CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[aaron38]

I just saw a commercial for Lincoln Park 2520, narated by LaGrange.
Kinda strange, considering I've never seen a commercial for one of the supertalls.

And CBS has been doing some nice shots of the river and 300 N LaSalle this morning.

[Loopy]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Cities aren't museums; they're first and foremost machines. Architecture and design are meant to enhance their processes; and, if in the course of a city's history an architecture develops that ultimately proves unsuccessful in doing this, then you have to sack it or at least rework it in such a way that it helps not hinders.

I agree, but it is was the plan that failed, in most cases, not the buildings themselves. The biggest failure of thinking in this era was that urban dwellers needed "light air and serenity", while ignoring their real needs for community and sense of place.

That is why Sandburg Village worked out. It is denser and more connected to the city as a whole. No, vast plazas or village greens to suck out your soul. There is no reason why this can't be accomplished, remedially, at Lake Meadows today.

[BVictor1]

I've always been partial to the all glass towers in Lake Meadows:


But I've never liked the other towers design.

[VivaLFuego]

The notion that superblocks are inherently hostile to pedestrian activity is the result of unqualified pols thinking they are savvy to urban planning concerns (yes, you, Ald. Preckwinkle). I could list off probably a dozen renewal developments in New York City that obliterate the idea; if anything, a well-designed superblock would eliminate car/pedestrian conflicts, and thus be more pedestrian friendly. The urban layout and architecture are not what makes the Lake Meadows/Prairie Shore area a wasteland of pedestrianism; it is the suburban shopping center (hence hurting the chance for economic activity, the primary trip generator, to be made on foot) and large resident parking fields (which waste alot of space). Fix the units/acres ratio without repeating the same mistakes of the past in demolishing a healthy community of mixed income, mixed background residents. Any "replacement" community, in today's economic environment, would be a mundane blend of the upper income and the few scorned invidividuals living in subsidized units, whose construction further drove up the "market-rate" units thereby making those even more exclusive. Lake Meadows is a truly diverse development of mixed income, the sort of which planners yearn for, with 50 years of character and history. Wiping the slate clean wouldn't be any better than what they did in the '50s, in my opinion.

This plan is a complete travesty.

[GregBear24]

Couldn't they build some other lowrise living and retail between these things? I don't see why not, but maybe there isn't enough room and the logistics make it impossible.

[urbanpln]

I believe most of you who want to save the current LM will like the new planning concept for the site when its released. The new plan is far superior than whats currently there.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

I believe most of you who want to save the current LM will like the new planning concept for the site when its released. The new plan is far superior than whats currently there.

Care to share any information about that?

I've "heard" that the master plan is a hell of a lot better than the current layout.

I think that it's also key to realize that we are talking about 3x the density with this possible redevelopment. From 2,100 units to over 7,000. That's a hell of an increase. This along with Michael Reese along with the proposed Olympic Village could be the grandest of the grand of projects.

Like I've said though, I don't want 1 architectural firm designing all the towers. There needs to be adiversity of design. This is a chance to allow the architecture masters of Chicago who have been limited in the forward thinking of design shine.

I'd also like to see some height in this redevelopment. Can you guys imaging a 50-story tall tower in that area?

[aaron38]

Adrian, I hope you don't mind, but I really liked the moodiness of your shots, so I threw them together into a quick pano.


(photos by AdrianXSands)

Waterview and 300N LaSalle are really going to hem in that view on the left.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainm...jan13,1,1273047.story?ctrack=4&cset=true

ARCHITECTURE

Tower doesn't live up to its prime real estate
By Blair Kamin | Tribune architecture critic
January 13, 2008

The wall of buildings that lines Michigan Avenue across from Grant Park is architecture's version of prime time -- no place for the meek or mediocre.

From the stark Romanesque grandeur of Adler & Sullivan's Auditorium Building to the sumptuous Second Empire splendor of the Blackstone Hotel, this man-made cliff is at once a showcase for individual talent and a sublime ensemble, a sharp urban edge that looks as if it were cleaved by a butcher's knife. The deft insertion of the new, diamond-like Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies into this mesa of masonry only underscores its visual power and symbolic role as the face of Chicago.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Adrian, I hope you don't mind, but I really liked the moodiness of your shots, so I threw them together into a quick pano.


(photos by AdrianXSands)

Waterview and 300N LaSalle are really going to hem in that view on the left.

SWEET!!! that looks rad... btw these are taken from the 50th floor of the three first national plaza. on a clear day, you can see a lot more developments.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Loopy

These were the first types of structures erected in 1953. The first two were by Ambrose Richardson and three later ones were designed by Walter Netsch and Charles Wiley.

Excellent historic recap, Loopy. Great research!

I would like to add to the above comment, which is entirely correct, that the original permits for the first of the towers were pulled in 1949. Obviously, there was a lot of clearance, site work, and so forth that needed to happen before the towers were finished some years later. However, the designs are 1949 designs, which I think says something. Just take a look around at the large-scale housing being built around the US in 1949, and these first towers become a lot more remarkable.

VivaLFuego, I couldn't have said it better! Excellent points, excellently worded.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The notion that superblocks are inherently hostile to pedestrian activity is the result of unqualified pols thinking they are savvy to urban planning concerns (yes, you, Ald. Preckwinkle). I could list off probably a dozen renewal developments in New York City that obliterate the idea; if anything, a well-designed superblock would eliminate car/pedestrian conflicts, and thus be more pedestrian friendly.

^ The only, and I mean ONLY, reason NYC superblocks are successful is because they are across the street from dense, traditional, streetgrid-style communities. If they existed in isolation, they would be a miserable, pathetic failure. Plus, NYC's towers-in-a-park are not particularly pleasant to walk by; they are tolerable at best.

If there are a few notable buildings in Lake Meadows, then preserve them. But I see no historical value, nor any meaningful future with superblocks. Get rid of them immediately, triple the density (as planned), and lets start building a city again. It's a failed experiment; superblocks don't work but mixed-use streetgrids do, so lets just learn from our past and rectify a shitty planning mistake.

[honte]

^ Yeah, this starts to address a burning question.

I think, as a resident of the area, that I might be allowed to ask it: Without claiming in any way that Lake Meadows is perfect, I wonder, How much of the "failure" of the development had to do with the fact that the whole area was more or less a dump for many decades? How much better would Lake Meadows function if the Gap were at full density, and there were retail all the way along 35th street? Would the parks appear better used? Would it not feel so isolated? What if IIT had not had a malicious policy of literally telling incoming freshmen not to go east or south of the school?

Are we blaming too much of the problem on one development? Did the city planners simply screw up by putting so much urban renewal in one area (duh)?

For many years, when the greystones and rowhouses of the Gap and King Drive were largely bombed out and nasty, before the landmark district came and people felt comfortable rehabbing them, Lake Meadows and Prairie Shores were essentially the only respectable things in this whole area.

[10023]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ The only, and I mean ONLY, reason NYC superblocks are successful is because they are across the street from dense, traditional, streetgrid-style communities. If they existed in isolation, they would be a miserable, pathetic failure. Plus, NYC's towers-in-a-park are not particularly pleasant to walk by; they are tolerable at best.

A superblock doesn't have to be a tower in a park. The World Trade Center was a superblock.

Rockefeller Center is the ideal though - it's a huge project but the east west streets still continue through it.

[CenIL_LA]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainm...jan13,1,1273047.story?ctrack=4&cset=true

ARCHITECTURE

Tower doesn't live up to its prime real estate
By Blair Kamin | Tribune architecture critic
January 13, 2008

The wall of buildings that lines Michigan Avenue across from Grant Park is architecture's version of prime time -- no place for the meek or mediocre.

From the stark Romanesque grandeur of Adler & Sullivan's Auditorium Building to the sumptuous Second Empire splendor of the Blackstone Hotel, this man-made cliff is at once a showcase for individual talent and a sublime ensemble, a sharp urban edge that looks as if it were cleaved by a butcher's knife. The deft insertion of the new, diamond-like Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies into this mesa of masonry only underscores its visual power and symbolic role as the face of Chicago.

We have a number of people on this website that could better earn Kamin's salary than Kamin.

[the urban politician]

Condo high-rise on track for Hyde Park
By Jeanette Almada | Special to the Tribune
January 13, 2008
Article tools
A 26-story tower, the largest condo planned for the South Side's Hyde Park neighborhood in more than a decade, has won Plan Commission approval.

Antheus Capital LLC, of New Jersey, will develop the 145-unit project, Solstice on the Park.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified...olstice_re_ja_01-13jan13,0,3462095.story

[10023]

Originally Posted by CenIL_LA

We have a number of people on this website that could better earn Kamin's salary than Kamin.

What's wrong with his critique? It's a mediocre building. So is the other building recently added to that Grant Park view, the Heritage, for that matter.

[wrab]

I thought that Kamin's article on the Columbian was more or less spot-on. And I'm psyched about Solstice getting a green light.

[CenIL_LA]

Originally Posted by 10023

What's wrong with his critique? It's a mediocre building. So is the other building recently added to that Grant Park view, the Heritage, for that matter.

I'm not amazed by the building or disgusted so yes for me it would be more mediocre. Regardless of the buildings style or not though I just dont find a critique many months after completion engaging when many have already formulated their own ideas. A part of being a critic is knowing when to strike. If you wait so long your ideas become less powerful.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by 10023

What's wrong with his critique? It's a mediocre building. So is the other building recently added to that Grant Park view, the Heritage, for that matter.

Agreed about the Columbian, disagreed about Heritage. That building has a kind of baroque dynamism about it, which is to say, it doesn't look like a flat, stupid cartoon. It also complements the Cultural Center well.

I don't get the comment about the Blair Kamin article. He's right: the Columbian is a huge mistake. Maybe I'm just retarded, but I couldn't even find it on DeStefano's website. They have some really great work. I bet they're pretty ashamed. Good.