HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #15341  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 3:28 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is online now
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by killaviews View Post
^^^ 300 N Michigan will be the 7th hotel on that triangle block. Just thought that was interesting.
Who'da thought tourists would pay top dollar to stay right at the nexus of the Mag Mile, Millennium Park and the Riverwalk?

This is what we mean when we say "highest and best use".... clearly tourists place a higher value on this location than any other group, including Chicago residents (for residential) or employers (for office). So developers will make the most money building hotels.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15342  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 4:27 PM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan ryan View Post
It's like what BrinChi said, the building now is pedestrian scale. How is an overwhelming pedestal more inviting or less cramped for the sidewalk?
Because compare the two buildings side by side and it's night and day... the new building will look nice, clean, and inviting. The one that is there now is out of place, dirty, and the first floor is ugly as sin while also being half windowless wall. A full glass base that can be lit up will make people fine with walking by there too. That building is the last part of Michigan Avenue north of Congress that isn't pleasant.

Pedestrian scale doesn't mean pedestrian friendly. Also, why do we want pedestrian scale in the middle of one of the largest CBDs in human history?
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15343  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 4:32 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,215
duplicate
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15344  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 4:32 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Who'da thought tourists would pay top dollar to stay right at the nexus of the Mag Mile, Millennium Park and the Riverwalk?

This is what we mean when we say "highest and best use".... clearly tourists place a higher value on this location than any other group, including Chicago residents (for residential) or employers (for office). So developers will make the most money building hotels.
This building is residential as well. I believe roughly 300 apartment units.

The new (built within the last few years anyway) 200 North Michigan, similar scale and 1 block due south (perhaps only just marginally less attractive as a hotel location - perhaps) is all residential. This is clearly a prime mixed-use area. I think you are wrong in your assessment that hotels are a higher and better use than residential at the 300 N Michigan location. I assess them to be pretty equal at the top. This does go against the heard mentality/group-think posture of urban real estate in general, in which typically a single use comes to dominate a particular district - or if not quite dominate, then at least become the clear preferred usage in new developments/redevelopments. However, there are some areas that are just fundamentally roughly equally appealing among 2 or 3 uses. That's definitely the case for the Millennium Park to River strip.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15345  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 4:39 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCorsair87 View Post
^It needs some work on the first floor, but if this was in Fulton Market, it would be gobbled up like that!

Yes but that would also be in keeping with the character of Fulton Market. Also (not that land prices would not justify it, mind you, more so because of entitlement-related constraints), nobody is (generally - at least not as yet) putting up a 45 story tower on a smallish parcel in Fulton.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15346  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 4:47 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi View Post
For me, saving a facade on a building like 300 N Michigan isn't about preserving exemplary architecture, it's about preserving as much pre-automobile pedestrian scale as possible. I love the design of this building other than the blocking of Carbide & Carbon, but I will still vote preservation every time when a solid, human-scaled urban building like this is involved. Demolition is still too common.

Thanks, dan_ryan for the info from SB. It must have been too expensive to salvage.

I just think there needs to be a reasonable bar that must be exceeded to justify this type of facadectomy - both from the standpoint of public policy - and in terms of justified for a developer to weigh that option privately. This building is just not good enough to justify it. I don't think it's bad, but it would need to be better than not bad - or "old", or "pedestrian scaled".

It could be though that what needs to be done as part of the entitlement process is to incorporate a design review (I know, I know, Chicago doesn't do stuff like that......though who knows, maybe under the Lightfoot admin., the new DPD commissioner will push for instituting something) that would ensure a human-scaled design at street level (clearly this doesn't mean faux oldey-time Lagrange trash design, mind you).
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15347  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 5:10 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by killaviews View Post
^^^ 300 N Michigan will be the 7th hotel on that triangle block. Just thought that was interesting.
And hell for the poor guy who has to squeeze them onto the tourist maps.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15348  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 7:58 PM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 View Post
Because compare the two buildings side by side and it's night and day... the new building will look nice, clean, and inviting. The one that is there now is out of place, dirty, and the first floor is ugly as sin while also being half windowless wall. A full glass base that can be lit up will make people fine with walking by there too. That building is the last part of Michigan Avenue north of Congress that isn't pleasant.
And that's why developers get away with it. The current building is in such disrepair that most people, even design-conscious individuals like those on this forum, have a difficult time imagining a renovation that cleans, restores, and builds off of what is salvageable. But it's like throwing away an antique because it's all dusty from sitting in the attic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15349  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 8:02 PM
dan ryan dan ryan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
I just think there needs to be a reasonable bar that must be exceeded to justify this type of facadectomy - both from the standpoint of public policy - and in terms of justified for a developer to weigh that option privately. This building is just not good enough to justify it. I don't think it's bad, but it would need to be better than not bad - or "old", or "pedestrian scaled".

It could be though that what needs to be done as part of the entitlement process is to incorporate a design review (I know, I know, Chicago doesn't do stuff like that......though who knows, maybe under the Lightfoot admin., the new DPD commissioner will push for instituting something) that would ensure a human-scaled design at street level (clearly this doesn't mean faux oldey-time Lagrange trash design, mind you).
Well said, Sam. What you're saying is really what I'm interested in. I'm not arguing for 4 story buildings throughout the loop. It just seems pretty clear to me that the ground level of 300 will not be inviting at all. At least with a facadectomy, you could beautify the ground level and make an inviting space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15350  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 8:39 PM
PittsburghPA PittsburghPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Fulton River District, Chicago
Posts: 823
North crane of 845 W Madison is coming down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15351  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 9:16 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 485
This discussion regarding the preservation or facadectomy of the eye-sore currently standing at 300 N Michigan has to be one of the most head-scratch inducing dialogues I've ever read on this forum and I say that as an ardent preservationist.

What is so uninviting about the new design? The lobby basically looks like an apple store. I'll take it. Pick your battles...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15352  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2019, 10:43 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is online now
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
This building is residential as well. I believe roughly 300 apartment units.

The new (built within the last few years anyway) 200 North Michigan, similar scale and 1 block due south (perhaps only just marginally less attractive as a hotel location - perhaps) is all residential. This is clearly a prime mixed-use area. I think you are wrong in your assessment that hotels are a higher and better use than residential at the 300 N Michigan location. I assess them to be pretty equal at the top. This does go against the heard mentality/group-think posture of urban real estate in general, in which typically a single use comes to dominate a particular district - or if not quite dominate, then at least become the clear preferred usage in new developments/redevelopments. However, there are some areas that are just fundamentally roughly equally appealing among 2 or 3 uses. That's definitely the case for the Millennium Park to River strip.
Meh, IMO the calculus is a little different... a single-use hotel tower that maxed out the allowable zoning would be a big hotel indeed. Hotel operators at that scale probably want more amenities than they could conceivably squeeze onto this tight site, so Sterling Bay went with a mid-sized hotel and then residential to fill out the remainder of the building.

Also, remember that we're living in the age of Airbnb, so residential is often interchangeable for hotel.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15353  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2019, 3:26 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan ryan View Post
It's like what BrinChi said, the building now is pedestrian scale. How is an overwhelming pedestal more inviting or less cramped for the sidewalk?
I haven't read all the comments, so forgive me, but I don't think a 4 story building fronting a road with 6 lanes(if I am correct?) is good for pedestrians. Its simply too short for such a wide road. The only time I find areas around wide roads pleasant is if the buildings surrounding it help enclose the area for me as a pedestrian.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15354  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2019, 12:38 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,105
Superior House - 366 W Superior

__________________
Harry C ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15355  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2019, 4:46 PM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi View Post
And that's why developers get away with it. The current building is in such disrepair that most people, even design-conscious individuals like those on this forum, have a difficult time imagining a renovation that cleans, restores, and builds off of what is salvageable. But it's like throwing away an antique because it's all dusty from sitting in the attic.
Can you explain why the building is historically relevant beyond it being old? This would be like defending the AMLI river north tower from demolition in 60 years because it's old, but even worse because the plot of land isn't being used efficiently. I know you are arguing also for facadectomy, but I find those to be in poor taste more times than not
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15356  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2019, 5:31 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 View Post
Can you explain why the building is historically relevant beyond it being old? This would be like defending the AMLI river north tower from demolition in 60 years because it's old, but even worse because the plot of land isn't being used efficiently. I know you are arguing also for facadectomy, but I find those to be in poor taste more times than not
Also not sure what a facadectomy would preserve other than a blank brick wall...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15357  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2019, 5:45 PM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 View Post
Can you explain why the building is historically relevant beyond it being old? This would be like defending the AMLI river north tower from demolition in 60 years because it's old, but even worse because the plot of land isn't being used efficiently. I know you are arguing also for facadectomy, but I find those to be in poor taste more times than not
The building is historically relevant precisely because it is old. To construct a building using the same methods and materials would be prohibitively expensive today. It's the reason most people sigh and roll their eyes when they see a Lucien LaGrange proposal. I realize this seems a bit extreme and I'd like to reiterate that I actually like the modern replacement building for 300N Michigan. I'm challenging the notion that just because a building isn't significant enough to merit landmark status we should automatically be ok trashing it. Facadectomy design can be bad, but it can be done well and we should push developers to do it whenever possible imho.

What seems ugly today could be appreciated in 60 years. If our building methodologies and materials completely change in the coming decades, AMLI River north could turn out to be something worth saving.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15358  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2019, 5:51 PM
ChiPlanner ChiPlanner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Lakeview East Chicago
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi View Post
The building is historically relevant precisely because it is old. To construct a building using the same methods and materials would be prohibitively expensive today. It's the reason most people sigh and roll their eyes when they see a Lucien LaGrange proposal. I realize this seems a bit extreme and I'd like to reiterate that I actually like the modern replacement building for 300N Michigan. I'm challenging the notion that just because a building isn't significant enough to merit landmark status we should automatically be ok trashing it. Facadectomy design can be bad, but it can be done well and we should push developers to do it whenever possible imho.

What seems ugly today could be appreciated in 60 years. If our building methodologies and materials completely change in the coming decades, AMLI River north could turn out to be something worth saving.
Pick and choose your battles with historic preservation. Save the interesting, unique, and contributing buildings.

From the Michigan/Wacker Historic District Nomination form from 1978:

Older structures of little or no significance
Commercial Building
300 North Michigan Avenue
Date and architect unknown
Height: under 5 stores
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15359  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2019, 5:59 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi View Post
The building is historically relevant precisely because it is old. To construct a building using the same methods and materials would be prohibitively expensive today. It's the reason most people sigh and roll their eyes when they see a Lucien LaGrange proposal. I realize this seems a bit extreme and I'd like to reiterate that I actually like the modern replacement building for 300N Michigan. I'm challenging the notion that just because a building isn't significant enough to merit landmark status we should automatically be ok trashing it. Facadectomy design can be bad, but it can be done well and we should push developers to do it whenever possible imho.

What seems ugly today could be appreciated in 60 years. If our building methodologies and materials completely change in the coming decades, AMLI River north could turn out to be something worth saving.
So never tear anything down?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15360  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2019, 6:26 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi View Post
AMLI River north could turn out to be something worth saving.


God help us.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:11 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.