CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Why?? Because the architecture doesn't meet your quixotic expectations? It's fairly evident that the boom is slowing down considerably. We ought to be snapping up as many remaining projects as possible. Granted, the architecture may not be iconic, but a hotel at that location will help to enliven this stretch of Michigan Avenue.

I was about to post the same thing. I soon as I saw the picture I knew it would be followed by the same crap just because its not a mind blowing design. Does every single project have to be Spire quality?

My opinion is, its not great and its not terrible. And it would be great for that strech of Michigan. I am all for extending the Mag Mile all the way to Roosevelt.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Ugh. We can't even hire a real architect for a Michigan Avenue project any more?

Crappy PoMo version of Carbide and Carbon

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Can you clarify whether you're trying to defend him or criticise him with that point?

I am not a fan of Warman the architect. 41 East 8th is pretty awful. Though the helicopter-level rendering I found makes it look OK, I think the Astoria is too short and squat. When using a Hugh Ferriss zoning-formula or Deco-style tower composition, proportion is everything.

[jboy560]

i'd be more okay with this if they would just take out those two blank beige strips of wall

[honte]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Why?? Because the architecture doesn't meet your quixotic expectations? It's fairly evident that the boom is slowing down considerably. We ought to be snapping up as many remaining projects as possible. Granted, the architecture may not be iconic, but a hotel at that location will help to enliven this stretch of Michigan Avenue.

I agree with him. I'd far rather wait for something with quality than see Michigan Avenue move further down the tubes.

Originally Posted by brian_b

The dude can't even scrape together enough money to buy the property. How do you expect him to hire a big-name architect?

No, I don't. I think if all he can do is deliver crap, he should move on to something he can handle. And, I wasn't the one to suggest a big name architect. But I do expect something with quality. There are tons of qualified firms in this city who can produce something 5x better than this junk.

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

. . . what would be the point of hiring a big name architect for a site that's burried in the Michigan Avenue gauntlet???
. . .

Cororllary: Every site that's not in full view can be developed with junk. C'mon Tom, that's not how to build a great city, is it? Or, are you simply saying that "big name" architects should be on display (eg not a statement about quality?). In this case, I would respond that surprises are one of the best things about big cities - and something on Michigan Avenue is hardly a surprise in any case.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by honte

I agree with him. I'd far rather wait for something with quality than see Michigan Avenue move further down the tubes.

What if that "something" never comes? Or doesn't come for a very long time? That's my point. Wouldn't Michigan Avenue be better served by a mixed-use highrise project than a four or five-story building with a Walgreens in it?

[honte]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

What if that "something" never comes? Or doesn't come for a very long time? That's my point. Wouldn't Michigan Avenue be better served by a mixed-use highrise project than a four or five-story building with a Walgreens in it?

I see your point, but I think Chicago has turned a corner... We have shed the Rust Belt image and are poised to be a little more selective. This isn't some forlorn corner under the elevated on West Lake Street, after all.

Don't forget about the prior proposal, which had a developer from Miami, with a much better architecture firm under his wing. I think that is evidence enough that this site will draw national attention and we should be able to get a fairly outstanding development out of it.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

What if that "something" never comes? Or doesn't come for a very long time? That's my point. Wouldn't Michigan Avenue be better served by a mixed-use highrise project than a four or five-story building with a Walgreens in it?

no. i like that building. and i'd hate to lose it to another awful high rise that we see SO often around town.

[Alliance]

SEX:

550 St. Clair




All the Space It Deserves


Streeter II

Park View West

’Tute Expansion

[Tom Servo]

*clap*clap*clap*

600 and 550 are awesome!

edit: oh, and how AMAZING is piano? i can't wait to step in there! he is god at doing museums i swear!

[Crazy Ivan]

With the recent rate cuts and the economic stimulus that allows businesses to write off and additional 50% of investments made in 2008, it may release the log jam of highrise proposals in Chicago.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan

With the recent rate cuts and the economic stimulus that allows businesses to write off and additional 50% of investments made in 2008, it may release the log jam of highrise proposals in Chicago.

I disagree, but a topic for another thread before we veer too far OT

[APPRAISER]

Hey guys!

Today was was walking around downtown taking care of some business, and decided to walk home instead of taking the train. In doing so I was at the intersection of Grand and Clark, across the street from Maggiano's when I noticed a Public Notice on the corner surface lot that states a new building that will consists of over 700 hotel rooms.
I apologize, I didn't have my camera on me, and I'm sorry if this was already brought up before.
I was wondering if anyone knows what building is going up there?

Thanks!

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

*clap*clap*clap*

600 and 550 are awesome!

edit: oh, and how AMAZING is piano? i can't wait to step in there! he is god at doing museums i swear!

550's base is atrocious. Not only is it glaringly white, and bland, but it is FLAT like on other. It looks like paper. The tower may be fine but that base needs to be painted or reclad.

600 is georgous. I don't know quite where to place it yet. It's probably just below the starting linuep, but its certianly part of the best of the Boom crowd: Sofitel, Hyatt, Spertus, 600.

[dagobert]

Originally Posted by APPRAISER

Hey guys!

Today was was walking around downtown taking care of some business, and decided to walk home instead of taking the train. In doing so I was at the intersection of Grand and Clark, across the street from Maggiano's when I noticed a Public Notice on the corner surface lot that states a new building that will consists of over 700 hotel rooms.
I apologize, I didn't have my camera on me, and I'm sorry if this was already brought up before.
I was wondering if anyone knows what building is going up there?

Thanks!

That is 501 N. Clark hotel project.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=321830

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Alliance

550's base is atrocious. Not only is it glaringly white, and bland, but it is FLAT like on other. It looks like paper. The tower may be fine but that base needs to be painted or reclad.

600 is georgous. I don't know quite where to place it yet. It's probably just below the starting linuep, but its certianly part of the best of the Boom crowd: Sofitel, Hyatt, Spertus, 600.

i don't understand why b+l didn't just leave the base white. nonetheless, 550 is a great building.

600 is one of the best buildings ever built. have you ever been in it? it's awesome...

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-wed_ibm-hotel-mar19,0,913059.story

Luxury hotel planned for portion of former IBM Building
By Robert Manor | Tribune reporter
March 19, 2008

Designed as an office tower by acclaimed architect Mies van der Rohe, the former IBM Building is about to get a major update, complete with bellhops and bathtubs.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

i don't understand why b+l didn't just leave the base white. nonetheless, 550 is a great building.

I don't understand why they didn't just continue the glass curtainwall all the way down.


As for the Michigan Ave project, one thing I just don't understand is why, when you've got a building to the north with a large blank sidewall, that the architects don't make an effort to cover that up?
Don't they realize that'll make their project fit better with it's surroundings, and look better, along with making the city look more cohesive?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Alliance

550's base is atrocious. Not only is it glaringly white, and bland, but it is FLAT like on other. It looks like paper. The tower may be fine but that base needs to be painted or reclad.

It's not exactly the sort of high-traffic area that would do this sort of thing, but I've always thought it would be nice if some of these parking podiums would wrap themselves in LED displays, a la the Nasdaq sign in Times Square (albeit probably with lower wattage to avoid blasting the neighbors too badly). They could sell advertising or just do cool things with it.

I have no idea what one of those costs (I'm sure they're not exactly cheap), but I still think it'd be a cool idea.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I don't understand why they didn't just continue the glass curtainwall all the way down.


As for the Michigan Ave project, one thing I just don't understand is why, when you've got a building to the north with a large blank sidewall, that the architects don't make an effort to cover that up?
Don't they realize that'll make their project fit better with it's surroundings, and look better, along with making the city look more cohesive?

One of my BIGGEST pet peeves of ALL time. I think it could be blamed on zoning and economics if I was to make a guess. I know in New York if a midrise building wants to go higher under a set in stone FAR requirement, they have to pull back from the streetwall which 9 times out of 10 is an urban planning cardinal sin. I have a feeling these loopholes will be rewitten in the future as more people start calling them on zoning policies that are in direct opposition to architectural aesthetics. I know the AIA was recently envolved in an action in NY to promote a rewrite of the code to do just this. Their proposal basically does what what should be common sense—meet the older taller building next door with an equal height, flush streetwall structure next to it—ROCKET SCIENCE! An to think we were able to do this for about 200 years before all old world rules that we brought from Europe were thrown out of the window and right into the parking lot surrounded by a landscaped berm next to the sidewalk!!!