CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[spyguy]

Some activity for State & Huron, as the developers seek to demolish 4-8 E. Huron


What is unfortunately going to be lost:

Source

[10023]

^ How is that being allowed?

[Via Chicago]

because this city is a joke sometimes, and historic preservation is merely lip service. a beautifully built, human scaled,100+ year old home dosent stand a chance against a big shiny souless blue box. cause, ya know....progress

if the citizens of the city dont care about these kinds of losses than i suppose we get what we deserve. the side streets in this neighborhood are already the worst sort of outdoor shopping mall imaginable so go ahead, finish off the job.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

because this city is a joke sometimes, and historic preservation is merely lip service. a beautifully built, human scaled,100+ year old home dosent stand a chance against a big shiny souless blue box. cause, ya know....progress

if the citizens of the city dont care about these kinds of losses than i suppose we get what we deserve. the side streets in this neighborhood are already the worst sort of outdoor shopping mall imaginable so go ahead, finish off the job.

Sometimes it takes people in the immediate area to make a point of standing up to preserve what remains. But I wonder when an area consists of relatively new highrises filled with transplants from other areas, if those residents feel close ties to the area or a strong sense of "ownership." They in fact may have moved into a building that resulted from the same process. I don't think anyone would actually call it "progress" though - it's more just acceptance

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Sometimes it takes people in the immediate area to make a point of standing up to preserve what remains. But I wonder when an area consists of relatively new highrises filled with transplants from other areas, if those residents feel close ties to the area or a strong sense of "ownership." They in fact may have moved into a building that resulted from the same process. I don't think anyone would actually call it "progress" though - it's more just acceptance

Honestly, as someone who lives just a few blocks north of this place, it's not that at all. This place doesn't actually get a lot of foot traffic - I've walked by this place a thousand times on state street and there's rarely any foot traffic there. The reason I bring this up is because there's really only one vantage point where you can actually see what the building truly looks like and that is if you're coming up from the south on State street but even then, you can't see that much for about 6 months of the year because of a few huge trees in front. If you come from the south or even on Huron from the west, you can't see what the building actually looks like

From the south: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8947823,...KK3lLDu8CzveA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

But from the north: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8951696,...lXafAO6nx3Njw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

From the west: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8948805,...EIYa9_yAOx-8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1



I'd bet you $1000 that if you actually asked the residents who live in the area about this building, who don't live right nearby around Huron, they'd have no idea the building either looks as good as it does or what it even is. It's an afterthought to most because most areas you walk from, you can't even see that the building is actually good.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Honestly, as someone who lives just a few blocks north of this place, it's not that at all. This place doesn't actually get a lot of foot traffic - I've walked by this place a thousand times on state street and there's rarely any foot traffic there. The reason I bring this up is because there's really only one vantage point where you can actually see what the building truly looks like and that is if you're coming up from the south on State street but even then, you can't see that much for about 6 months of the year because of a few huge trees in front. If you come from the south or even on Huron from the west, you can't see what the building actually looks like

From the south: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8947823,...KK3lLDu8CzveA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

But from the north: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8951696,...lXafAO6nx3Njw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

From the west: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8948805,...EIYa9_yAOx-8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1



I'd bet you $1000 that if you actually asked the residents who live in the area about this building, who don't live right nearby around Huron, they'd have no idea the building either looks as good as it does or what it even is. It's an afterthought to most because most areas you walk from, you can't even see that the building is actually good.

i mean, does a building now have to be noticeable from every conceivable vantage point to deserve recognition or respect? the proposal isnt noteworthy or inspiring from ANY angle. you could argue its a better use of the land, but if thats the case i hope youre comfortable no legacy buildings being left in this area.

most houses are boring from the rear....its an alley after all. and this particular bunch has essentially a side yard that hasnt really been taken advantage of. and yea, theres mature trees shielding the finer details, but i think it would be pretty perverse holding that against them (when did big shade trees become a demerit?)

this city is losing its soul.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'd bet you $1000 that if you actually asked the residents who live in the area about this building, who don't live right nearby around Huron, they'd have no idea the building either looks as good as it does or what it even is. It's an afterthought to most because most areas you walk from, you can't even see that the building is actually good.

But that is part of what I am thinking. For example, I would expect - or hope - that if an area was populated by people with 20 years of history and an attachment to the neighborhood, they would actually be familiar with the buildings in their area. If people aren't even aware of the building - well, that's my point, but to an even greater degree than I would have expected.

[UrbanLibertine]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

because this city is a joke sometimes, and historic preservation is merely lip service. a beautifully built, human scaled,100+ year old home dosent stand a chance against a big shiny souless blue box. cause, ya know....progress

if the citizens of the city dont care about these kinds of losses than i suppose we get what we deserve. the side streets in this neighborhood are already the worst sort of outdoor shopping mall imaginable so go ahead, finish off the job.

Your first point is 100% accurate. And sad.

[LouisVanDerWright]

I'm as much of a preservationist as anyone, but I think it's a wee bit of hyperbole to claim that the demolition of a couple of nice three flats means "Chicago is losing it's soul". We have literally tens and tens of thousands of these things. Yes, I'm sad to see it go, but I'm equally as happy to see investment that will also pay taxes and help mend our fiscal nightmare. Chicago is going to lose a whole lot more of these buildings elsewhere in the city if we can't keep the pace of economic growth in our central city hot enough to continue revitalizing the neighborhoods one at a time.

Sure we could slam the breaks on for any historic building downtown and hope the demand would be satisfied elsewhere, but I think that kind of action should be reserved for truly unique, outstanding, structures.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I'm as much of a preservationist as anyone, but I think it's a wee bit of hyperbole to claim that the demolition of a couple of nice three flats means "Chicago is losing it's soul". We have literally tens and tens of thousands of these things. Yes, I'm sad to see it go, but I'm equally as happy to see investment that will also pay taxes and help mend our fiscal nightmare. Chicago is going to lose a whole lot more of these buildings elsewhere in the city if we can't keep the pace of economic growth in our central city hot enough to continue revitalizing the neighborhoods one at a time.

Sure we could slam the breaks on for any historic building downtown and hope the demand would be satisfied elsewhere, but I think that kind of action should be reserved for truly unique, outstanding, structures.

I don't know. At the very least there certainly aren't many of these human-scaled buildings left in Streeterville/River North, which is what makes them rare. And yet we are sacrificing them when there are many other potential development sites in the same neighborhoods (parking lots - there's one about the same size literally across the street, garages, drive-thru banks, nondescript low-rises including many blocks surrounding R&R McDonald's, etc.). River North is not as nearly maxed out as some would think and in an ideal world these sites would be developed before we discuss the merits of progress vs. preservation. We're nowhere near Manhattan levels of density where they're demolishing fairly nice buildings on 57th for new supertalls...

I'm going to again plug these nice little guides SOAR made documenting these buildings:
East-West streets
North-South streets (this link doesn't seem to be working right now but I believe I have the .pdf somewhere if interested)

Several of the buildings pictured are already gone and many others are threatened either through outright demolition or heavy alteration.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by spyguy

I don't know. At the very least there certainly aren't many of these human-scaled buildings left in Streeterville/River North, which is what makes them rare. And yet we are sacrificing them when there are many other potential development sites in the same neighborhoods (parking lots - there's one about the same size literally across the street, garages, drive-thru banks, nondescript low-rises including many blocks surrounding R&R McDonald's, etc.). River North is not as nearly maxed out as some would think and in an ideal world these sites would be developed before we discuss the merits of progress vs. preservation. We're nowhere near Manhattan levels of density where they're demolishing fairly nice buildings on 57th for new supertalls...

I'm going to again plug these nice little guides SOAR made documenting these buildings:
East-West streets
North-South streets (this link doesn't seem to be working right now but I believe I have the .pdf somewhere if interested)

Several of the buildings pictured are already gone and many others are threatened either through outright demolition or heavy alteration.

I tend to agree. It is reasonable to say we should preserve for now, and perhaps revisit in 20, 30, 40 years as the need arises. We always get the tired revenue argument despite the fact there is abundant land to develop that will provide the identical revenue.

[pip]

I've given up on River North and the preserving old buildings.

[Via Chicago]

And that attitude is why we're losing them

The "we need to sacrifice this building for almighty revenue" argument is the same bs we were sold in the first urban renewal era. And then we sit down with books like david Lowe's lost chicago 40 years later and ask ourselves "what the fuck were these idiots thinking"

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i mean, does a building now have to be noticeable from every conceivable vantage point to deserve recognition or respect? the proposal isnt noteworthy or inspiring from ANY angle. you could argue its a better use of the land, but if thats the case i hope youre comfortable no legacy buildings being left in this area.

most houses are boring from the rear....its an alley after all. and this particular bunch has essentially a side yard that hasnt really been taken advantage of. and yea, theres mature trees shielding the finer details, but i think it would be pretty perverse holding that against them (when did big shade trees become a demerit?)

this city is losing its soul.

In this case, I do think it's appropriate to point out because there is honestly very little foot traffic to this place. And even if it's on the corner, most people don't actually see what a beautiful building it is, so they are completely unaware of it in most cases. Not everyone knows every single building around where they live nor should they be required to. It's not a building's fault, but it's just a reality of the area in this specific case. Plus, there hasn't been much of anything - not even from the Ukranian Consulate rallying the neighbors. I think most people in the area are more sensitive to these types of changes than you'd think, even if they've only been in the city for a handful of years.

[Via Chicago]

Ah ok, i misunderstood you

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Hubbard and Wells

Not bad...

[10023]

I agree with pip if what he means is the the area is already ruined. It's a shame because Chicago doesn't have many old Victorian neighborhoods with higher quality architecture (read: the structures were originally built for the wealthy). I'm not a fan of the typical Chicago brick 3 flats you see everywhere which are more of an early 20th century vintage.

At least draw a line at Division and try to protect what's left of the Gold Coast and Old Town...

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Some activity for State & Huron, as the developers seek to demolish 4-8 E. Huron[/URL]

Question on the proposed tower itself, for anyone:

Is it still a VDT design?

Is it now (this smaller revised proposal) as-of-right?

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

because this city is a joke sometimes, and historic preservation is merely lip service. a beautifully built, human scaled,100+ year old home dosent stand a chance against a big shiny souless blue box. cause, ya know....progress

if the citizens of the city dont care about these kinds of losses than i suppose we get what we deserve. the side streets in this neighborhood are already the worst sort of outdoor shopping mall imaginable so go ahead, finish off the job.

give me a break, there are hundreds and thousands of identical homes all over town, why does that one need to stay in one of the densest parts of the city? Its clearly not being used in its "best use". Yeah it sucks that its not the hideous parking garage across the street but come on these homes are nothing special, go past them sometime, they look all run down and nasty.

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by 10023

I agree with pip if what he means is the the area is already ruined. It's a shame because Chicago doesn't have many old Victorian neighborhoods with higher quality architecture (read: the structures were originally built for the wealthy). I'm not a fan of the typical Chicago brick 3 flats you see everywhere which are more of an early 20th century vintage.

At least draw a line at Division and try to protect what's left of the Gold Coast and Old Town...

you need to get out more, I suggest you take a look at some of the boulevards in town, they aren't in "prime neighborhoods" but the architecture of the homes along them are outstanding here http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=74,3