CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Busy Bee]

I have nothing funny, clever, positive or negative to say. Time will tell if this will look good, OK or a total f'ing disaster.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Taken 10/11:

[honte]

^ Great shot! There's no question, Marina City has more "life in it" than any other Chicago skyscraper. Goldberg would be so pleased....

It looks great with its new backdrops too; better than ever, actually.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Thanks, honte.

LSE's park, taken tonight:

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I think this is incredibly cool. When I was living in Chicago, this was nowhere near complete and I look forward to trekking through next time I'm in town.

About the design, I have to agree that the paths-as-shortcuts mentality is not the best idea for an attractive space, and I went to IIT, so I know this from experience.

Originally Posted by BVictor1

...OMFG.

[NYC2ATX]

hydrogen.....that picture is UNREAL!!!

p.s. two quick questions: First, does that park actually have an official name? and Second, is it a public park within the Chicago Parks System, or a "private" park?

[i_am_hydrogen]

^It's called "The Park at Lakeshore East." It was dedicated to the city of Chicago and is public. I'm not sure if it's under the auspices of the Chicago Park District. Someone else may know.

http://www.lakeshoreeast.com/nhood_parks_lse.html

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by honte

^ I don't think it has anything to do with college campus planning. And I don't buy into this "favorite paths" Koolhaas concept - it rarely works. At IIT it certainly did not.

This park is about leisure and relaxation, not about giving people a shortcut through the space. In fact, the designers might have taken measures to keep people from trampling through the park on their way to Navy Pier.

A good third of the park is occupied by useless, expansive flowerbeds that will only consume money by requiring constant weeding.

I guess I'm trying to categorize this park into one of the three categories of landscape architecture that I know of: naturalistic (ala Central Park), formal (ala Grant Park), or functionalistic (like a university campus). This park doesn't seem to fit any of those, however, and I am at odds to see how the design of this park satisfies the demands place on it. I also don't see much of a relationship between the architecture of the Parkview buildings and their namesake park. Maybe the construction of Parkview East will answer some questions.

Of course, I'm not very well-versed in landscape architecture, nor am I familiar with the tools that landscape architects use to create space.

[honte]

Originally Posted by ardecila

A good third of the park is occupied by useless, expansive flowerbeds that will only consume money by requiring constant weeding.

You're joking, yeah?

Originally Posted by ardecila

I also don't see much of a relationship between the architecture of the Parkview buildings and their namesake park.

I agree with this. But the same could be said for many landscapes / buildings. This park would look amazing with a Spertus Institute on the opposite side.

[JMO_0121]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Sorry about the blurred image, I was in motion and couldn't focus the way I wanted.

I love this!! People might hate me for this but OH GOD im I glad their doing something to this monstrosity!! Does someone have any guess to when they might complete this project? I personaly think it will compliment Legacy very well, only if Park Michigan ever had a chance. Would it be ok if I made a thread for this one maybe on the completed subforum? I think it will help many people since they seem to have a heart attack everytime park monroe is mentioned. Im even afraid of saying anything about it !

[mediaman]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

From the 23rd floor

10/09/08

I spent some time in this park on Saturday, reading a book. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and this space was very needed for the area--the next nearest green space was the park near the water treatment facility.

The only problem was that some older gentleman sat down next to me right as I was near finishing my book, and he began talking about Bill Ayers and Obama, how he felt BO was a radical socialist, how all the people associated with the mortgage industry should go to jail, etc., and I couldn't get him to leave, so I had to leave with my book unfinished.

Aside from that, though, wonderful park. The kids love playing in the water fountains.

[Chicago_Forever]

I walked through the park yesterday and it is really nice and enjoyable, I can't wait for Parkview East to go up and give the area a sense of completeness.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by JMO_0121

I love this!! People might hate me for this but OH GOD im I glad their doing something to this monstrosity!! Does someone have any guess to when they might complete this project? I personaly think it will compliment Legacy very well, only if Park Michigan ever had a chance.

Do you know that they are only recladding half of the building? I wouldn't mind it as much if it were a complete job, but half and half? You have got to be kidding me...

Originally Posted by honte

I agree with this. But the same could be said for many landscapes / buildings. This park would look amazing with a Spertus Institute on the opposite side.

I don't know, I think it relates to Parkview West very well. Have you seen the way the building kinda hangs over the park, I think it ineteracts very well...

Originally Posted by ardecila

A good third of the park is occupied by useless, expansive flowerbeds that will only consume money by requiring constant weeding.

Its not that much of the park, no more than some areas of Grant park with their massive formal gardens. I don't see how gardens are useless either? Also, most of the plants in the gardens seem to be natural to the area or long grasses, neither of which really require weeding or much maintinence since they usually dominate wherever they are growing.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

^It's called "The Park at Lakeshore East." It was dedicated to the city of Chicago and is public. I'm not sure if it's under the auspices of the Chicago Park District. Someone else may know.

http://www.lakeshoreeast.com/nhood_parks_lse.html

The Park at Lakeshore East is owned by the Chicago Park District, however the maintenance of the landscaping is paid for by the Homeowners Associations, which is why the pick-up soccer game there in the spring brought out such a hissy-fit from the residents.

[a chicago bearcat]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I guess I'm trying to categorize this park into one of the three categories of landscape architecture that I know of: naturalistic (ala Central Park), formal (ala Grant Park), or functionalistic (like a university campus).

It's a formal park. Just not classically laid out.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

The Park at Lakeshore East is owned by the Chicago Park District, however the maintenance of the landscaping is paid for by the Homeowners Associations, which is why the pick-up soccer game there in the spring brought out such a hissy-fit from the residents.

This is a pretty good example of why I'm generally opposed to "public-private partnerships" no matter how big or small. There are instances wherein it works if the deal is crafted correctly and the guidelines are written unambiguously and enforced when tested - but you almost always inevitably get BS like this. A better method would have been some sort of special service overlay district to collect a little extra property tax from Lakeshore East properties to pay for park upkeep, or something in that vein. The city has been using the privately-maintained public park thing on many PDs, and it seems like every single one leads to some drama involving the residents considering it their private park, sometimes rightfully concerned over the activity that's occurring there. Such PD deals should either be straight up dedication and funds to the Park District, or just keeping it privately owned and maintained open space perhaps with some specification of a public easement in the case of area parks like this.

[Chicago Shawn]

[Alliance]

353 is really turning out to be a solid building. Great to see it exceed (at least my) expectations.

The Parkview park looks childish to me. Green space is necessarily chopped up by wide expanses of aimless sidewalk and the non-grass features are bundled up in the corner and rather boring/not developed. It looked far better, more complex, and like it actually had direction in the renders. It wouldn't even look good with Spertus backing it up, and that's saying something.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Have you actually been in the park or are you judging all of this from one picture? If you actually go there is makes quite a bit more sense.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Have you actually been in the park or are you judging all of this from one picture? If you actually go there is makes quite a bit more sense.

you also must remember that there will eventually be a second tower at the eastern end of the site.

currently that small grave section in the northeast corner is being used for dogs