CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

We have ample evidence on P/H. They have a very large portfolio. Look at it. Budget design (and they've had projects with varying budgets - not only tighter budget) does not equal bad design. There are choices they make as design architect all along the way (within the greater context of their budget constraints) that determine the overall quality of the design. If you want to compare like/like program and budget-wise (not perfect comparison, but good enough) compare P/H's work with HPA's. Night and day......

That's not the point - a portfolio still shows what a client decides on after the fact. You don't see all the iterations of design on a public portfolio page or a community meeting, usually. I have friends who are architects who have complained about developers fucking up their projects because the developer just sucks and wants 100% control over everything in how it looks, even if the architect has a superior design to what they want.,

No, budget design doesn't always equal bad design, but when you design something and the client (in this case a developer) says "I don't like it, do it differently" there's not much you can do until they like what they see. It might turn out shitty and it might turn out great, but that's not the point and you're completely missing it if you don't understand this fact. It depends on the client, which is the point, and often times it doesn't necessarily mean the maximum potential of skills of the firm is directly proportional to what you actually see due to this fact. Some clients are great about it, but some others like to have 100% control over everything including what everything looks like.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ In individual circumstances/projects - sure, things can and assuredly do happen like that.

What I am talking about here is quite different, though - I'm talking about the sum total of their entire body of work, done for a variety of different developers (or that which is displayed on their website, which is quite comprehensive). You run out of excuses when negatively assessing an entire portfolio. You just do. The repeated awkwardness is there, the bad proportions, etc etc.....these are themes plainly evident throughout their work over time that are simply not the fault of their clients......

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ In individual circumstances/projects - sure, things can and assuredly do happen like that.

What I am talking about here is quite different, though - I'm talking about the sum total of their entire body of work, done for a variety of different developers (or that which is displayed on their website, which is quite comprehensive). You run out of excuses when negatively assessing an entire portfolio. You just do. The repeated awkwardness is there, the bad proportions, etc etc.....these are themes plainly evident throughout their work over time that are simply not the fault of their clients......

Or, it could mean that their firm sucks at negotiation and is afraid of telling the client "no." or it could mean they go after cheap clients, or both. I've been in this situations, not with architecture, but other things in many industries and it's common. There are some partners you'll find at various firms who have crappier work to show for than others because they are afraid to say no sometimes. Your firm/partners eventually need a spine and be able to tell a client "no" sometimes otherwise you won't always have the best to show for.

Do we know of any design exercises they've done that didn't have a client? This would be a much better indicator, probably, of their talent level IMO.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Again, you're just not thinking about this the right way - at all.

You're trying to relate situations to your own professional world and experience which can sometimes - or often - make for dubious applicability.

Your argument assumes that essentially all of their clients - on all of their projects - are bad, and pushing them toward crap design - and that's likely (or at least plausibly) the reason why their portfolio is aesthetically-challenged, and it plausibly has little-to-nothing to do with their underlying design talent.

I hope you're just playing devil's advocate/arguing for argument's sake, because if you actually think that Pappageorge/Haymes is simply the unluckiest architecture firm on the planet because of their specific client list (regardless of their negotiation prowess - as that's just a red herring you threw in there), you're just being silly........

And, we have plenty of professional Chicago architects on these pages - as forumers, and undoubtedly lurkers too. Anyone else in that group agree with Marothisu that P/H's demonstrated design work and capability evident in its extensive portfolio may not be sufficient to conclude that they simply do not understand proportion and what makes for graceful, elegant high-rise design, as design architects?

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Again, you're just not thinking about this the right way - at all.

You're trying to relate situations to your own professional world and experience which can sometimes - or often - make for dubious applicability.

Your argument assumes that essentially all of their clients - on all of their projects - are bad, and pushing them toward crap design - and that's likely (or at least plausibly) the reason why their portfolio is aesthetically-challenged, and it plausibly has little-to-nothing to do with their underlying design talent.

I hope you're just playing devil's advocate/arguing for argument's sake, because if you actually think that Pappageorge/Haymes is simply the unluckiest architecture firm on the planet because of their client list (regardless of their negotiation prowess - as that's just a red herring you threw in there), you're just being silly........

And, we have plenty of professional Chicago architects on these pages - as forumers, and undoubtedly lurkers too. Anyone else in that group agree with Marothisu that P/H's demonstrated design work and capability evident in its extensive portfolio is not sufficient to conclude that they do not understand proportion and what makes for graceful, elegant high-rise design, as design architects?

I mean, isn't an architect's primary job to work within the constraints of budget to deliver work that is innovative, or at least sophisticated? We're not generally judging architects by speculative proposals.

At any rate, I'm sure P/H had an adequate budget for OMP to pull off something far better than they did...

Conversely, I don't think bKL has ever been given a starchitect's budget, yet they've proven the bar can be set a lot higher for a 'simple building' these past few years.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Again, you're just not thinking about this the right way - at all.

I'm not? News to me. Apparently you don't know how to read plain english when I mentioned my architect friends having the same exact issues with their clients (i.e. developers). I have heard countless times from them, being upset, that a client has fucked up their designs and made them do something that's way worse than what they had wanted/designed and won't really budge when they try and pitch them on some "cool" changes. I have heard numerous times from a few of my friends, again who are architects, that a huge barrier many times to actually getting cool designs out there is the client, not the architect. I have a friend who works for one of the top firms in the world work on a building for a foreign country - he worked on it for months and then all of a sudden the client told him to take out a huge aspect of it with no questions asked, even though they liked it. Why? Budget changed.

What, do you think that developers don't have a budget and can do whatever they want and don't have any constraints? This is no different than any other industry. If you don't understand this then perhaps you should get out in the real world and actually get experience with clients who have budgetary concerns and/or they like to 100% dictate what is going on and the only reason they hired you is because you're able to do their shit for them how they want it. Developers of high rises are not much different in this aspect than some car company who needs ____ done by a third party firm. They're all bound by budget, egos, timeline, company policy/laws, etc.

I'm not advocating that P/H is amazing at all. I don't like most of their work either - but when I see what some of my friends go through in the industry, and my own experiences (yes, they are actually the same - you could probably learn something by listening to what I'm saying), I have to raise the question. Judging client-based work 100% on the portfolio when the client has most say in what goes on is utter bullshit. The architects that P/H has could very well suck even with faced with complete freedom, but judging based off of this is not the right way to do it which is why I asked to see if they had any design exercises out there or competition entries.

In any case, i wish the building looked better - it's not the best - doesn't completely suck but doesn't make me excited one bit.

[munchymunch]

from curbed

[Ned.B]

^So the top and base were modified a bit.

I have been comparing the renderings to the building lately, and thinking that a few things didn't match up.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Mikemak27

I like the new Halsted tower proposal except for three things. 1. The building should front Halsted Street and provide a more inviting pedestrian experience. All this building does is create another suburban style tower where the entire Halsted entrance is auto centric.

It should, but that would require an expensive cantilever over the expressway, something like the Boeing Headquarters. That ain't happening on a cheap-o rental tower. Still, the effort is weak, K2 is weak, that whole "neighborhood" of towers over there is weak. Whatever, at least none of it is bad...

Originally Posted by munchymunch

from curbed

bKL kicks so much ass.

[munchymunch]

I will agree with you there.

[Notyrview]

Yeah, they really now how to work within the confines of VEing. Great revision.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'm not? News to me. Apparently you don't know how to read plain english when I mentioned my architect friends having the same exact issues with their clients (i.e. developers). I have heard countless times from them, being upset, that a client has fucked up their designs and made them do something that's way worse than what they had wanted/designed and won't really budge when they try and pitch them on some "cool" changes. I have heard numerous times from a few of my friends, again who are architects, that a huge barrier many times to actually getting cool designs out there is the client, not the architect. I have a friend who works for one of the top firms in the world work on a building for a foreign country - he worked on it for months and then all of a sudden the client told him to take out a huge aspect of it with no questions asked, even though they liked it. Why? Budget changed.

What, do you think that developers don't have a budget and can do whatever they want and don't have any constraints? This is no different than any other industry. If you don't understand this then perhaps you should get out in the real world and actually get experience with clients who have budgetary concerns and/or they like to 100% dictate what is going on and the only reason they hired you is because you're able to do their shit for them how they want it. Developers of high rises are not much different in this aspect than some car company who needs ____ done by a third party firm. They're all bound by budget, egos, timeline, company policy/laws, etc.

I'm not advocating that P/H is amazing at all. I don't like most of their work either - but when I see what some of my friends go through in the industry, and my own experiences (yes, they are actually the same - you could probably learn something by listening to what I'm saying), I have to raise the question. Judging client-based work 100% on the portfolio when the client has most say in what goes on is utter bullshit. The architects that P/H has could very well suck even with faced with complete freedom, but judging based off of this is not the right way to do it which is why I asked to see if they had any design exercises out there or competition entries.

In any case, i wish the building looked better - it's not the best - doesn't completely suck but doesn't make me excited one bit.

Read for comprehension, not defensive posturing......

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Read for comprehension, not defensive posturing......

Perhaps you should actually read what people write, in full, next time. Which I guess you didn't do yet again, considering you said "posturing" and I have actual friends in the industry. But continue thinking that every single piece of architecture put out by an architect is 100% reflective of their full potential.

[SolarWind]

November 4, 2015

[SolarWind]

November 4, 2015

[munchymunch]

Wabash & Balbo

Go to hospitality, number 7 link

Utilizing the DNA of the “W” hotel brand, the 190-room Aloft Hotel will feature highly stylized interiors and loft-like guestrooms. This 16-story custom design for Chicago’s rapidly developing South Loop incorporates Aloft’s signature yellow and blue color palette and its “swoof” roof to create a unique urban destination.

Koo does some good work,love her projects. Anyways a couple of different projects some... (may)? be new.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

Wabash & Balbo

Go to hospitality, number 7 link



Koo does some good work,love her projects. Anyways a couple of different projects some... (may)? be new.

I think I've seen this, I believe it is a pre-recession proposal...

[munchymunch]

Originally Posted by ithakas

I think I've seen this, I believe it is a pre-recession proposal...

Oh ok, still very interesting things they create. Anyone been around to the Autograph Marriott hotel on Ontario?

[TSSTaylor]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

November 4, 2015

I see this building rising from my neighborhood. It is towering now in much of the area but if it has another 6-9 floors or so it certainly will stick out. I like seeing it pop out more everyday.

[BVictor1]

NOVEMBER 2015 PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA

A proposal for a technical amendment to residential business planned development #1288 submitted by 215 Hubbard L.L.C, for the property generally located at 201-225 West Hubbard Street. The Applicant is proposing to construct two buildings on the subject site. The first building would be a 170’-0” tall office building and the second would be a 270’-0” tall residential building containing 195 dwelling units, both buildings would contain retail or restaurant uses on the ground floor. 91 accessory parking spaces would be available in the planned development. (42nd Ward)


A proposed amendment to Residential-Business Planned Development No. 70, as amended, and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Application No. 670 submitted by Lakeshore East, LLC, for property generally located in an area bounded by North Michigan Avenue, East Wacker Drive, North Lake Shore Drive and East Randolph Street. The Applicant proposes to amend the Lakeshore East Master Plan and Design Standards associated with Subarea E of Planned Development No. 70 and construct an approximately 1200’ building, referred to as Wanda Vista Tower, with 410 dwelling units, 210 hotel keys, commercial space and accessory parking, on an approximately 67,163 square foot site located at approximately 381-383 East Wacker Drive. (42nd Ward)


APPLE STORE AT PIONEER COURT
A courtesy presentation by Zeller Realty Group on a proposed Riverfront Retail project at 401 North Michigan Avenue. The project includes construction of a glass enclosed entrance located on the 401 Plaza with descending stairs to the lower concourse level retail space. The concept includes exterior stairs cascading down from the 401 Plaza and Michigan Avenue to the Riverwalk level. (42nd Ward)


RIVER SOUTH
A proposed Residential Business Planned Development submitted by 1000 South Wells (Chicago), LLC for the property generally located at 650-658 South Wells Street, 700- 758 South Wells Street; 223-313 W. Harrison Street, 301-321 W. Polk Street and 201-249 W. Polk Street. The applicant proposes to rezone the site from a DX-7 (Downtown Mixed Use District) to a Residential Business Planned Development. The site is vacant and unimproved. The proposal will establish subareas; construct five (5) mixed-use high rise buildings with a total of 2,699 dwelling units consisting of condominiums, apartment, and townhouse units and approximately 16,500 square feet of retail. The first phase will include a multi-story high rise building with 256 dwelling units, publicly accessible open space and a continuous publicly accessible riverwalk, with accessory parking spaces and accessory uses (25th Ward)


Central Station Vinoly Tower
A proposed amendment to Master Plan II of Subarea A of Residential-Business
Planned Development No. 499 and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Application No. 683 submitted by S Loop Chicago Development, LLC for the property generally located at 1200 South Indiana Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct a residential tower of approximately 76 stories with approximately 792 residential units at the southwest corner of East Roosevelt Road and South Indiana Avenue – 113 East Roosevelt Road. (3rd Ward)