CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 392

Tom In Chicago · #**7821** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 5:33 PM**

Alliance - Mid-Continental is a suffocating presence in Chicago. This isn't Texas, we're not about "big" just for "big's" sake.

This building was the result of a need for large office floor-plates that was common in the late 1960s and early 1970s. . . whether you like it or not, to think that it was built just for the sake of being "big" is so short-sighted and absurd I can't beleive you even implied it. . .

. . .

JMO_0121 · #**7822** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

The latter, which is why this conversion will suck so much.

Do you think that in the future, because they are going to eventually realize how horrifying the half and half thing will look, they will reclad the entire building? I say they should either reclad the entire building or leave it alone, but the plan they have right now of only redoing the top 15 floors is just absurd.

10023 · #**7823** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Alliance - Mid-Continental is a suffocating presence in Chicago. This isn't Texas, we're not about "big" just for "big's" sake.

This building was the result of a need for large office floor-plates that was common in the late 1960s and early 1970s. . . whether you like it or not, to think that it was built just for the sake of being "big" is so short-sighted and absurd I can't beleive you even implied it. . .

. . .

Exactly. You had to sit that endless seas of pocketed, button-cuff white shirt wearing middle managers and processing clerks somewhere. Then people decided that human beings do better in natural light. Although with the trend toward open floor plans and loft-like spaces, maybe the large floor plates come back in style?

I imagine if it were structurally possible to cut through the floors in the Sears Tower to create double-height office spaces with an open floor plan, you could create some pretty cool digs.

trvlr70 · #**7824** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 6:00 PM**

If the land this building sits on was vacant and it was just announced that this "tower" was approved and will begin construction, every regular Chicago thread poster would be on suicide watch.

I find it incredulous to defend this POS waste of space.

Mr Downtown · #**7825** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 6:26 PM**

But "wanting larger floorplates" is the reason companies frequently give for moving out of existing East Loop towers.

Alliance · #**7826** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

EXACTLY, that's why i like it so much. it's so oppressive and "un-pretty". the michigan avenue streetwall is pretty. pretty is for housewives and little girls. mid-continental is an inhuman structure, a monolith from a different dimension inhabited by mythological giants. it's the challenge that it presents that makes me admire it all the more.

the condo conversion facade redo is going to obliterate its "monolithicness", and hence destroy this building's entire raison d'etre.

BS. I find it hard to find a "prettier" building in Chicago than JHC or IBM. I'm not lookign for skyscrapers with doilies, I'm looking for ones that don't look like cooling towers.

Besides, monoliths are taller than they are wide. if you rotate the building 90 deg counterclockwise, it might become proportionate. The building is as monolithic as a large turd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

This building was the result of a need for large office floor-plates that was common in the late 1960s and early 1970s. . . whether you like it or not, to think that it was built just for the sake of being "big" is so short-sighted and absurd I can't beleive you even implied it. . .

. . .

I didn't. Sorry if you can't accurately interpret my comments. I'll belabor them more.

I implied liking this building because it was "big" is short-sighted and absurd.

If this was buried in the loop...I wouldn't care as much, but again...its right on the park and it was a horrible location for such a building to begin with, not to mention it very un-Chicago to have the broadside of a building facing the lake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trvlr70

I find it incredulous to defend this POS waste of space.

Especially since its one redeeming asset, the facade (as narrowly and poorly developed as it was), is going to be systematically raped off the building.

Steely Dan · #**7827** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

BS. I find it hard to find a "prettier" building in Chicago than JHC or IBM. I'm not lookign for skyscrapers with doilies, I'm looking for ones that don't look like cooling towers.

i would never describe JHC or IBM as pretty. they certainly kick a lot of ass (as does mid-continental), but i find nothing pretty about them. like i said before, pretty is for housewives and little girls. IBM, JHC and mid-continental are NOT for housewives and little girls. they are wonderfully mean, inhuman structures designed to intimidate, not to look pretty. they may possess incredible amounts of beauty, but they are not pretty in my opinion. women can be pretty, but men cannot be pretty. both men and women can be beautiful, but prettiness is the exclusive domain of the feminine. "pretty" implies softness, grace, delicateness to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Besides, monoliths are taller than they are wide.

the word monolith does not always imply an object with a proportion that is taller than it is wide. some words have more than one meaning. monolith is one of those words. see definition #3 below:

mon·o·lith

Pronunciation[mon-uh-lith]
–noun

1. an obelisk, column, large statue, etc., formed of a single block of stone.
2. a single block or piece of stone of considerable size, esp. when used in architecture or sculpture.
3. something having a uniform, massive, redoubtable, or inflexible quality or character.

from the greek, mono meaning "one" and lithos meaning "stone".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Especially since its one redeeming asset, the facade (as narrowly and poorly developed as it was), is going to be systematically raped off the building.

well, whether you like the building or hate it, we all seem to agree that the facade redo is gonna be horrible. people like you merely see it as a bad building getting worse, whereas those of us who like the current building are facing even greater disappointment because we're looking at a good building that's going to become a really bad one.

aaron38 · #**7828** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 7:06 PM**

I should've taken this last month, Trump and 300 N LaSalle have jumped up a bit.
Elysian is going to come up just to the right of Watertower Place. And SoNo is there now too, just to the left of that white cellphone tower in the middle.

From Western and I-90, 7-1-08

Past panos are here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=144555

cbotnyse · #**7829** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 7:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

If this was buried in the loop...I wouldn't care as much, but again...its right on the park and it was a horrible location for such a building to begin with, not to mention it very un-Chicago to have the broadside of a building facing the lake.

Many do. And in skyline shots, its very Chicago-like.

(my photo)

StormFire · #**7830** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

IIn anyones opinion, is this is the ugliest building in the city, if not, what is?

Oh, the Apparel Center, Grand Plaza, and the heinous condos at Dearborn and Lake......

As for Mid-Continental Plaza, I thought we had some pics of how they are changing the top 15 floors. Can somebody re-post?

Mojava · #**7831** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormFire

Oh, the Apparel Center, Grand Plaza, and the heinous condos at Dearborn and Lake......

As for Mid-Continental Plaza, I thought we had some pics of how they are changing the top 15 floors. Can somebody re-post?

the website was posted not long ago...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

mid-continental plaza also provides some serious bulk to the skyline at night. I think it blends in very nicely(at night). It does stand out during the day (not in a good way) and will be exponentially worse now.

the video for the condos does look pretty sweet though. Seems like some good urban living. http://www.parkmonroe.com/index.asp (click on the virtual tour)

spyguy · #**7832** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 10:26 PM**

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=2166

Chicago: 222 W. Randolph Office Tower, 222 W. Randolph St., 750,000-sq.-ft. office tower, May 2009, $94 million.

Chicago: Parc Huron, 469 W. Huron St., 21-story mixed-use building, September 2008, $30 million.

Chicago: 330 N. Wabash Hotel Conversion, 330 N. Wabash Ave., 275-unit hotel conversion, November 2008, $20 million.

Chicago: McCormick Place Hotel, Prairie Ave. and Cermak Rd., 1,500-room hotel complex, June 2009, $450 million.
--------------

I thought Parc Huron had been cancelled some time ago?

Chicago Shawn · #**7833** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 10:27 PM**

^^^

Steely I just love your commentary...

Quote:

Originally Posted by trvlr70

If the land this building sits on was vacant and it was just announced that this "tower" was approved and will begin construction, every regular Chicago thread poster would be on suicide watch.

I find it incredulous to defend this POS waste of space.

Waste of space? Really, how so? This tower must have an FAR of 30+, thus maximizing use of space. You may hate the asethic quaility and massing of the building, but to call it a waste of space is just flat out wrong. I would gaurentee you that very few buildings would have an FAR higher than this one. A thinner building with the same floor area would just be taller, much taller. For example, waterview tower's FAR is also around 30.

honte · #**7834** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 10:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

not to mention it very un-Chicago to have the broadside of a building facing the lake.

That's a very amusing comment, because, if I'm not mistaken, people routinely get skewered on this web site for criticizing Chicago Spire as "not Chicago."

In any case, this building is as Chicago as it gets, in my opinion, despite not being Miesian. cbot's photo above shows how perfectly it fits into the skyline.

SolarWind · #**7835** Posted **Jul 2, 2008, 11:57 PM**

July 2, 2008

SolarWind · #**7836** Posted **Jul 3, 2008, 1:46 AM**

July 1, 2008

July 2, 2008

Busy Bee · #**7837** Posted **Jul 3, 2008, 1:48 AM**

That glass looks w-w-w-wild!!!

honte · #**7838** Posted **Jul 3, 2008, 3:20 AM**

^ Yeah, I'd say that's pretty exciting.

Chicagoguy · #**7839** Posted **Jul 3, 2008, 3:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojava

the website was posted not long ago...

I think them only redoing the top half of the building is going to look horrible. In the renderings the building might not look half as bad if they redid the entire thing. It would stop it from being such an eyesore!

ardecila · #**7840** Posted **Jul 3, 2008, 7:23 AM**

222 West Randolph? May 2009? That's the next John Buck tower. By May 2009, 155 North Wacker won't even be finished.

They mentioned a few days ago that a big-name corporation was looking to anchor 222 West Randolph, so they could have their own awesome, brand-new tower... but between these two John Buck projects, 444 West Lake, and possibly 601 West Monroe, there's gonna be a lot of office space coming online in the West Loop in the next couple of years, in a time when many corporations are entrenching for the long haul instead of constantly flirting with shinier, newer office space.