CHICAGO | General Developments

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Chicago and Wells
88 units, designed by BKL





This proposal (at least this version) does replace several older buildings, including the corner building which I'm fond of:
https://goo.gl/maps/ZawrC

I don't think I'd mind if the buildings north along Wells went, but I'd like to see the corner structure preserved. The project has potential and looks quite nice, but I'd get rid of the southern 30% in order to keep the buildings along Chicago as like an anchor. If the developer was smart, they'd preserve them, have them landmarked and then seek a historic tax credit. To make up for the loss of the new structure I'd raise it from 8 to 12 floors.

That's just my thinking though.

[Rizzo]

Ah boooo. Revise the proposal to save the corner and I'll be completely happy, though it seems this could go a little taller so close to a transit station....so close.

[wierdaaron]

I didn't notice that the white part is brick before. bKL continuing to branch out with materials.

I think part of the reason the render looks so jarring is how the ground floor is empty and transparent. Hopefully the ground floor is retail (zoning should require that if it doesn't already), and if it's filled out it should blend into the city a bit more. I'm not as protective of the existing building as the above people. Reuse could have been better, but I think history won't mourn it for very long.

[Rizzo]

It might be dime and dozen in Chicago, but it's not often you find them in this good of condition. I'm all about having these moments of fine grain architecture mixed in the modern fabric of the growing downtown areas. I think it would be a terrible mistake to lose this building. It just perpetuates a trajectory of coarse grain structures (especially with that garage at the end). Better to hold one corner with an interesting building to make a more interesting neighborhood. It's not like keeping it would impede progress, if anything it would make the proposal better.

[bcp]

yeah..that would be a shame..looks like it's in good shape. you never know, developer could be waiting or some outcry to horse-trade for more height...

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

If the developer was smart, they'd preserve them, have them landmarked and then seek a historic tax credit.

On what basis could the building be landmarked? Was it designed by a prominent architect? Did something historically significant happen there?

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by bcp

yeah..that would be a shame..looks like it's in good shape. you never know, developer could be waiting or some outcry to horse-trade for more height...

This.

Spare the corner structure in return for greater FAR.

[bcp]

yeah you dont need landmark status to get these things to happen, just some public weeping, flexibility in zoning, and a willing developer - each tends to support the other.

[Link N. Parker]

I agree; it would be a shame to lose the existing building on the corner. It would be great if they could at least re-use even the shell of walls, in the new building, somehow.

[ChiTownWonder]

There is so much character in those buildings, please don't build over them!

[Ned.B]

^^Hopefully the architects were not done with this rendering and didn't intend anyone to see it, because it is seriously awful. That dark, doorless, ground floor is ghastly, and would make me fear for the future of this block if I thought that would be the final effect.

Actually, bad rendering or not, the more I look at this the less I like it. There seems to be zero logic to the facade organization and I don't think the scale of this (or lack there of) will do anything to help an already desolate feeling stretch of Wells Street.

[Via Chicago]

Yeah there is absolutely no universe in which that design is an improvement over whats already there

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Yeah there is absolutely no universe in which that design is an improvement over whats already there

[CCCguy]

Not to sound like a broken record, but it is truly a shame to lose that corner building along wells. Looking at old photos in books and on sites like Calumet 412, it really is a shame that Chicago really has lacked in the area of preservation. So many architectural gems lost. There are ways to reuse these spaces, even if it is just the facade, but I feel developers are lazy. Where is the creativity?

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by CCCguy

sites like Calumet 412

Speaking of Calumet 412, and completely off topic, does anyone know what is going on with the person who was running the site? There hasn't been a post since October 20th, 2014.

[BrinChi]

Agreed. In my book, pretty much any of the other buildings in that picture would be fine to replace. They always pick the gem. As others have said, hopefully they're using the proposal as leverage to build taller in return for saving the buildings.

Originally Posted by CCCguy

Not to sound like a broken record, but it is truly a shame to lose that corner building along wells. Looking at old photos in books and on sites like Calumet 412, it really is a shame that Chicago really has lacked in the area of preservation. So many architectural gems lost. There are ways to reuse these spaces, even if it is just the facade, but I feel developers are lazy. Where is the creativity?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

On what basis could the building be landmarked? Was it designed by a prominent architect? Did something historically significant happen there?

On the basis that I said so damn it!!! It doesn't need to have been designed by a starchitect of its day. Not everything deserves the wrecking ball in the name of "progress".

[Mr Downtown]

But of course if you liked the design of the new building, it wouldn't matter if the building had been designed by Thomas Jefferson himself and been the place where Benjamin Franklin invented cunnilingus. You'd be writing that we can't let some crappy old buildings stand in the way of progress.

That's why we have to make landmark decisions independent of—and preferably long in advance of—discussions about new projects that would replace them. And why the landmarks ordinance, to be legally defensible, has to have defined criteria that a proposed designation meets.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by sentinel

explain to me whats so great about that design and why its worth sacrificing a perfectly dignified existing building for it?

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

But of course if you liked the design of the new building, it wouldn't matter if the building had been designed by Thomas Jefferson himself and been the place where Benjamin Franklin invented cunnilingus. You'd be writing that we can't let some crappy old buildings stand in the way of progress.

That's why we have to make landmark decisions independent of—and preferably long in advance of—discussions about new projects that would replace them. And why the landmarks ordinance, to be legally defensible, has to have defined criteria that a proposed designation meets.

not everything needs to be a landmark to be worthy of saving. 99% of the bungalows in chicago arent landmarks, but id still be heartbroken to see any of them meet the wrecking ball.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

B...and been the place where Benjamin Franklin invented cunnilingus.

You get on my nerves sometimes, Mr. D, but for what it's worth, you've bought yourself quite a bit of goodwill in my eyes with that sentence. At some point, I'm stealing it.