CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[Mr Downtown]

Yeah, I get the feeling that both the developer and Perkins+Will are in over their heads here.

First, the solution to creating lots more vehicular trips isn't to have everything come and go via Roosevelt and Lake Shore Drive like some suburban pod off Higgins Road. It should be to put in four modest connecting streets that share the load and would actually connect this new group of buildings to the existing urban fabric, and connect the South Loop to Lake Shore Drive.

Second, the Orange Line extension makes no sense. Are they intending that alternate trips would go east to the lakefront instead of to the Loop? Or certain trips on game days like in Philly? Or what? (They didn't say.) Now what might work would be to extend the Pink Line (via the Wells and Van Buren sides of the Loop) down the Alley L and St Charles Air Line to a terminal station here at 16th & Indiana. That offers about the right level of service and connections from the North and West Sides.

As for the Chi-Line, connecting this to Navy Pier via buses on surface streets, that's just goofy. If there were really a market for much McCormick Place-to-Navy Pier ridership, there are lots of better ideas—including a subsidy-free water taxi.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Former H2O site (845 W Madison) received full building permits yesterday for 17 story building(s) and 586 units. Anybody been there lately?

March 10

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

What handsome warehouse? This?





It's a bricked up, blank walled box. It doesn't hold the corner with any architectural style, it won't integrate with any future use. I just don't see the value in holding on to this.
Not with a gem of a building that isn't a glass box, with no exposed parking, ready to go. Those terraces will be an amazing space. That is growth that needs to happen.

I love that Gr333n won't just be a lone tower, that it's just part of a dense cluster.

Yes that one. I like how you selectively ignored the rest of my post and the very clear example of it's proposed reuse. Do you lack reading comprehension?

[Via Chicago]

Newsflash: every single dilapidated bricked up former food processing warehouse that was falling apart that has now been gussied up in the Fulton market area looked identical if not worse

Either you feel the Fulton historic district is something worth having or not. Feel free to put your cards down. Nice to know where people stand

As I understand it, this one was intended as part of the original district by those who conducted the survey, but was exempted due to political/developer pressure. Which certainly is different than suggesting it has no contributing value to the historic district

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Yes that one. I like how you selectively ignored the rest of my post

It could have been rehabbed but wasn't. Now we get something even better. C'est la vie.
The 19th century carriage house that was torn down to make way for this warehouse was handsome too for its time. One could argue the entire west loop should just be single family homes and prairie, as it once was.

There is notable historic architecture, then there is common filler. This is the historic west loop equivalent of River North painted concrete. Let it go.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ No one appreciates historic buildings until they have been cleaned up or destroyed...

[the urban politician]

My other big issues are more basic:

Does Chicago need more land? No
Do we really just want a long chain of skyscrapers connected by a giant podium? Sounds nothing like the cityscape that makes Chicago great

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

It could have been rehabbed but wasn't. Now we get something even better. C'est la vie.
The 19th century carriage house that was torn down to make way for this warehouse was handsome too for its time. One could argue the entire west loop should just be single family homes and prairie, as it once was.

There is notable historic architecture, then there is common filler. This is the historic west loop equivalent of River North painted concrete. Let it go.

This is not "better". It is simply something different in place of what could have been a successful, lauded rehab. In an era of increasing resource scarcity no less

In fact, had it been a successful rehab I suspect you would have been the first in line to laud it.

But it sure is nice to selectively play both sides isn't it

[Rizzo]

Impressive but overly ambitious

[aaron38]

^^^ Define historic and better.

I could chain myself to every neglected and crumbling suburban clapboard farmhouse style house that stands in the way of a 5 story condo building next to a Metra station. And for what? Are you going to come rehab them?

If people had wanted to restore this warehouse, they had 30 years to do it, and no one stepped up. Sure, political winds could have blown different and landmarked this. But absent government subsidy, that doesn't make the building economical to rehab. If those so minded don't find buildings worthy of their time and effort to preserve, they can't force others to do so.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

^^^ Define historic and better.

Anything in Chicago built prior to WWii. Let's keep that as a starting point

Any other questions?

[Via Chicago]

But it's nice to know, had you had your way, the entire Fulton district would have been demod for high-rises. Because clearly it has no historic value unless the government says so

[Via Chicago]

PS - the "exposed bracing" on the new proposal is clumsy, warped, and non supporting, and the trees will die in under 3 years thanks to being planted in concrete boxes in exposed environments that likely will not receive extensive care

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Any other questions?

Yes. When the free market doesn't agree with you and the development money goes elsewhere and Chicago becomes Detroit, then what? By your definition, literally nothing new should have been built in Chicago since 1946.

Historic buildings have value when people decide they do and invest in them. Like I said, this city and it's citizens had decades to rehab this building and increase its value.
If I neglect my home for the next 20 years, how do I demand someone pay me top dollar and restore my house to it's former glory if the highest and best use for them is to raze it and build new?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

^^^ Yes. When the free market doesn't agree with you and the development money goes elsewhere and Chicago becomes Detroit, then what?

By your definition, literally nothing new should have been built in Chicago since 1946.

I think it's incredibly wasteful to knock down most buildings built prior to the 40s. Yes. In fact, demoing almost any existing building is wasteful in an era of resource scarcity

The fact you are choosing to fall back on the tired "if Chicago didn't do X it would be Detroit" makes it easy to ignore pretty much every opinion you hold

[BonoboZill4]

Thanks for the great updates today, everyone! I think I'll step aside for the drama to blow over though for now :o

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

I think it's incredibly wasteful to knock down most buildings... ...in an era of resource scarcity

Okay. So say I buy a warehouse to rehab. And my client demands wrap around floor to ceiling windows. So I strip the building down to columns and floor slabs and reskin it as a boring blue glass box. I get credit for tons of resource reuse, and LEED rating to boot. But my finished building looks absolutely nothing like an historic Chicago food storage warehouse.
Is that okay or not?

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

My other big issues are more basic:

Does Chicago need more land? No
Do we really just want a long chain of skyscrapers connected by a giant podium? Sounds nothing like the cityscape that makes Chicago great

I get what you are saying, but the fact remains that "groundscrapers" are a growing trend right now. I'm honestly not surprised that so many megaplans feature these nowadays

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

PS - the "exposed bracing" on the new proposal is clumsy, warped, and non supporting, and the trees will die in under 3 years thanks to being planted in concrete boxes in exposed environments that likely will not receive extensive care

The architect did state that the exposed bracing is structural, and actually does a better job supporting than traditional X bracing. I appreciate you arguing your point, but you should have your facts straight or your argument gets lost.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Yes. When the free market doesn't agree with you and the development money goes elsewhere and Chicago becomes Detroit, then what? By your definition, literally nothing new should have been built in Chicago since 1946.

Historic buildings have value when people decide they do and invest in them. Like I said, this city and it's citizens had decades to rehab this building and increase its value.

Markets work great for a lot of things. I love markets. But this oversimplification is absurd. Free markets don't mean I can throw my garbage in the street. And markets aren't efficient if they are only profitable because the owner is freeloading, extorting or taking advantage of unpriced externalities. If a community invests in public spaces and institutions over decades, the *most profitable* use of some land in that historic neighborhood may still be a drive through vape shop. It's profitable because it's an unearned increment made possible because value exists due to generations of public investments and the long-term enterprise of a community and institutions. Sure, simply extracting profit from previous investments may indeed be profitable, but that certainly doesn't mean it's good for a community.

If economics is the justification, it should implicitly address this extremely basic stuff first. But even more simply, if a person’s justification for doing something ugly is just that he has the “right” to do it, you shouldn't be his friend.