CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1741

the urban politician · #**34801** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 3:03 AM**

^ Get a hold of yourself. You're making too many assumptions. I just think it's ugly, and has a deadening street presence. It presents nothing but blank walls to pedestrians. I don't have a big problem with the density.

ithakas · #**34802** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 3:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^In what way? Just because you wish it was a little bit taller? Wish it was a baller? Wish it had a girl so you could call her?

On a random lot in Pilsen or Avondale or North Lawndale you'd say it was good infill, better than a parking lot. Not every parcel—even downtown—needs to have an FAR of 16.

No, he's right, this is atrocious. I've walked past it every week since its groundbreaking aghast at how something so hideous could pass muster.

I'm guessing you had some input on this, and thought the Dearborn Park meets 2003 aesthetic was a sound approach?

LouisVanDerWright · #**34803** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 4:03 AM**

He just likes it because it won't be casting any shadows on the rooftop "park" he got for everyone the roof of the British School.

SolarWind · #**34804** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 4:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^In what way? Just because you wish it was a little bit taller? Wish it was a baller? Wish it had a girl so you could call her?

Skee-Lo. I wasn't expecting that from you.

Mr Downtown · #**34805** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 2:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

No, he's right, this is atrocious. I've walked past it every week since its groundbreaking aghast at how something so hideous could pass muster.

Please explain what's so hideous about it. The lack of ground-floor retail? When this got under way, there was no Riverline being planned. No one knew what might eventually go on the Cacciatore site south of River City.

Quote:

I'm guessing you had some input on this, and thought the Dearborn Park meets 2003 aesthetic was a sound approach?

No one had any input. It's an as-of-right project. The developer sent me a rendering, and I asked him to consider the more traditional approach for residential fronting directly on a sidewalk: putting the main floor a half-level above ground to provide privacy, rather than needing garden walls. But this is a formula he'd used successfully 4 or 5 times already, and so he never responded. The traditional approach is also a problem if the project has to meet visitability requirements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

He just likes it because it won't be casting any shadows on the rooftop "park" he got for everyone [on] the roof of the British School.

The project I fiercely opposed and am still bitter about?

the urban politician · #**34806** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 2:13 PM**

^ So we all agree that it's hideous. Great. You can put your 'How to be a Devil's Advocate' manual away now, and for once agree with the prevailing opinion on the forum.

(And trust me, having been a former here for 12 years I'm pretty sure most people have a low opinion of this project)

Mr Downtown · #**34807** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ So we all agree that it's hideous.

No, I don't see it as hideous or atrocious, and I want to know what makes it so for some correspondents.

I don't think masonry garden walls are the optimal solution for residential units fronting sidewalks, but they have a long and honorable history in cities around the world. Landscaping tends to soften them a lot within a couple of years, and they become a pleasant enough part of the cityscape. The Gold Coast and Lakeview are full of examples once you start looking for them.

Via Chicago · #**34808** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 5:09 PM**

i dont have a problem with planters. i have a problem with walling off the first floor of a development.

look at the first floor and tell me thats an intelligent way to approach it

this is basically a glorified 4+1 at best. at least 4+1s are honest about their parking.

ChiHi · #**34809** Posted **Sep 13, 2016, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^In what way? Just because you wish it was a little bit taller? Wish it was a baller? Wish it had a girl so you could call her?

On a random lot in Pilsen or Avondale or North Lawndale you'd say it was good infill, better than a parking lot. Not every parcel—even downtown—needs to have an FAR of 16.

Something that looks like it took more than 3 hours to design would have been nice! Perhaps something that doesn't have solid concrete walls at street level? These things look nearly identical to the subsidized homes built just north of the United Center. It's an extremely short sighted buidling. If it was built there 15 years ago maybe it fits in but at this point that area is actually becoming a neigborhood and this thing just extends another section of street into a pedestrian no-mans land.

emathias · #**34810** Posted **Sep 14, 2016, 2:08 AM**

DLA Piper sent letters out on behalf of Cedar Street for the 676 N Lasalle project (adding 2 stories and extending the building to Lasalle) for 149 units and 20 parking spaces. The announcement is for a September 8th application to change the zoning by adding a Type 1 zoning Map Amendment to the existing DX-7 Downtown Mixed-Use so they can have such a low parking ratio.

SolarWind · #**34811** Posted **Sep 14, 2016, 2:31 AM**

September 13, 2016

Skyguy_7 · #**34812** Posted **Sep 15, 2016, 12:48 PM**

^That tower crane location is certainly a sight to behold. Saweeet.

Random update: Someone mentioned a couple weeks ago that University Hall tower at UIC is getting new glazing. I spoke to a CM on the project and apparently, it's only getting a new curtain wall on the top floor. Total cost to replace the building's entire window system would have been around $12 million which they just didn't find it feasible. I don't know what Walter Netsch was smoking when he thought 7" wide bronze plexiglass(?) windows would be a good idea.

Mr Downtown · #**34813** Posted **Sep 15, 2016, 1:08 PM**

^Thanks. That makes the comment I heard—that they were going to remove every other mullion—a bit more palatable.

ardecila · #**34814** Posted **Sep 15, 2016, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^That tower crane location is certainly a sight to behold. Saweeet.

Random update: Someone mentioned a couple weeks ago that University Hall tower at UIC is getting new glazing. I spoke to a CM on the project and apparently, it's only getting a new curtain wall on the top floor. Total cost to replace the building's entire window system would have been around $12 million which they just didn't find it feasible. I don't know what Walter Netsch was smoking when he thought 7" wide bronze plexiglass(?) windows would be a good idea.

I imagine tinted acrylic is cheaper and offers more color options than tinted glass, and the narrow width was probably some kind of nod to Gothic architecture.

sentinel · #**34815** Posted **Sep 16, 2016, 1:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i dont have a problem with planters. i have a problem with walling off the first floor of a development.

look at the first floor and tell me thats an intelligent way to approach it

this is basically a glorified 4+1 at best. at least 4+1s are honest about their parking.

This belongs in Berwyn or LaGrange, NOT downtown Chicago. Fucking embarrassing.

harryc · #**34816** Posted **Sep 16, 2016, 2:31 AM**

Aug 18
Riuverwalk Phase II - going strong

Aug 30

Sept 07

denizen467 · #**34817** Posted **Sep 16, 2016, 2:38 AM**

The Curious Case Of The Hill In The West-Loop:

Kinzie was just rebuilt from Union to Carpenter (hooray). But between Peoria and Morgan, it rises from grade level at least 10 feet, cresting right at Sangamon. The hill isn't new; it looks like it has been there for eons, but when they rebuilt the street they obviously made a decision not to alter it (more or less necessary since a couple adjacent buildings have been built according to Kinzie's and Sangamon's slopes). In fact it has a substantial retaining wall on its south edge, and they may have rebuilt that entirely as well.

Assuming the hill was never a natural feature, how the heck did it get there -- was it some kind of a ramp constructed for dumping bulk cargo onto railcars (the tracks run alongside Kinzie here)? Or was it actually a natural hill and they sliced off its southern half to lay the tracks?

Tom Servo · #**34818** Posted **Sep 16, 2016, 6:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

This belongs in Berwyn or LaGrange, NOT downtown Chicago. Fucking embarrassing.

THIS is what gets you guys angry??? Jesus. Priorities. There's nothing wrong w this development. You guys and your bizarre obsession with tall buildings is just weird to me.

EVERYTHING SHOULD BE A SKYSCRAPER! LOL

k1052 · #**34819** Posted **Sep 16, 2016, 12:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

THIS is what gets you guys angry??? Jesus. Priorities. There's nothing wrong w this development. You guys and your bizarre obsession with tall buildings is just weird to me.

EVERYTHING SHOULD BE A SKYSCRAPER! LOL

Define "wrong". A low density use compared to the area, doesn't scale well with it's current and future neighbors, looks like every other cheap mid 2000s era development of it's ilk, and interacts poorly on the pedestrian level. That said it's developers have every right to build it...but that right doesn't make it immune from criticism.

marothisu · #**34820** Posted **Sep 16, 2016, 12:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

THIS is what gets you guys angry??? Jesus. Priorities. There's nothing wrong w this development. You guys and your bizarre obsession with tall buildings is just weird to me.

EVERYTHING SHOULD BE A SKYSCRAPER! LOL

You yet again mischaracterize many on here - not everyone thinks that everything should be a skyscraper. However, you are very inconsistent. The design of this is absolute shit - how can anybody with any sense of design defend this? I don't care how short or tall it is - it looks like utter shit.