CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[the urban politician]

^ Not sure I’d call that courage. We don’t know why it was withdrawn, but if he is kowtowing to NIMBYs then that’s not a good thing....no matter how much I don’t like the design

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Sorry - thought it was obvious enough to get by w/o using sarcasm font for that post

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Not sure I’d call that courage. We don’t know why it was withdrawn, but if he is kowtowing to NIMBYs then that’s not a good thing....no matter how much I don’t like the design

Courage to wait until the current news cycle passes and no one cares anymore

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

We have clearly been getting garbage in Fulton Market, and I'd venture in no small part because of these poorly constructed guidelines. I mean look at 1215 W Fulton - wtf is that? The tower on its own is fine I think. And I even somewhat dig the institutional look of the base - again on its own. Together this composition is nothing short of a dog's breakfast. An absolute mess.

Fulton Market is clearly an area due to its rent and pricing trends that would have been highly supportive of developers spending fairly big on innovative design over the last several years. What could have been.

I'm really surprised and confused by this comment. To me the developments in the West Loop have been quite innovative. Exposed bracing, terraced setbacks, public spaces like the Mews.
What's the alternative? A bunch of beige precast? Sterile blue glass boxes?
And what's innovative by comparison? "Deconstructive architecture" that looks like a 3 year old did it and has no soul? Something that looks half melted? No thanks.

The biggest limit I've seen over these last several years is that proposals keep getting chopped down in terms of floors or units. That means less money for the developers and less money for quality materials. Cheap materials is what leaves a building looking like garbage 10 years later.

[southoftheloop]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I'm really surprised and confused by this comment. To me the developments in the West Loop have been quite innovative. Exposed bracing, terraced setbacks, public spaces like the Mews.
What's the alternative? A bunch of beige precast? Sterile blue glass boxes?
And what's innovative by comparison? "Deconstructive architecture" that looks like a 3 year old did it and has no soul? Something that looks half melted? No thanks.

Agreed. Fulton market developments have been a notch above because they are subject to regulatory constraints

[Barrelfish]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

This is an interesting framework. However, I would never (and I'm not stating you clearly do) subscribe to a view that we need to or should accept a certain level of corruption to remain semi-functional. I don't buy that that's a necessary trade-off that we must face.

I agree with this. Not corrupt and highly functional would be my preference! However, I think I would rather have our mix of deeply corrupt and semi-functional vs. SF's mix of deeply dysfunctional but less corrupt*.

*I actually don't know anything about SF's level of corruption, but I can only assume that Chicago is the undisputed champ in that department.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Fifield has withdrawn 125 W. Maple from today's Plan Commission, according to this.

Is this good or bad?

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by southoftheloop

Agreed. Fulton market developments have been a notch above because they are subject to regulatory constraints

Seconded. I don't think the cheapening of materials/watering down is necessarily attributed to the review and counter proposal process. Many times the initial renderings are overly ambitious and not cost effective, and then when the rubber meets the road and actual planning and construction nears it all comes down to $. Example is 400 N Lakeshore and the terra cotta reduction/height chop/window simplification, Wolf Point view corridor/footprint/elevator/height problem, and just general maximizing profit after they get the green light.

* As an aside I have a friend who works for a design firm, and it seems like designers would love to be ultra innovative and go all out creative wise, but it's an eternal battle of always pushed back by the developer to basically do what is cheapest. Only once more innovative designs start to command higher prices will this substantially change IMO.

That said - I agree that Fulton market has been doing a positive job with how they've managed development and the way things are turning out. Of course everything could always be better.

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by The Best Forumer

Is this good or bad?

Maybe good for this proposal but bad for the process (depends on why withdrawn).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I'm really surprised and confused by this comment. To me the developments in the West Loop have been quite innovative. Exposed bracing, terraced setbacks, public spaces like the Mews.
What's the alternative? A bunch of beige precast? Sterile blue glass boxes?
And what's innovative by comparison? "Deconstructive architecture" that looks like a 3 year old did it and has no soul? Something that looks half melted? No thanks.

The biggest limit I've seen over these last several years is that proposals keep getting chopped down in terms of floors or units. That means less money for the developers and less money for quality materials. Cheap materials is what leaves a building looking like garbage 10 years later.

This.

The most interesting new buildings are going up in the West Loop. Not very tall, unfortunately, but I think this neighborhood is getting the best designs in the city. At least we aren't seeing a bunch of parking podia

[marothisu]

I'm not sure I'd call them innovative but Fulton Market projects are definitely on average a level above those in most of the rest of downtown. The projects to me at times are more Manhattan and less Chicago from a quality perspective. It's also good to break things up.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'm not sure I'd call them innovative but Fulton Market projects are definitely on average a level above those in most of the rest of downtown. The projects to me at times are more Manhattan and less Chicago from a quality perspective. It's also good to break things up.

Yes, Fulton is better than most. But I still think it's a clear step down from the more interesting infill buildings we're seeing in NY. We need some more daring and sculptural projects in the same vein as 837 Washington, 520 West 28th Street, Lantern House, Grand Mulberry, etc. Variation and innovation is good, provided it's high quality.

I think the guidelines were drafted in part to placate NIMBYs who want everything to "fit" with the neighborhood. And all developers have to do is provide a brick base and mumble some words about "industrial context" and it's off to the races...

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Wow - I've rarely been so heartened by a report back from Plan Commission - at least until the point where Burnett jumped in. We have clearly been getting garbage in Fulton Market, and I'd venture in no small part because of these poorly constructed guidelines.

Come on. I like most of the stuff that's new in Fulton Market. There's a lot of space between ideal and garbage. If you write this hyperbolically everyone is going to miss your point about what we can do to get the best stuff possible.

This is garbage:

[ardecila]

Agree to disagree? The first one is quite good PoMo and the second is a reasonable version of Art Deco. Both buildings have quality materials and a lot of depth/relief in their facades.

This, to me, is true bad design:
https://goo.gl/maps/YL664f3ZjDWPfvCp7

Any PoMo touches are literally just pasted onto a flat brick box. They cheaped out on materials: utility brick and split face block. The windows are the same developer special, mulled-double hung windows you see on low-grade tract housing. Etc.

[rivernorthlurker]

If anyone is disappointed with Fulton, all you gotta do is take a look at new construction in Toronto and you'll be feeling fine in no time.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Come on. I like most of the stuff that's new in Fulton Market. There's a lot of space between ideal and garbage. If you write this hyperbolically everyone is going to miss your point about what we can do to get the best stuff possible.

That's fair - it is certainly not garbage as a rule or even on the whole, though realize that's the way my comment came across.

I'll revise here: "We have clearly been getting at best a mixed bag of design in Fulton Market......" I do actually feel it's no better than this overall.

I would also certainly defend my point that the guidelines have likely been playing a clear part in dragging design quality down - I think r18tdi characterized very well - these were slapped together to placate neighbors who want faux mimicry, or at least an aesthetic 'blending in'. It's not exclusively about the base (there are definitely a lot that are pretty bad or merely meh from sidewalk to roof), but that is what could stand for the most improvement.

[Briguy]

Originally Posted by southoftheloop

Agreed. Fulton market developments have been a notch above because they are subject to regulatory constraints

Agreed.

The way the west loop buildings meet the ground is honestly quite quite good. Gr33n has a plaza and two levels of retail. 800 Fulton you can literally walk under the cross bracing for a perspective unique in Chicago. 167 green has the mews. This new revel site development has a freaking public plaza. The building replacing the Amylu factory has a cross block passageway with a hidden intra block plaza.

What exactly is the issue?

Take One Chicago, “world class architecture” and meets the street extremely aggressively.

[OhioGuy]

19-Story Apartment Building On Lake Shore Drive In Lakeview Approved By Key City Panel
Block Club Chicago | 10:15 AM CDT on Jul 16, 2021

CHICAGO — A proposal for two Lakeview apartment buildings — one 19 stories tall and the other six stories — connected at the base cleared a key city panel Thursday.

The Plan Commission voted to approve developer CCA Lakeview’s plans to construct the two buildings, located at 3630-3636 N. Lake Shore Drive and 601-627 W. Waveland Ave., during its meeting Tuesday.

When finished, the 19-story building would stand 228.6 feet tall and the six-story building would be 75.6 feet tall, said Jack George, an attorney representing the developers. The two structures would be connected at the base around a shared courtyard.

The project would have 333 apartment units, including 11 affordable housing units, George said. It would also have 145 car parking spaces and 50 bike parking spaces.

ChicagoYimby

[RedCorsair87]

JFC... How does something like this get designed? A blue glass box like the new tower on Montrose looks better than this.

[Double L]

How is the Wortham Center garbage?