CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Yackemflaber69

https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2021...sit-hub-planned-for-chicagos-south-loop/

What about this?

First proposed in Summer '19. It has its own thread:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239273

[Briguy]

I guess fultonization is better than river-northification? IE very little podiums here at least

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by rlw777

^ And the Fultonization continues

I'm not picking on you, but I hear a lot of complaints about "fultonization" and it grinds my gears. What they hell do we want to happen to our cities?

If you asked me what the ideal development pattern for Chicago would be I would say, "Umm... high density, high intensity mixed use development paralleling transit infrastructure in Loop adjacent neighborhoods coupled with historic preservation and pedestrian focus a half block offset from the new construction corridor?"

Sure the new stuff looks of a time and place, but it's almost all pretty-to-very high quality design and materials with massing that doesn't ruin the street environment. We should be so lucky all over, all the time.

[marothisu]

I dont have a problem with the overall design elements but some of these buildings are now seemingly making clones of one another. I have an issue with that. A little variation in future design even within a particular style is welcome.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I'm not picking on you, but I hear a lot of complaints about "fultonization" and it grinds my gears. What they hell do we want to happen to our cities?

If you asked me what the ideal development pattern for Chicago would be I would say, "Umm... high density, high intensity mixed use development paralleling transit infrastructure in Loop adjacent neighborhoods coupled with historic preservation and pedestrian focus a half block offset from the new construction corridor?"

Sure the new stuff looks of a time and place, but it's almost all pretty-to-very high quality design and materials with massing that doesn't ruin the street environment. We should be so lucky all over, all the time.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Briguy

I guess fultonization is better than river-northification? IE very little podiums here at least

ABSOLUTELY!

say whatever you will about the repetitive design elements of many of these west loop developments, they're still light years better than the unrelenting wave of beige vertical turds that was unleashed upon river north in the '00s.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

ABDOLUTELY!

say whatever you will about the repetitive design elements of many of these west loop developments, they're still light years better than the unrelenting wave of beige vertical turds that was unleashed upon river north in the '00s.

I wonder if we'll see any recladdings or paint jobs in the near future. Many already look dated and imagine they will look more so with One Chicago, Old Town Park, North Union, and up&coming West Loop urban living scene siphoning away residents

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I'm not picking on you, but I hear a lot of complaints about "fultonization" and it grinds my gears. What they hell do we want to happen to our cities?

If you asked me what the ideal development pattern for Chicago would be I would say, "Umm... high density, high intensity mixed use development paralleling transit infrastructure in Loop adjacent neighborhoods coupled with historic preservation and pedestrian focus a half block offset from the new construction corridor?"

Sure the new stuff looks of a time and place, but it's almost all pretty-to-very high quality design and materials with massing that doesn't ruin the street environment. We should be so lucky all over, all the time.

The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.

[joeg1985]

It would indeed make for a more interesting city. You don't have to convince us. Talk to the folks with all the money behind the developments.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by rlw777

The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.

Agree. I really like the design that Hirsch came up with for 311 N Sangamon. Squared primary divisions in the facade, a nice rhythm to the fenestration, and just enough brick for material richness and texture and to tie it in with the neighborhood. And the design incorporates brick in a way that's honest about its place in the structure, as a purely decorative element. There is a slew of new construction in Fulton that has vast swaths of brick for "walls" and "piers" and the falseness of its application is readily apparent (and displeasing). 800 Fulton is actually one of the main offenders, IMO.

[Toasty Joe]

Originally Posted by Jibba

800 Fulton is actually one of the main offenders, IMO.

Yeah, but if it had kept the lighter brick and invested in it being real - it'd have been 10x better and more unique to the neighborhood.

And agreed with everything else, I'm really looking forward to seeing 906 W Randolph rise: https://chicagoyimby.com/2020/12/approve...breaks-top-15-in-year-end-countdown.html

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by rlw777

The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.

Precisely this.

Fultonization is a thing - and it's bad. At the same time, as Briguy and Steely point out, it's important to maintain a relative sense of perspective. River Northification is worse, because it's a combination of not only — design (albeit a different sort of bad from standard — Fulton design), but — massing, — urban design, — pedestrian experience, garages on steroids, etc etc etc.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

I'm really looking forward to seeing 906 W Randolph rise: https://chicagoyimby.com/2020/12/approve...breaks-top-15-in-year-end-countdown.html

As am I - this may sound strange, but I like to see the rare square or nearly square floorplate residential tower, just in terms of tower massing variety in the skyline.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

As am I - this may sound strange, but I like to see the rare square or nearly square floorplate residential tower, just in terms of tower massing variety in the skyline.

I hope it gets axed. It's very cheesy and already looks dated (and hasn't been built yet).

[marothisu]

I think by some definitions this qualifies as a high rise. There is a zoning application up to tear down the existing 2 story brick building at 1229 W Randolph (& Willard Ct) and build a 7 story, 120 foot tall building in place with ground floor retail/commercial and office above. The developer is Thor Equities (NYC). Previous plans were to renovate the building and put something like a rooftop there. It looks like they're going a bit bolder now. This site is basically across the street from Alhambra Palace. The scanned in zoning app is black and white but it appears that the facade would be dark gray brick.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8841411,...lBu9Nl-2gZwAjnNIrRD6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by rlw777

The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.

I'm a rabid fan of historic preservation, and I'm quite enjoying some of the "faux historic" stuff they are putting up. How exactly do these buildings hurt historic preservation? To me they galvanize historic preservation and they show that these styles are often preferred to soulless modern boxes.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I'm a rabid fan of historic preservation, and I'm quite enjoying some of the "faux historic" stuff they are putting up. How exactly do these buildings hurt historic preservation? To me they galvanize historic preservation and they show that these styles are often preferred to soulless modern boxes.

I'm not advocating for a bunch of soulless architecture. I just think that imitations diminish the authenticity and value of the original. I think it's much better to have contrast that highlights and draws attention to the authentic. I think this benefits preservation efforts because it's common sense that people are much less likely to get rid of something that is obviously unique than something that without more scrutiny appears to be ubiquitous.

This same sort of thinking is the reason why the design guidelines for new construction in the Michigan Avenue Historic District ask for contemporary designs that do not replicate historic designs.

replacing non-contributing buildings of the current streetwall. The composition of historic and contemporary architecture can be dynamic, resulting in a richer visual environment, adding new life to the streetscape.

New construction must understand the relationship of its location and deal sensitively with the district’s historic resources when designing infill buildings. The Commission encourages sound contemporary design that respects the district’s existing architectural and historic qualities, but does not necessarily replicate historic designs.

from Guidelines

[rgarri4]

917 Fulton rendering in Crains

[RedCorsair87]

Can someone please explain why they chose to add the glass and metal portion for the top two floors instead of two additional brick and glass floors? It doesn't look bad, but I think it would look more coherent with all brick. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[BrinChi]

They're trying to make it look like they preserved an old warehouse and added a two-story modern addition on top. I'm sure it fools the average viewer.