CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[harryc]

May 3

[harryc]

May 7

[harryc]

May 7

[/url]

[/url]

[harryc]

May 7

[harryc]

May 7

[rivernorthlurker]

Construction cranking along in the River North. 5/12/20.

808 N Wells https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/9/24...808-wells-amli
308 W Erie https://product.costar.com/home/news/shared/2036928026
Atrium Village Phase III https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/8/27...rk-phase-three

[CrazyCres]

Any Updates on this project?



https://dev-sb-wp-api.pantheonsite.i...g-Brochure.pdf

[rgarri4]

Originally Posted by CrazyCres

Any Updates on this project?



https://dev-sb-wp-api.pantheonsite.i...g-Brochure.pdf

They need to land a major tenant before anything moves forward.

[Skyguy_7]

^I really like that proposal. Great structural aesthetics at the base. It also goes very well with the Weed Street area residential bldgs nearby.

[Downtowntransplant]

Originally Posted by harryc

May 7

The street already has more depth with this new addition. Look forward to this kind of action spreading along the loop tracks.

[CrazyCres]

Ok so I did some digging on the 2050 N Dominick site at Lincoln Yards.

So they are currently still working on remediation on-site and it's supposed to be completed by late this summer they also mentioned that they still need to remove old foundations from the old buildings which also to be completed late this summer.

In terms of actual construction, the first phase will comprise of two buildings directly next to the C.H Robinson building along with new roads and infrastructure improvements. They said one of the buildings will be built with or without a tenant I assume 2050 is the one, they seem confident that I´ll be completed in 2022, they have a brochure, floor plan, specs, etc. Couldn't find anything on the other building but the design is apparently being used in another site at 1325 W Fulton (https://chicago.curbed.com/maps/west...on-development).

I would guess maybe an early Fall - Mid Fall 2020 start on phase 1 along with 2050 North Dominick, this just an educated guess so take it with a grain of salt.

[harryc]

May 13

[harryc]

May 13

[sentinel]

^^Nice photos Harry, but good Lord, Imprint is awful. Developers who are super cheap and don't want to pay a little more for an improved exterior glazing system, and hire architects who seemingly don't give a shit, or who can't design a unique exterior skin (that doesn't need to be expensive) to save their lives are the devil. The end product is a cold, apathetic box with an equally apathetic base. Garbage.
Miesian international style architecture has been milked so much in this City that it's just dust now. It's a product of a different era, but is so overused because so many architects can't take their design blinders off to realize what they're creating is visually putrid.

I've been doing this for 20 years now, and firmly believe that architecture should be responsive to it's environment; but when that environment is flat, lacking texture, industrial, bitterly cold for half the year, the last thing you want to do is mimic that same apathetic environment in the buildings that surround it. The obsession with Mies that Chicago architecture schools push out is obscene (I'm looking in your specific direction, IIT). His designs are specific to a point in history which rejected ornament because it was seen as something unnecessary and ostentatious. But nothing lasts forever, and it saddens me that this type of overly simplistic design is still revered as sacrosanct in Chicago design circles. It has no merit anymore because it's so watered-down to the point of being a visibly cheap copy. I love the Farnsworth House, I love Crown Hall, and I love the Federal Center, but those are from a past era, and should be left there - economies of scale in terms of building design and construction are not the issue, but a lack of creativity due to being conditioned to see things one way only. I truly wish that home-grown architects in Chicago would grow out of their Mies masturbation fantasies and make unique looking buildings again.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I've been doing this for 20 years now, and firmly believe that architecture should be responsive to it's environment; but when that environment is flat, lacking texture, industrial, bitterly cold for half the year, the last thing you want to do is mimic that same apathetic environment in the buildings that surround it. The obsession with Mies that Chicago architecture schools push out is obscene (I'm looking in your specific direction, IIT). His designs are specific to a point in history which rejected ornament because it was seen as something unnecessary and ostentatious. But nothing lasts forever, and it saddens me that this type of overly simplistic design is still revered as sacrosanct in Chicago design circles. It has no merit anymore because it's so watered-down to the point of being a visibly cheap copy. I love the Farnsworth House, I love Crown Hall, and I love the Federal Center, but those are from a past era, and should be left there - economies of scale in terms of building design and construction are not the issue, but a lack of creativity due to being conditioned to see things one way only. I truly wish that home-grown architects in Chicago would grow out of their Mies masturbation fantasies and make unique looking buildings again.

wow I loved reading this. 1000% agree with all points!

[bhawk66]

^^ That was so well said/written. And I would agree...to a point. I think some of the putrid-ness out there in this all blue-glass era (and this building is putrid and beyond) can also be looked at as a function of expense, or should I say in-expense. A four cornered building covered in glass can be a big payout for the Acme Development company who just wants rentable floor space on the cheap. And any architect needing the work will happily oblige. I'm not sure the architect or developer knows who Mies is. I other words, it wasn't even a point of consideration but more an ugly half coincidence.

[harryc]

May 13

Chicago | The Grand by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | The Grand by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

not beige
Chicago | The Grand by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | The Grand by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | The Grand by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

blocking the view
Chicago | The Grand by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by sentinel

^^Nice photos Harry, but good Lord, Imprint is awful. Developers who are super cheap and don't want to pay a little more for an improved exterior glazing system, and hire architects who seemingly don't give a shit, or who can't design a unique exterior skin (that doesn't need to be expensive) to save their lives are the devil. The end product is a cold, apathetic box with an equally apathetic base. Garbage.
Miesian international style architecture has been milked so much in this City that it's just dust now. It's a product of a different era, but is so overused because so many architects can't take their design blinders off to realize what they're creating is visually putrid.

I've been doing this for 20 years now, and firmly believe that architecture should be responsive to it's environment; but when that environment is flat, lacking texture, industrial, bitterly cold for half the year, the last thing you want to do is mimic that same apathetic environment in the buildings that surround it. The obsession with Mies that Chicago architecture schools push out is obscene (I'm looking in your specific direction, IIT). His designs are specific to a point in history which rejected ornament because it was seen as something unnecessary and ostentatious. But nothing lasts forever, and it saddens me that this type of overly simplistic design is still revered as sacrosanct in Chicago design circles. It has no merit anymore because it's so watered-down to the point of being a visibly cheap copy. I love the Farnsworth House, I love Crown Hall, and I love the Federal Center, but those are from a past era, and should be left there - economies of scale in terms of building design and construction are not the issue, but a lack of creativity due to being conditioned to see things one way only. I truly wish that home-grown architects in Chicago would grow out of their Mies masturbation fantasies and make unique looking buildings again.

I agree with everything you said as well.

It's sad the exterior doesn't do any justice to the interior spaces. Yo Chicago toured several of the units a few weeks ago and I was blown away by the finished product on the inside. The views, layouts & finishes are all surprisingly stunning.

[SteelMonkey]

Originally Posted by sentinel

^^Nice photos Harry, but good Lord, Imprint is awful. Developers who are super cheap and don't want to pay a little more for an improved exterior glazing system, and hire architects who seemingly don't give a shit, or who can't design a unique exterior skin (that doesn't need to be expensive) to save their lives are the devil. The end product is a cold, apathetic box with an equally apathetic base. Garbage.
Miesian international style architecture has been milked so much in this City that it's just dust now. It's a product of a different era, but is so overused because so many architects can't take their design blinders off to realize what they're creating is visually putrid.

I've been doing this for 20 years now, and firmly believe that architecture should be responsive to it's environment; but when that environment is flat, lacking texture, industrial, bitterly cold for half the year, the last thing you want to do is mimic that same apathetic environment in the buildings that surround it. The obsession with Mies that Chicago architecture schools push out is obscene (I'm looking in your specific direction, IIT). His designs are specific to a point in history which rejected ornament because it was seen as something unnecessary and ostentatious. But nothing lasts forever, and it saddens me that this type of overly simplistic design is still revered as sacrosanct in Chicago design circles. It has no merit anymore because it's so watered-down to the point of being a visibly cheap copy. I love the Farnsworth House, I love Crown Hall, and I love the Federal Center, but those are from a past era, and should be left there - economies of scale in terms of building design and construction are not the issue, but a lack of creativity due to being conditioned to see things one way only. I truly wish that home-grown architects in Chicago would grow out of their Mies masturbation fantasies and make unique looking buildings again.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by sentinel

The obsession with Mies that Chicago architecture schools push out is obscene

I'm disappointed with Imprint, too—but I'm utterly baffled by how you can bring Mies's name into this. He didn't invent stingy clients or uncaring architects. And he damn sure never designed anything with a smooth, unrelieved façade.

To lay this at the feet of Mies is the same sort of ignorance that calls anything with a brick panel Post-Modernism.