CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 349

neverdone · #**6961** Posted **May 3, 2008, 5:05 PM**

Does anyone know the current status of Park view east? I have been by the site, although only on the south side, and it seems all that is being built now is the entrance to the parking garage?

Alliance · #**6962** Posted **May 3, 2008, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I am completely in favor of separate thread for those towers. Who's with me?

I support it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ True, but this isn't any project. This is the Ritz Carlton Residences. This is where the big hedge fund manager and the CEO lives.

You'd think such wealthy men would want to live in a good looking building.

aaron38 · #**6963** Posted **May 3, 2008, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I was just thinking, can we move to create a separate thread for the new McClurg dual tower proposal? The taller one is only 5' under our 700' limit (taller than the Elysian which has its own thread), the second tower is huge as well, and the proposal is so sweet that it deserves its own thread to draw attention to it.

Was a new rendering released for this that I missed? The only one I remember seeing was just a line drawing without much detail.

Tom Servo · #**6964** Posted **May 3, 2008, 6:59 PM**

you guys are all focusing on the destruction of the farwell building, but really, you won't notice that much since the first few floors will remain. i'm more upset that the terra art museum is being razed for this ugly, too tall of a beast.

who wants to chain themselves to it with me?

*dkimages

cbotnyse · #**6965** Posted **May 3, 2008, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

You'd think such wealthy men would want to live in a good looking building.

99% of people dont care about design and mostly care about location and amenities, and this building will be tops in both. But I agree it is a POS design and exactly what the Mag Mile doesn't need more of.

Mojava · #**6966** Posted **May 3, 2008, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

99% of people dont care about design and mostly care about location and amenities, and this building will be tops in both. But I agree it is a POS design and exactly what the Mag Mile doesn't need more of.

I'm not quite sure I get the great location. I understand the premium of having a vanity address such as Mich Ave but this isnt ideal for residential living. I live a few blocks west of where the Ritz is going and it's loud there. Add to that the sirens, ambulences going to Northwestern, cabbies honking all the time, and the street performers banging away on their "drums." But to each is own.

cbotnyse · #**6967** Posted **May 3, 2008, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojava

I'm not quite sure I get the great location. I understand the premium of having a vanity address such as Mich Ave but this isnt ideal for residential living. I live a few blocks west of where the Ritz is going and it's loud there. Add to that the sirens, ambulences going to Northwestern, cabbies honking all the time, and the street performers banging away on their "drums." But to each is own.

I live 2 blocks directly south of there and love it. If you dont want city noise, move to the suburbs. All that noise you mentioned is music to my ears, and quite honestly I've become so used to it, I never even notice it. To each their own indeed.

BVictor1 · #**6968** Posted **May 3, 2008, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

you guys are all focusing on the destruction of the farwell building, but really, you won't notice that much since the first few floors will remain. i'm more upset that the terra art museum is being razed for this ugly, too tall of a beast.

who wants to chain themselves to it with me?

*dkimages

you're going to be on your own on this.

there's nothing special about the current Terra.

The Ritz is by no means too tall, it's just the lack of a worthwild or even decent design.

ColumbusTim79 · #**6969** Posted **May 3, 2008, 7:48 PM**

Could always be worse..... 2 words Grand Plaza

ColumbusTim79 · #**6970** Posted **May 3, 2008, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

Was a new rendering released for this that I missed? The only one I remember seeing was just a line drawing without much detail.

New high detailed renderings are on the boom rundown page for both towers

Tom Servo · #**6971** Posted **May 3, 2008, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

you're going to be on your own on this.

there's nothing special about the current Terra.

The Ritz is by no means too tall, it's just the lack of a worthwild or even decent design.

you don't like the terra building? whaaaaat? really?

about the height:

it's taller than 10 stories, and outside of a few exceptions on the gauntlet, that's too tall in my book. burnham's dream was to have the ave lined with buildings that maintained a similar height...

*newberry

imo, when you line the ave with a bunch of tall buildings, great buildings like allerton and masterpieces like hancock lose their significance.

this will become yet ANOTHER 900nmichigan, park tower, chicago place, and so on----> too tall.

the urban politician · #**6972** Posted **May 3, 2008, 8:09 PM**

^ Damn, you really need to live elsewhere. Seriously.

Much of Chicago isn't Burnham's "dream" last I checked.

BVictor1 · #**6973** Posted **May 3, 2008, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

you don't like the terra building? whaaaaat? really?

about the height:

it's taller than 10 stories, and outside of a few exceptions on the gauntlet, that's too tall in my book. burnham's dream was to have the ave lined with buildings that maintained a similar height...

*newberry

imo, when you line the ave with a bunch of tall buildings, great buildings like allerton and masterpieces like hancock lose their significance.

^Notice how boring the skyline is or lack there of I should say. The land is already flat, the skyscape doesn't need to be.

So what if it's taller than 10 stories, the majority of the building Burnham designed were over 10 stories.

I don't think that everything needs to be changed to conform to a 100 year old plan. Some things would be nice like the lakefront islands, other ideas are no longer relevant

Alliance · #**6974** Posted **May 3, 2008, 8:30 PM**

The height is not an issue.

harryc · #**6975** Posted **May 3, 2008, 10:04 PM**

From above

Full set

Adjustable forms

Floor going in

harryc · #**6976** Posted **May 3, 2008, 10:15 PM**

dagobert · #**6977** Posted **May 3, 2008, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I was just thinking, can we move to create a separate thread for the new McClurg dual tower proposal? The taller one is only 5' under our 700' limit (taller than the Elysian which has its own thread), the second tower is huge as well, and the proposal is so sweet that it deserves its own thread to draw attention to it.

I am completely in favor of separate thread for those towers. Who's with me?

Or maybe we should wait a little bit?

I'm with you 100%. Since there are now three dedicated categories for threads in Projects and Construction section (Supertall >1000 ft, Skyscraper 500-999 ft, and MidLevel Highrises 200-499 ft) a lot of other Chicago projects should get their own threads. The 700 ft minimum was instituted when there was only one Under Construction thread. 155 N. Wacker, 353 N. Clark, OMPW, The Clare, Streeter II should get their own entries along with 630 N. McClurg and 319 E. IL aka W/A Rental when they begin construction in Skyscraper Construction Section (500-999 ft). In addition we could add 235 W. Van Bueren, 215 W. Washington, Silver Tower and 10 E. Deleware could get their own threads in Midlevel Highrises sections. Just my 2 cents

honte · #**6978** Posted **May 4, 2008, 2:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

there's nothing special about the current Terra.

No, this is a misstatement. It's a fine building and probably one of the most acceptable Postmodern designs in the city (coming from someone who hates Postmodernism). The craftsmanship is well above average. The details are quite nice.

However, the Farwell is the real loss here, IMO, even though we'll be able to see headlights through the old facade.

Alliance, how could you stop this? There should have been a flood of support for the Farwell. There should have been Chicagoans lined up in that room to see to it that the revised proposal was not passed by the Landmarks Commission, especially after the watershed moment of them actually turning something down. Instead, there were empty seats as usual; it was back to business as usual.

This was a case were the City held all the cards and the development could have gone any possible way. Instead, we got a compromise that really isn't even a 50/50 trade.

nomarandlee · #**6979** Posted **May 4, 2008, 2:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

Was a new rendering released for this that I missed? The only one I remember seeing was just a line drawing without much detail.

It's good you asked since it would have been a shame to have skipped over and not seen them. Since most here have already seen them no need to repost them but here are the links to the renders......

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/04/607515.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/04/607525.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/04/607533.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/04/607539.jpg

............I also agree that I think 630 N. McClurg is worthy breaking procedure and should have their own thread.

spyguy · #**6980** Posted **May 4, 2008, 3:54 AM**