The State of Chicago Architecture.

[tommaso]

This has nothing to do with the podium or parking being either positive or negative. That's going to be relative to each person's perspective. Hell, if I'm that business guy (living in the building) you're talking about who's going to benefit from the parking, then I will probably support the idea of having parking in my building. But, I'm too smart to allow any group of investors sell me the line about how it's imperative that this building has parking. OK. Some people can want their parking and they will have an opportunity to get it in this building.

But, please listen closely for a second. I can agree with all of your arguments and I know they are logical. Yes, Chicago needs to improve its public transportation before we can talk about having a public transit first efficient and reliable system for most Chicago residents. But, please understand my background when I make my criticisms.

I have Chicago written in my DNA because I was born and raised here. I didn't think it would be necessary to bring this up, but for me it's important to state it. So, I know how much it sucked having to take buses and having to then connect to another bus in the extreme cold or hot weather. And so I realize as much as anybody else that Chicago deserves better public transportation just based on the population needs.

Now comes the crux of the issue. And let's forget about the trains and buses and how to fund them for a second. I'm not assuming that there are buses that go from this new building into the CBD in 20 minutes. I prefer that that's the case. If it only takes 15-20 minutes to get from this building to the heart of downtown or to your job or whatever you're trying to get to in DT, then I really wonder whether we can talk about parking being vital to this building's existence. And I'm smart enough to know that we're not talking about this being in Lincoln Park or any other more centrally located or perhaps desirable location. Point being, If I'm a 15 minute bus ride from the heart of DT, especially in that location, I mean we're not talking about taking a bus into the city from the suburbs or even taking multiple buses and trains just to get to downtown, than how is it possible that we can argue that this building needs parking?

Here's your answer: Chicago actually likes to drive, maybe just as much as other cities, and just add to this preference that this building is not 100% centrally located, that now Joe, John, Mary or Marcy have a good excuse to take the easy way out and tell you that the only way they can have a sustainable life is if they have their car waiting for them downstairs when they wake up in the morning. Somehow I always thought the point of living closer to downtown was specifically to give up the car lifestyle and join the city and the endless pleasures (some good some bad) of walking and taking trains and buses from point A to point Z.

I guess I'm living in some utopia in my head despite the fact that I'm a practical guy when it comes to lifestyle decisions. Maybe the fact that I'm leaving out here is that Chicago is a city where life is not always centered in the center. And so you end up having buildings like this one (really close to the CBD) with a fair amount of parking so that residents can reasonably travel long distances with their car and take care of their business (or personal) needs in some of the harder to reach outer areas of Chicago. I guess I was just hoping that Chicago plan the city like a real city (with mixed use residential and very vibrant city blocks) and not treat new high rise development like an opportunity to build an exurb with close proximity to the city center.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by tommaso

Now comes the crux of the issue. And let's forget about the trains and buses and how to fund them for a second. I'm not assuming that there are buses that go from this new building into the CBD in 20 minutes. I prefer that that's the case. If it only takes 15-20 minutes to get from this building to the heart of downtown or to your job or whatever you're trying to get to in DT, then I really wonder whether we can talk about parking being vital to this building's existence. And I'm smart enough to know that we're not talking about this being in Lincoln Park or any other more centrally located or perhaps desirable location. Point being, If I'm a 15 minute bus ride from the heart of DT, especially in that location, I mean we're not talking about taking a bus into the city from the suburbs or even taking multiple buses and trains just to get to downtown, than how is it possible that we can argue that this building needs parking?

^ 235 W Van Buren has fewer parking spots than units. So a lot of owners will have to be carless, or keep their cars elsewhere.

Secondly, even if you don't use a car much, many people still choose to own one. It's convenient for those trips to other neighborhoods or to visit the folks in the suburbs, or for those occasional weekend getaways to the countryside.

I don't think that just by providing parking, buildings somehow undermine the urban environment. The only time I get annoyed is 1) when there is just way more parking than is necessary (which is debatable), and 2) when the podium is so hideous that it really insults an otherwise pleasant streetscape.

[Jibba]

Certainly, citywide parking policy and its effects on aesthetics, neighborhood vitality, quality of life, etc. is a big issue in Chicago for a lot of people here, myself included. I, for one, am not going to allow myself to become complacent with the situation, watching as ever more monstrous podiums sprout up, consuming irreplaceable history and destroying the pedestrian life of the city along the way.

With that being said, I understand that there will always be a market for parking space in this city, and developers will forever be all too happy to supply that demand. Chicago simply does not have the mix of geography and desirability to be able to enact drastic zoning impediments on parking, such as those in New York. It is a catch-22, though: the more auto-oriented garbage that supplants historic, charming, properly-scaled streetscape the less desirable one's city becomes. There is a similar catch with transportation, as increased ridership on public transit would reduce the amount of car trips and demand for parking, but increasing ridership requires improving the transit system (either by expansion or impeccable upkeep), and improving the system, in many ways, is contingent upon having high usage of public transit services and the subsequent demand for improvement that additional ridership commands (which will not exist to a high enough degree so long as automobiles remain highly accessible and affordable devices).

So as long as there is going to be parking in a building, you could do a lot worse than 235 Van Buren. I find the parking form to be very well designed, if only because I tend to appreciate honest architecture and structural expression, and 235 embraces the form of the sloping floors in a very sincere and minimalist way. That's not to say that I find it particularly attractive; it is a parking ramp, after all. Also, the proportional height of the parking area is disappointing given the low ratio of spaces (its closer to that of the monster 2:1 garages of Streeterville), but this is likely due to the relatively high unit density.

[Jibba]

Landmarks Illinois released their "Ten Most Endangered Historic Places” this morning, and Bertrand Goldberg's Prentice Women's Hospital was on the list. This is terrible news. According the Blair at The Skyline: "Northwestern Hospital has discussed construction of a new research facility on the site of the Goldberg building, rather than an adaptive use" [http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....operties-.html]. Anyone else heard anything that can corroborate this? I suppose I'm not surprised given Northwestern's record for preservation, but they're already planning new development for the site? This is not good.

[Jibba]

^Combine all of that pillaging with the recent boom of inhumanly-scaled and isolated megatowers with Stage III garage cancer (replete with gargantuan tumors), and River North/Streeterville is set to become a mecca for drivers and hermits, when it should be a bastion of urbanity and walkability, considering its proximity to downtown/Michigan Ave./Lake Michigan/etc. and the stock of great buildings it has/had. Don't worry, though, Alderman Reilly has a great plan to salvage some of the life and energy of the area: townhomes!

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Jibba

...
Don't worry, though, Alderman Reilly has a great plan to salvage some of the life and energy of the area: townhomes!

Are you just mocking him in general, or did you actually see him propose townhomes somewhere?

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by emathias

Are you just mocking him in general, or did you actually see him propose townhomes somewhere?

Was part of that whole ordeal with that nice project on Chestnut that got killed (can't remember the exact name, think it was NW Chestnut & State). He was quoted as saying that he preferred 2-story retail or town-homes or some BS like that. There was another woman vomiting her deluded opinions in that article too, though; perhaps she was the one that mentioned it. So yeah, sort of mocking him in general and sort of bringing up sentiments of his from the recent past and/or sentiments of someone else's that he approved of.

[VivaLFuego]

http://chicagojournal.com/Main.asp?S...ArticleID=6436

Originally Posted by Reilly

Reilly said he prefers a two-story building, which is prescribed by the planned development, with "as much open space as possible." He said the site is an "eyesore," and suggested a community center or two stores of retail.

So in fairness to Brendan "Rational Planner" Reilly, he didn't specifically advocate townhomes (that was indeed a NIMBY), he actually advocated more unneeded open space a block south of Washington Square Park.

To clarify Reilly's nickname:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

[Reilly] seems to make decisions based on rational planning criteria about what will be good for the city. I wish every alderman were as intelligent, logical, and rational.

Though, I'll actually grant Mr Downtown that I think I prefer suffering Reilly in the 42nd to Fioretti's panderhackery in the 2nd.

[Jibba]

^Thanks for clarifying; I couldn't remember precisely who said what as that article is fairly old (old, at least, for my crappy memory). Whatever, though; townhomes, 2-story retail, maximum open space--all add (or rather, don't add) to the urban environment in roughly the same manner. I can't imagine that area needing more open space, though. After all, the Park National Bank right across from that lot has a parking lot and drive-through that occupies more than two-thirds of half a city block, or was that not the kind of "open space" he was talking about? Oh, and Washington Square Park is (literally) less than 300 feet away.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Is your country-bumpkin-who's-never-seen-anything-taller-than-a-grain-silo theory rooted in reality? More to the point, is that a valid excuse for the rest of the city to accept this kind of work?

I think its very valid when you consider that modernism in housing doesn't really exist outside of cities (no isolated cases like Farnsworth House don't count). Most suburbs and small towns consist almost entirely of old houses in traditional styles or new McMansions stylized to look like said old houses. In my experience being from a small town and knowing a lot of people from small towns or suburbs, people from these areas can get seriously stressed out by Modern architecture. I don't know what it is that causes it, but I get countless comments from my friends about how modern buildings "don't feel homey" and they always want to know how I can prefer buildings that have no decoration.

[FlashingLights]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I think its very valid when you consider that modernism in housing doesn't really exist outside of cities (no isolated cases like Farnsworth House don't count). Most suburbs and small towns consist almost entirely of old houses in traditional styles or new McMansions stylized to look like said old houses. In my experience being from a small town and knowing a lot of people from small towns or suburbs, people from these areas can get seriously stressed out by Modern architecture. I don't know what it is that causes it, but I get countless comments from my friends about how modern buildings "don't feel homey" and they always want to know how I can prefer buildings that have no decoration.

Nowhere people from the suburbs have modern architecture too. It seems like you just assume everyone from the suburbs is in "boofoo" and lived in a cave their entire life. I don't get your hatred of the suburbs and how it's reflected in all your posts.

I do agree w/ everyones point that the styling for the Ronald McDonald house she be simple so children feel comfortable. I do agree that some people find modern architecture cold. So in a way I'm agreeing with you, but you assessment of suburban living is totally wrong.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I think its very valid when you consider that modernism in housing doesn't really exist outside of cities (no isolated cases like Farnsworth House don't count). Most suburbs and small towns consist almost entirely of old houses in traditional styles or new McMansions stylized to look like said old houses.....

Posh. You just aren't looking hard enough.

[Busy Bee]

Ahh! Home.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by FlashingLights

Nowhere people from the suburbs have modern architecture too. It seems like you just assume everyone from the suburbs is in "boofoo" and lived in a cave their entire life. I don't get your hatred of the suburbs and how it's reflected in all your posts.

So in a way I'm agreeing with you, but you assessment of suburban living is totally wrong.

Hahaha, you must be confusing me with someone else since I almost never hate on the suburbs. I don't even know where in my last post I said something bad about the suburbs. Believe it or not I don't think a lack of modern architecture makes a place or its people less worthy of existence. So I guess I assume that most of my friends (and myself to some extent) are in "boofoo"... I grew up in a small town on the very edge of the suburbs of Milwaukee. One might call my small town an Exurb. From my very extensive experience (18+ years of my life) in the suburbs there is not any modern architecture to speak of. The closest thing to modernism that exists in 90% of suburbs are nasty things like drive through banks or strip malls which only further turn the residents of the area off to the idea.

The reason I brought this up in the first place is the fact that they built a sprawling hospital complex near my hometown and basically gave it the proportions of a giant bungalow or prairie style house because they wanted it to look more like an archetypal house so that people would feel at ease going there.

There is nothing deraugatory to saying that there is almost no modernism in the suburbs and that people there, for whatever reason, reject the style 95% of the time. Maybe its because the people that live there moved out of the city because they didn't like the kind of buildings here, maybe its because they are conditioned by having been raised in "ye olde houses" that makes them not like it, but from my fairly extensive experience, they don't like it. Crisp, clean, open spaces feel cold and sterile to them. Hell I'll even admit that I used to hate Modern buildings myself and was a huge Pomo fan until I joined this forum and was exposed to the history and theory of Modernism. It wasn't until I moved to Chicago and got to see all of the gems of Modernism that I started liking the stuff. Having grown up in a perfectly preserved small town I had never really been exposed to it except the nasty drive through bank (which last time I was home I saw has been quite nicely remodeled to a much better pomo design) that looked like a bunker. So don't accuse me of hating on the suburbs and small towns because that is who I am and where I am from.

Here is the hospital designed to look "housey" so as not to "stress people out":



New wing recently being added:


To quote their website and back up my claims of their design theory:

The project is being modeled after the principles of evidence-based design, a concept that demonstrates how architectural design elements can improve patient outcomes and staff efficiency.

http://columbia-stmarys.com/OPage.asp?PageID=OTH000080

This idea of building something to look more tame and mild isn't so far fetched, a lot of places do it because a lot of people just *gasp* don't like Modernism...

Anyhow this company is building a beautiful modern complex of buildings in Milwaukee right now that are the complete opposite of that, I suggest you check them out over in the Milwaukee thread. (Design in Milwaukee right now is on par with the stuff going up in Copenhagen and other European cities)

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

.....There is nothing deraugatory to saying that there is almost no modernism in the suburbs and that people there, for whatever reason, reject the style 95% of the time. Maybe its because the people that live there moved out of the city because they didn't like the kind of buildings here, maybe its because they are conditioned by having been raised in "ye olde houses" that makes them not like it, but from my fairly extensive experience, they don't like it. Crisp, clean, open spaces feel cold and sterile to them.....

You sound like you are on assignment for National Geographic, or out bird-watching: "The exurban crested cormorant is terrified of steel and glass and seeks out a quiet, familiar spot on which to build its nest..."

Now, I've no doubt that traditional homes outnumber "modernist" homes in most communities, but where did that 95% come from? And what about the ranch homes, which are more Usonian than Salt Box? How are you defining "modernism"?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

You sound like you are on assignment for National Geographic, or out bird-watching: "The exurban crested cormorant is terrified of steel and glass and seeks out a quiet, familiar spot on which to build its nest..."

Now, I've no doubt that traditional homes outnumber "modernist" homes in most communities, but where did that 95% come from? And what about the ranch homes, which are more Usonian than Salt Box? How are you defining "modernism"?

Usonian and Prairie Styles very clearly do not fall under the definition of Modernism with a capital "M" which is the specific movement that Mies and Gropius, and Corbusier were all a part of highlighted by the Bauhaus. They do fall under the definition of modernism with a small "m" meaning that they were part of the general modern movement that was sparked by the rapid changes in life caused by the industrial revolution.

That said there are "suburbs", especially in Chicagoland, that have large swaths of legitimately Modernist buildings, but outside of the very inner rings of cities and the Chicago area, that is very rare. Some examples of this are the huge swaths of very nice modernist buildings from the 50's and 60's that can be found in Lincolnwood and the East half of Skokie. I can't think of any area's like that in the Milwaukee area.

Here is how Modernism with a capital "M" would apply to typical Chicago area designs:

Robie House: Small M
4+1: Capital M
Lakeshore Drive Apt Towers: Usually Capital M
Prairie influenced 3 flat: Small M
Reliance Building: Small M
Daley Plaza: Capital M
Ranch Home (Prairie or Usonian influenced): Small M
Board of Trade Building: Small M
60's Factory Building: Usually Capital M

They are all part of modernism, but they are not all Modernist...

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

.....There is nothing deraugatory to saying that there is almost no modernism in the suburbs and that people there, for whatever reason, reject the style 95% of the time......

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Usonian and Prairie Styles very clearly do not fall under the definition of Modernism with a capital "M" which is the specific movement that Mies and Gropius, and Corbusier were all a part of highlighted by the Bauhaus. They do fall under the definition of modernism with a small "m" meaning that they were part of the general modern movement that was sparked by the rapid changes in life caused by the industrial revolution......

I was using the small m.

[Busy Bee]

God I love 'm'odernism.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Except those are not small M and are definitely Capital M. They also appear to be part of the ring of Modernism that I just got done saying exists in the inner suburbs of Chicago and almost nowhere else...

Well the bottom one is kinda a bastardized crossbreed of Usonian, Prairie, and Modernist styles...

I'm going to jut take a quick guess here, but I bet you a small sum of money that the top one is constructed in a "suburb" that borders the city of Chicago and also continues the street grid of the city of Chicago very clearly making it a part of the areas of Modernism I was just talking about...

Originally Posted by wrabbit

I was using the small m.

And I made sure to only use capital M

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

God I love 'm'odernism.

I sense sarcasm, but I actually quite like these...