CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Mojava]

Originally Posted by aaron38

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

This is clearly a cost issue. Not to get too far off topic but here is a story from The Real Deal (a website devoted to ny real estate) that discusses the topic of developers/architects moving towards other materials because of the high price of glass.

http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/with-glass-costly-a-new-idea-walls

"Developers and brokers say that an all-glass building will cost between $75 and $135 a square foot, depending upon the type of glass used and the degree of transparency. The cost is slightly less per square foot for buildings that appear to be all glass, but have slabs on the façade that break up those sheets.

By comparison, a brick façade costs only about $25 per square foot and a stucco façade is "a drop cheaper," though the price could be slightly higher depending on the material below the façade, Maundrell said."

[Tom In Chicago]

honte - 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?

That's not what I said. . . nor was it what I was implying. . .


. . .

[honte]

^ I asked you some questions, which you deleted from your reply. If you care to explain what you meant...

[ChiPsy]

Originally Posted by tptraub

I noticed the other day an at least 10 story addition to the Northwestern Medical School building on Chicago Avenue. The work is in progress and still going up. I've searched various threads and haven't found any information about it. Does anyone have any information about it?

I *think* what you're talking about is the scaffolding they placed on the tower for an apparent facade repair (and hopefully cleaning). This is the "campus gothic" building that overlooks the MCA & tennis courts, right?

[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!!!

[Chicago3rd]

155 N Wacker, Waterview (edited due to my stupidity), Trump

[cbotnyse]

^^ you said Watertower Place, I think you meant Waterview.

Great shots. Those photos really illistrate how strange it is that 151 doesnt front on Wacker.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Mojava

"Developers and brokers say that an all-glass building will cost between $75 and $135 a square foot,
By comparison, a brick façade costs only about $25 per square foot."

Brick is cheaper than glass?? Is that materials only, or does that include the labor cost to install?
I would love to see some brand new all brick higrises in the sub 500' class.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by aaron38

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?

What building are you talking about? If you mean Warman's project for the NWC Lake/Michigan, it's on a corner, with two small buildings to the north. Where is there a blank sidewall that Warman could do anything about?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Brick is cheaper than glass?? Is that materials only, or does that include the labor cost to install?
I would love to see some brand new all brick higrises in the sub 500' class.

I wonder how the maintenance costs between the two compare?

[the urban politician]

As usual, too much parking. But it's good to know that most West Loopers are willing to pull their heads out of their asses for a few secs to give this one a nod:

3/19/2008 10:00:00 PM Email this article • Print this article

Rendering courtesy of IBT Group

Mr. Redford's picture show could arrive in West Loop
$240 million mixed-use project

BY MICAH MAIDENBERG
Editor


The IBT Group wants to build twin 21-story towers above a mixture of small retail shops and larger commercial tenants, including an eight-screen theatre showing independent film operated by Sundance Theatres, at the former Fannie Mae factory site in the West Loop.

The former Fannie Mae site, bound by Van Buren to the south, Jackson to the north, Aberdeen to the east and an alley behind a gas station to the west, is four acres in size, making it one of the larger plots in the neighborhood awaiting redevelopment.
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=4350&TM=84951.96

[harryc]

March 14 - AM


March 17 - odd core

[BVictor1]

A few things...

-The tower crane for Museum Park Place II (A.K.A the return of tic-tac-toe) is being installed

-There have been some type of issues with the tower crane for 1600 Museum Park because the boom and cab have been removed.

-I went to Crain'c Chicago Business Real Estate Forum yesterday and learned a few things: Don't count 680 N. Rush out of the game yet. A source tells me that a portion of the company either has been or will be sold to overseas investors similar to what Buck did with his company. This could be oil money, which there is a lot of. The project is still being marketed on the DL (down-low).

The keynote speaker at this forum was Christopher Kennedy, President of Merchandise Mart Properties. Of course the question of Wolf Point came up, but he was pretty tight lipped. I as you know couldn't help but put in my 2 cents' and said I hope that the architecture will be inspiring and not another Pelli rip off (not exactly in those words but close). This drew laughs from the croud and complements thereafter. I went up to Mr. Kennedy to say that it was a pleasure to meet him and that 89-stories was too short and to increase the height. He supplied me with his business card, so all in all, It was a good day

[SamInTheLoop]

Here's a link to a third design for Buck's proposed 222 W. Randolph office tower, on the developer's website:



http://www.tjbc.com/DEVELOPMENT/OfficeProjects/222WestRandolphStreet/tabid/182/Default.aspx

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

A few things...

-The tower crane for Museum Park Place II (A.K.A the return of tic-tac-toe) is being installed

-There have been some type of issues with the tower crane for 1600 Museum Park because the boom and cab have been removed.

-I went to Crain'c Chicago Business Real Estate Forum yesterday and learned a few things: Don't count 680 N. Rush out of the game yet. A source tells me that a portion of the company either has been or will be sold to overseas investors similar to what Buck did with his company. This could be oil money, which there is a lot of. The project is still being marketed on the DL (down-low).

The keynote speaker at this forum was Christopher Kennedy, President of Merchandise Mart Properties. Of course the question of Wolf Point came up, but he was pretty tight lipped. I as you know couldn't help but put in my 2 cents' and said I hope that the architecture will be inspiring and not another Pelli rip off (not exactly in those words but close). This drew laughs from the croud and complements thereafter. I went up to Mr. Kennedy to say that it was a pleasure to meet him and that 89-stories was too short and to increase the height. He supplied me with his business card, so all in all, It was a good day

Great info, BVic. Yeah, I found it amusing that yesterday, a couple weeks after Crain's reported that marketing for CRL was being suspended, another series of ads for the project began to show up again on Crain's website!

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Here's a link to a third design for Buck's proposed 222 W. Randolph office tower, on the developer's website:



http://www.tjbc.com/DEVELOPMENT/OfficeProjects/222WestRandolphStreet/tabid/182/Default.aspx

^Ugly shit...

[SamInTheLoop]

Some new renderings of the apartment towers at K Station. This is just getting beyond silly: in about the 17th name change in the development, Fifield has renamed Vector. It is now Cirrus. Honestly, I'm not making this stuff up - see for yourself...



http://www.fifieldco.com/index_s.html

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

^Ugly shit...

At least they're all just very conceptual at this point...

[Dan in Chicago]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Some new renderings of the apartment towers at K Station. This is just getting beyond silly: in about the 17th name change in the development, Fifield has renamed Vector. It is now Cirrus.

Thanks Sam, that came just in time! Today two of us Emporis editors got the exact heights of the new towers. Alta at K Station is under construction: apparently caissons for Cirrus started in January, and for Alta in mid-February. Here are the heights:

Alta at K Station
41 floors
555 West Kinzie Street
417'-1.5" (architectural)
412'-1" (roof)

Cirrus at K Station
37 floors
365 North Jefferson Street
378'-3.5" (architectural)
373'-7.5" (roof)

[samoen313]

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.



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.

Yeah, I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but I'm 100% with you Adrian + honte. This is just so bad and in such a visible spot, it does deserve the "don't build it" judgment.

Architecture is what makes a city and this is just another example of the crap that doesn't lend anything to the city at all. It's a jumbled mess of crappy materials, bastardized historical principles, and just all around (forgive me for treading away from un-constructiveness) lame lame lame. It's sad enough that a huge number of forumers here continue to speak up for the at least 50% of new constructions that are unacceptable by saying "yeah, it sucks, but it is better than a parking lot." I say that excuse only goes so far and I firmly believe it stops here.

We cannot expect every proposal to be great but we should expect them to be good. That the majority of people on here, architects and non-architects alike, respond to this with a good chunk of the general public does get a whiff of that too.

What makes Chicago memorable and enchanting are the buildings of genuine integrity to make themselves landmarks from the old Chicago school-ers to the MvdR and then SOM heydays. Not the Pappageorge or whatever other 1940-graduate-of-UIll-Chicago-architecture buildings that are only necessary to a point. The initial rising of the South Loop? Fine. Prominent site along Michigan circa 2000? Okay, fine, fine, whatever. Almost 2010, standing up against the likes of Spire? Aqua? Never. Starchitecture has its time and place too, this I'm aware of, but couldn't they at least give the competentes at Pickard + Chilton or DeStefano a shot at this?
Woof.