CHICAGO | General Developments

[Rizzo]

What is the material on the sides of the field house? Almost looks like rain screen in the render.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Hayward

What is the material on the sides of the field house? Almost looks like rain screen in the render.

It's actually brick, just different reddish, brownish tints, which creates the look of a larger finish material:




(Both images from pbc's website)
http://www.pbcchicago.com/content/pr...asp?pID=CPD-41

Edit: Just re-read your post Hayward - sorry, thought you were asking about the main finish on the exterior.

[Busy Bee]

FREAKING awesome! This is the tell tale about architectural talent. The fact that for little extra money or effort, instead of creating a brick wall of mono color, they've designed a 'tapestry' of visual interest using such a simple material. It may not be 'genius,' but it's smart as hell, and is exactly the perfect example of delivering big on a small budget. That is the sign of a truly GOOD architect/firm.

[Rizzo]

I agree. The brick pattern is striking and visually appealing. I know sometimes public buildings have design guidelines and require certain materials. I like how they did this and of course, avoided "happy brick!"

Thanks sentinel. At first in the renders I thought it looked like this rain screen material:
ttp://www.grassrootsmodern.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/DSC_0014-10.jpg

It's pretty cool stuff although it hasn't really become all that popular in the US yet, it's an amazing cladding system.

[BWChicago]

Ok, what's happy brick?

[Nowhereman1280]

Perhaps a reference to the bland, processed look that modern bricks tend to create?

[Zerton]

That's a really dumb way to lay bricks, assuming they're real.

[Nowhereman1280]

Not if the bricks aren't structural...

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

Ok, what's happy brick?

It was coined by several SSP forumers back in the day in an angry rant about CHA housing. It's the larger size masonry units that you see on a lot of infill. Their bright red and orange unnatural colors tend to make the buildings look fake, but cheerful....hence the name "happy brick." There are other interpretations but it would likely start a debate....

Ever since then, it stuck and I like the nickname

Examples far left and right

photo source: me







It could be worse:
http://www.durabric.com.au/

[Remy_Bork]

I some times wonder if that large, blandly colored brick will age into a more interesting texture with time. I guess it's possible, eh?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ It may eventually, but it will probably take a wicked long time if it ever happens since the air in Chicago is hardly dusty and sooty enough anymore to cause large scale accumulation of grime. It seems that the rain washes grime off buildings as fast as it builds up these days.

[Rizzo]

I think part of the issue is that modern bricks lack the same texture old bricks do. They had more imperfections, uneven surfaces, and almost a distressed appearance that give them character. I live in a 22 story brick highrise and when I look out the window, the bricks all look different from each other and the mortar joints are anything but clean and neat looking....but I like it that way.

[spyguy]

Presidential Towers redevelopment

FFC gym atrium (includes a new Protein Bar location inside). You can see the yellow awning for Yolk next door.
-edit-
I don't think any other new tenants have been announced for the rest of the space along Clinton, although Halsted Street Deli is opening across the street in the long-vacant first floor of Quaker Plaza.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ All I have to say is "Wow that's refreshing"...

[ethereal_reality]

I knew there would be an article on this sooner or later.

http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/citys...ing-%E2%80%A6/

[wrab]

^ Too bad it had to be a David Childs project that did it.

[denizen467]

Hey, didn't CTBUH change its criteria in the last 1 or 2 years regarding this? I seem to remember something about Sears Tower being vindicated regarding Petronas, bumping it up next to Taipei 101. Something that considered height to roof, as opposed to height to architectural top, as the dominant measurement, or something like that. I wish I could find the discussion or article I am thinking of.

There has been so much inertia among tall-buildings pundits and the amateur press since 1997 that the (bogus) pro-Petronas way of thinking is ingrained in people now, and maybe this CTBUH change didn't register with people. Maybe I am mis-remembering all this, but it would change quite a few things.

[Alliance]

The CTBUH recognizes tall building height in three categories:

1. Height to Architectural Top
2. Highest Occupied Floor
3. Height to Tip

However, they use the #1 definition to calculate their 100 tallest buildings. But apparently they recognize all 3.

They do, however, also publish the Absolute vanity height list which is the "Absolute difference between the architectural height and highest floor in meters." and the Relative vanity height list which is the "Vanity height (ie. the difference between the architectural height and highest floor) as a precentage of the architectural height in meters."

[ardecila]

Despite the ruling's effect on the rankings of Sears and JHC, to me it always seemed like a more fair way to measure. It makes sense on some level - a building owner could, at any time after construction, install broadcast equipment and elevate the height (and ranking) of his building, if that broadcast equipment were considered in the total height.

An architectural spire, however, is more likely to have been included in the building's design from the inception. Since the medieval era and possibly earlier, towers have used spires to increase the total height, and in many configurations, it's tough to tell where the "building" ends and where the "spire" begins. Historically speaking, flat-topped towers are the anomaly.

Broadcast equipment and other rooftop mechanical stuff is also likely to change, be replaced, or modified over time as technology evolves, while architectural spires are attached to the design of the building and are less likely to be changed or removed. Lastly, including broadcast equipment allows for the consideration of observation/transmission towers, which diminishes the greater challenges in the construction of an occupied skyscraper.

[george]

It's reassuring to know the "Sears Tower" still rules in Highest Occupied Floor
distinction as recognized by CTBUH. It's all that really matters... spire smire.


rendering STR