CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

we cant express our opinions about design? if this isnt the appropriate forum, then what is?

is the goal simply to have post after post strictly informational? with no discussion at all?

I think thats the one thing that makes this site great, the discussion. If I wanted only information, I'd just check the various news outlets.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

But page after mind-numbing page of pictures of caisson headings and reusable forms is definitely OK, right?

^ Couldn't agree more.

[SolarWind]

May 15, 2008

[the urban politician]

^ What are those light brown/chocolate hybrid brick structures to the upper middle/right portion of your photo? Those look like townhomes..

[VivaLFuego]

^ It's the parking garage, but actually in the context of the site, it makes sense and isn't overly horrifying. This is a very weird site, with the Des Plaines viaduct and Milwaukee Road tracks; from the pedestrian experience, the parking garage will not be visible, as it is below street (Des Plaines) level and will be shielded from the other direction by the other highrises currently under construction.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

This sub-forum is to sumarize and show new Chicago buildings planned/developed/under construction etc. . .

Please keep these posts on-topic. . . it's likely that we've all heard your opinions about building design, urban planning and transportation etc.. . . obviously this is not the appropriate sub-forum for that discussion, and although we're somewhat flexible it's becoming more and more off topic rants and raves which we won't tolerate any further. . .

thank you for your cooperation. . .

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

we cant express our opinions about design? if this isnt the appropriate forum, then what is?

is the goal simply to have post after post strictly informational? with no discussion at all?

I think thats the one thing that makes this site great, the discussion. If I wanted only information, I'd just check the various news outlets.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

But page after mind-numbing page of pictures of caisson headings and reusable forms is definitely OK, right?

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Couldn't agree more.

I understand there is a sub-forum on the state of Chicago architecture, Tom, but that's meant -- or should be -- for a discussion on Chicago architecture as a whole. Where do we turn if we want to express our opinions on specific buildings and developments? Because we all have them, and the dialogue and debate that ensues from articulating them elevates an otherwise dry exchange into something far more rewarding and substantive.

Do you propose we have a parallel set of sub-forums expressly for opinions not updates? Sub-sub-forums? Because, frankly, I'm getting tired of the censorship, and also tired of Adrian's bullshit throwaway comments which said censorship has failed to resolve (considering they keep appearing).

So why not keep those posts on the record and allow us to actually flesh them out rather than pretending like contrarian sentiments don't exist?

[VivaLFuego]

^ I'll join the chorus. I think a discussion of:

1. Architectural merits
2. Site context
3. Planning consideration
4. Political implications

as pertains (exclusively) to Chicago-area projects 12+ stories in height is a healthy and important part of this thread for many of the viewers and posters. By all means, no off-topic rants and back-and-forth arguments (those can go to PM or other subforums). There's a fine line between such constructive discussion and off-topic trolling/flaming, but I'm inclined to trust both the posters and the moderators to maintain general order...

[cbotnyse]

I just cant believe constructive discussion is not allowed. As long as people are discussing Chicago developments, its all on topic. I can get to chicagotribune.com or suntimes.com, I dont need to come here to get links to those sites. I also live a mile from all the major downtown projects, so I dont need to come here to see picture updates either.

I come here to read people's opinion about architecture and urban planning and this has been the very best thread to do it in, until recently.

Now every great discussion I've had, or read, has been deleted. its ridiculous.

[harryc]

I enjoy the discussions - and yes the rants - by people much more informed and passionate about the ascetic aspects of 12+ story buildings than I am.

The discussions about urban planing, politics, and designs have been very informitive.

As these are usually started in reference to spefic projects - in Chicago(land) they would seem to be appropriate here.

[cbotnyse]

^^ even Adrian. His opinion may be way, way way outside the box, but he knows architecture. I enjoy reading his insane opinions even if I dont agree with them.

[Alliance]

I'm with everyone on this.

We come here to see as well as discuss. If I just wanted to see cassions being drilled, I'd walk down the street or head back to Chicago. This is a unique community here, one with knowledge, resources, and that is fun to talk too/with about architecture and Chicago.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by HowardL

That was to have been the Lubavich Chabad Center for Jewish Life. It went through a couple of design changes. A good design became a less good design and it has been vacant for ages now. I thought there had been talk of a complete change of course somewhere over in the General Developments thread.

There was some talk of a lux midrise of 15-20 floors, 1 residence per floor for that site. In today's market, I think that may be more of a long-term plan.

[Tom In Chicago]

After re-reading my original post - and yes. . . all your comments - I'd like to make a few ammends to what I said. . .

OK yes. . . discussion of building design is fine. . . what I suppose I meant was more or less the incessent rants and redundant posts by a few forumers that continually sling mud in this sub-forum. . . people have indicated that it's distracting to sift through the junk. . . we're trying to keep the discussions 'constructive' - no pun intended. . .

As well we're trying to keep these threads from being derailed by overly emotional content that runs amok ala the forums at SSC. . .

. . .

[spyguy]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/951374,CST-FIN-hotel15.article

OK likely today for high-rise
May 15, 2008

BY DAVID ROEDER

A revised plan for a new high-rise hotel near North Michigan Avenue is expected to get approval today from a city agency.

The Chicago Plan Commission has scheduled a vote on allowing a 43-story building at 150 E. Ontario. It would contain a 323-room hotel plus 32 residential units.

[trvlr70]

Ooooo.....I actually like this a lot! It is definitely better than the second rendering, but probably equally interesting as the initial one.

[Mr Roboto]

No mention of the height, I wonder if its still in the 600 ft range. With the switch to the building being primarily a hotel, does anyone know if hotels tend to have higher ceilings than residential or not?

[i_am_hydrogen]

Definitely the best of the three designs I've seen for 150 East Ontario. Does anyone know if demolition is still ongoing at that site?

[aaron38]

I do like that 150 E. Ontario design a lot better, but it's likely sub 500' now as they keep chopping residential units out of it.
Page 1 has it listed at 524' and 51 floors. If it's now 43 floors, look for something closer to 450'.
It's not going to have the skyline impact we were expecting.

[honte]

Phew! Not great design, but I can live with it after having seen the alternatives.

[dagobert]

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/951374,CST-FIN-hotel15.article

Looks like a cross between 300 N. LaSalle, Empire State Building, and 600 N. Fairbanks. Very nice filler for the area that will add more density.

[trvlr70]

The crown is definitely the most interesting thing about it. It appears extremely modern.