just repeating the mistakes of 50s-era renewal? Why not just update, and not clearcut the whole neighborhood and displace all residents, thereby eliminating the community?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Large Hotel Complex Proposed for River North by Friedman. 501 N. Clark, possible multiple buildings and hotel brands, 700+ total rooms, no taller than 23 stories....


http://www.suntimes.com/business/739243,CST-FIN-build14.article

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp...ir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11385769&encType=1#

So I assume it's that corner Italianate building that will be coming down. Will all 3 buildings front Clark, or would there be one corner building, then one each fronting Illinois and Clark?

Interesting, because Friedman is typically very preservation-minded. The integrity of that building (501 N) is probably pretty far gone anyway, and considering what could be built on the site, both from an intensity (tax revenue) and architectural (aesthetic) standpoint, it could be a worthy loss. There is a cool Cushman photo of this block floating around from back when it was skid row.

EDIT: got it:

[honte]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Cogent points that all here should keep in mind. Often I feel that some of the more fervent preservationists would rather keep all of the architecture they personally find appealing than have a functioning city and individual neighborhoods.

Please PM me when you think of an actual example of this...

[i_am_hydrogen]

A couple Cushman photos of what was demolished to make way for Lake Meadows:

[BVictor1]

^People want to talk about a travisty, well the demolition of those buildings as seen in the images above was a travisty. Those structures had a beautiful texture.

Do you have any more images that you can post?

[BVictor1]

Steely, I was wondering what your thoughts were about the proposed re-development of Lake Meadows? You really admire modern/minimalist architecture, but you also seem to really like city layout/planning.

What are your thoughts?

[Chicago3rd]

Delete please

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Those structures had a beautiful texture.

Let's not forget that they had also become the nation's most shameful slums. The grand old mansions and townhouses had been chopped up into kitchenette apartments, many of which lacked toilet facilities. "Conservation districts" and "historic preservation" were still 20 years in the future. The idea of pouring huge amounts of money and labor into saving the buildings instead of saving the city by just cutting out the cancer would have seemed very odd to people at the time.

[Busy Bee]

Plus funds were ALWAYS set up to support new construction NOT renovation.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

^People want to talk about a travisty, well the demolition of those buildings as seen in the images above was a travisty. Those structures had a beautiful texture.

Do you have any more images that you can post?

Here's the whole collection:
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/

Enjoy.

I'll echo what Mr. Downtown said, and you'll see some documentation of it in Cushman's photos (he went through some periods of slum fascination, clearly). Alot of the housing that was cleared from these areas were the worst slums; "sub-standard" doesn't do justice to how bad these were. From today's perspective, surely a great deal of the architecture was worth saving, but there was a context in which the urban renewal made alot of sense (at least circa the 1950s....the demolition that proceeded well into tehe 1960s was far more questionable and political, e.g. Tap Root Inn). And if anything, wouldn't such an argument of appreciating what you already have and working with it only strengthen the arguments against demolition of Lake Meadows?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Steely, I was wondering what your thoughts were about the proposed re-development of Lake Meadows? You really admire modern/minimalist architecture, but you also seem to really like city layout/planning.

What are your thoughts?

i love modern architecture, but i loath modern planning in anything beyond the small scale. daley plaza = cool, lake meadows = holy shitty neighborhood batman! large scale modern planning never worked because the city is a messy place and architects and planners of the time could never come to terms with that reality. messiness is what makes cities work, it's what makes cities interesting, it's why we urbanists like cities, and yet that same messiness was anathema to the modern movement.

i say save some of the better individual modern towers and completely retool the area from a planning perspective; more streets with street fronting retail and less useless expanses of green space. and tripling the density will be the most important aspect to bring about the urban change the area needs. street fronting retail requires very high density, so tripling the density would help the area become more of a neighborhood and less of an area where people are merely warehoused in isolated human filing cabinets with shitloads of chirping birds and squirrels filling in the gargantuan voids.

[Loopy]

Originally Posted by Jaroslaw

As soon as I hear someone here arguing that some building should be preserved because "it's one of only two projects in Chicago by Joe Morgen, with hints of influence by Mumu Bwabwa, and in turn influencing Enrico Abend...", that's all I need to know. It's like hearing audiophile or oenophile nuts, you just know they're missing the real thing.

Thanks for reading!

[honte]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i love modern architecture, but i loath modern planning in anything beyond the small scale. daley plaza = cool, lake meadows = holy shitty neighborhood batman! large scale modern planning never worked because the city is a messy place and architects and planners of the time could never come to terms with that reality. messiness is what makes cities work, it's what makes cities interesting, it's why we urbanists like cities, and yet that same messiness was anathema to the modern movement.

i say save some of the better individual modern towers and completely retool the area from a planning perspective; more streets with street fronting retail and less useless expanses of green space. and tripling the density will be the most important aspect to bring about the urban change the area needs. street fronting retail requires very high density, so tripling the density would help the area become more of a neighborhood and less of an area where people are merely warehoused in isolated human filing cabinets with shitloads of chirping birds and squirrels filling in the gargantuan voids.

In planning principle, I don't disagree with what you have said. But I think it's worth noting again, for the record, that these are not housing projects. It was urban renewal, yes, but the people who live here have made these their homes entirely on their own volition. And we all know there isn't exactly a crunch for rental apartments on the South Side.

Aside from the developer, who clearly wants to cash in on this land, who has been clamoring for the "urban change the neighborhood needs"? Do the people who live in Lake Meadows think they are "warehoused in isolated human filing cabinets"? Rather, from the ones I know, I would venture to say that they think they live in a stable oasis of greenery and nature, where the elevators work and the maintenance is good, where people pay their rent and get along. They have amazing skyline views and a lakefront lifestyle much like you'd find along Lincoln Park on the North Side.

I am not arguing against density, sound planning, change, whatever. It's obvious that this is prime land, and the more units you can cram on it, the richer the city will be, more services will happen in Burnham Park, etc. But I do ask that we respect the people who have made these their homes, even if as renters they have no "skin in the game," to use a phrase that has made some rounds lately.

Edit - Sorry if that sounded preachy. I realize you weren't trying to do anything but critique the architecture itself.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i love modern architecture, but i loath modern planning in anything beyond the small scale. daley plaza = cool, lake meadows = holy shitty neighborhood batman! large scale modern planning never worked because the city is a messy place and architects and planners of the time could never come to terms with that reality. messiness is what makes cities work, it's what makes cities interesting, it's why we urbanists like cities, and yet that same messiness was anathema to the modern movement.

i say save some of the better individual modern towers and completely retool the area from a planning perspective; more streets with street fronting retail and less useless expanses of green space. and tripling the density will be the most important aspect to bring about the urban change the area needs. street fronting retail requires very high density, so tripling the density would help the area become more of a neighborhood and less of an area where people are merely warehoused in isolated human filing cabinets with shitloads of chirping birds and squirrels filling in the gargantuan voids.

I know that I'd like to see something of impressive height built within the "retooling" of the area. I don't know if I have a specific height in mind, but I wouldn't be displeased if something of at least 700' were built that far south.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

[honte]

^ Of course. It should be even taller than 700.' I am thinking of the buildings built closest to the lakefront. Closer toward King Drive, I'd like to see the old towers remain dominant in the cityscape.

If you're going to alter Lake Meadows, do it right. I think the additions should be grand and forward-thinking, like the development itself. The context here is modernism - the additions thus should have amazing, cutting-edge architecture.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by honte

In planning principle, I don't disagree with what you have said. But I think it's worth noting again, for the record, that these are not housing projects. It was urban renewal, yes, but the people who live here have made these their homes entirely on their own volition. And we all know there isn't exactly a crunch for rental apartments on the South Side.

Aside from the developer, who clearly wants to cash in on this land, who has been clamoring for the "urban change the neighborhood needs"? Do the people who live in Lake Meadows think they are "warehoused in isolated human filing cabinets"? Rather, from the ones I know, I would venture to say that they think they live in a stable oasis of greenery and nature, where the elevators work and the maintenance is good, where people pay their rent and get along. They have amazing skyline views and a lakefront lifestyle much like you'd find along Lincoln Park on the North Side.

I am not arguing against density, sound planning, change, whatever. It's obvious that this is prime land, and the more units you can cram on it, the richer the city will be, more services will happen in Burnham Park, etc. But I do ask that we respect the people who have made these their homes, even if as renters they have no "skin in the game," to use a phrase that has made some rounds lately.

ultimately, i can't say that i'll be caring a whole lot, one way or the other, as far as what ultimately happens to lake meadows. if the people who live there want to keep it as is as a shitty monument to urban planning failure, they can knock themselves out, afterall, they're the ones who have to live there, not me. i was asked by victor what my opinion was and my opinion is thus: lake meadows currently sucks from an urban planning perspective and i see no value in rallying around some preservation outcry to stop what i consider a failed abomination of planning from perhaps one day evolving into something that might be remotely good.

if you think that the planning of lake meadows is so important, despite all of its shortcomings, that it must be preserved, then that's great, but it's certainly not a bandwagon that i'll ever be jumping on.

[honte]

^ No, that wasn't the point. I've already said that, while I admire the planning, I come to agree there is any point in fighting to save much of it.

I don't think anyone in the area will complain much about redoing the layout of the area. But I think they would be offended to learn that their community is a "shitty neighborhood." The point is that this is a community, and here we all are, just theoretically imposing ideas of how to randomly improve it, just like the oh-so-evil Modernists who "never listened to anyone" and just built "terrible communities that no one liked." (latter quotations mine)

A hint of the old planning here and there, I'd like that. For instance, I think making the area between the four towers on King Drive into a public park would be nice, after most of the land around them is developed. This would allow them to remain "towers on a park" instead of "towers in the park."

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

In planning principle, I don't disagree with what you have said. But I think it's worth noting again, for the record, that these are not housing projects. It was urban renewal, yes, but the people who live here have made these their homes entirely on their own volition. And we all know there isn't exactly a crunch for rental apartments on the South Side.

I am not arguing against density, sound planning, change, whatever. It's obvious that this is prime land, and the more units you can cram on it, the richer the city will be and the more services that will happen in Burnham Park, etc. But I do ask that we respect the people who have made these their homes, even if as renters they have no "skin in the game," to use a phrase that has made some rounds lately.

The only reason that they didn't go to shit like Stateway or Rober Taylor is because it's always been privately owned whereas the other 2 were run by the Federal Government who can't do shit right.

I understand that people have come to know this as home, but so did the people who lived in the neighborhood before it was cleared as did those in RT and Stateway before they were demoed.

Aside from the developer, who clearly wants to cash in on this land, who has been clamoring for the "urban change the neighborhood needs"? Do the people who live in Lake Meadows think they are "warehoused in isolated human filing cabinets"? Rather, from the ones I know, I would venture to say that they think they live in a stable oasis of greenery and nature, where the elevators work and the maintenance is good, where people pay their rent and get along. They have amazing skyline views and a lakefront lifestyle much like you'd find along Lincoln Park on the North Side.

Of course the developer wants to cash in. The southside is coming back like a mutha'fucker and they want a piece of the pie. As for them "living in a stable oasis of greenery and nature", I'd have to venture off and say that it's an oasis that's gone unutilized. For all that's currently there, how many slides or swings have you counted? How many baseball diamonds or swimming pools? The oasis has been abondoned.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by honte

^ No, that wasn't the point, and I don't think anyone in the area will complain much about redoing the planning. But I think they would be offended to learn that their community is a "shitty neighborhood."

and some people don't like to learn that they're ugly, but the truth hurts.

i'm not going to say that i think lake meadows is an example of a well-planned neighborhood simply to avoid offending some people who might live there. i think it sucks. it's just my opinion.

i also think schaumburg sucks from a planning perspective; are we no longer going to be allowed to take shots at chicagoland's favorite whipping boy out of fear of offending some who might live there as well?