HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10081  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 11:55 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Get a spine people. When this project is completed everybody here will be wondering why in the world they bitched and moaned about a handful of nondescript facades coming down. This project is an all around plus for the neighborhood. Nobody is going to miss a couple old brick walls and what they contained inside. And nobody is gonna look at the completed project and think 'gosh what a waste, I wish we could have the old corner back.'
Ok, entertain me with some examples or case studies currently in the midwest that will give me an idea of what this will be like. I've not been impressed by the majority of new neighborhood development.

As it stands, the facades of the existing stock are nothing to write home about. There's plenty of other more beautiful streetscapes in the city. But that's not a valid enough reason for them to go, or replaced by a product that is entirely different. Their composition is what gives Wrigleyville identity. If your premise is to completely modify this neighborhood beyond all recognition and take it in a completely different direction, then I guess you could justify this project. This isn't really NIMBYism or opposition to any small change. It's a big project that will certainly leave a mark. I don't see it any different than the urban renewal efforts in the 60's and 70's to level dozens of commercial buildings for one mammoth development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10082  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 11:57 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
How can anyone look at that Clark facade and think 'souless suburban mall?' The facade is broken up into storefront sections that reference traditional building widths along Clark and most Chicago arterials, and any elongating effect is taken care of with signage and canopies. My biggest issue with the project remains the fact that those Sports World assholes refused to move or incorporate and we have to look at that shit right opposite Wrigley. That's what you jerks should be complaining about!



x


x


x
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding

Last edited by Busy Bee; May 18, 2010 at 12:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10083  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 12:00 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
^ The only successful part of that design is the top, where you see multiple structures of varying mass and material. The base is long and monotonous. Why would someone design a neighborhood building like that? It's totally inappropriate. Very similar to the contrived mega retail developments attempting to build commercial districts around ballparks and arenas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10084  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 12:04 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Ok, entertain me with some examples or case studies currently in the midwest that will give me an idea of what this will be like. I've not been impressed by the majority of new neighborhood development.
^ To be honest, I'm the wrong guy to ask because I'm of the minority around here. I have generally been happy with the condo development boom in Chicago of late.

I've never felt that outstanding architecture makes up great cityscapes. It is collections of regular buildings, punctuated by greatly designed buildings of importance, that make great places.

I tend to subscribe to that kind of thinking.

There are some forumers around here who believe that every single building must resemble an ant humping a beetle, or else it is a blight on the cityscape. I think that kind of thinking is way misguided, and has been damaging to cities.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10085  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 1:09 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ I agree I love the hundreds of infill pomo purple brick three and six flats and 3-6 floor apartment blocks that have gone up over the past 10 years. Yeah they are bland and completely non-progressive, but I can live with that since they make an excellent background for the jewels of Chicago's Architecture to stand out against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
Why stop at 10 stories. Clear cut all the bungalows. Just line every residential block with skyscrapers.
Yes, because clearly this is a residential block and residential blocks are the topic of this conversation...

You show me a commercial artery that is lined with bungalows and I'll show you a block that needs to be razed and replaced with 3-8 story street-facing buildings with retail.

Also how the hell are you comparing this to a suburban strip mall. Hint, the only difference between the excellent streamlined 1960's 1 story retail buildings on the fringes of Chicago (Peterson is a great example) and a suburban strip mall is the fact that one has parking in front of all the retail the the other does not. Same goes for these old, one story, brick retail buildings that exist on the site today. If you slide them back 50 feet and put in parking, they'd be strip malls. This building on the other hand comes right up to the street, has a 3 story facade along the street, and no parking. You show me a strip mall in a suburb that is built right against the street and is three stories with a 10 story hotel on top of it and I'll admit your entire argument is flawless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10086  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 2:13 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post

There are some forumers around here who believe that every single building must resemble an ant humping a beetle, or else it is a blight on the cityscape. I think that kind of thinking is way misguided, and has been damaging to cities.
Well that's definitely not me....but I'm more middle ground. Not a fan of whimsical contemporary structures just as I'm not a fan of bland precast jumbo brick buildings either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10087  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 2:18 AM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Ok, entertain me with some examples or case studies currently in the midwest that will give me an idea of what this will be like. I've not been impressed by the majority of new neighborhood development.

As it stands, the facades of the existing stock are nothing to write home about. There's plenty of other more beautiful streetscapes in the city. But that's not a valid enough reason for them to go, or replaced by a product that is entirely different. Their composition is what gives Wrigleyville identity. If your premise is to completely modify this neighborhood beyond all recognition and take it in a completely different direction, then I guess you could justify this project. This isn't really NIMBYism or opposition to any small change. It's a big project that will certainly leave a mark. I don't see it any different than the urban renewal efforts in the 60's and 70's to level dozens of commercial buildings for one mammoth development.
UH...yeah

Other than the empty litter filled lots that are still unused 4.5 decades later.....other than that exactly the same.....yeah
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10088  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 2:20 AM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
My main concern with this things is 1. Not intense of enough use....preferred the earlier more intense plan.
2. It eerily reminds me of the "newish" 28 story condo in Evanston with retail in the base, just cut by 2/3rds


I think materials will make a huge difference on execution and impact......if it is clearly brick facade its is going to look sterile; on the other hand if they could produce a more authentic Chicago brick type look....maybe not so bad
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10089  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 1:30 PM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
I especially hate to see the old fabric of the Clark St. facades lost to this developement, but I'll get used to it. I welcome the infill along Addison.
Why would the D-bag at Sports World give into this scheme. He sits on one of the most visible & prime parcels in Wrigleyville. He would never recoup revenue from losing his massive obtrusive billboards.

Last edited by george; May 18, 2010 at 2:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10090  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 3:13 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
SOM Chicago and Sasaki Associates have designed a massive 369 acre development on Chicago's South Side


05.14.2010

Read More: http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4530

Quote:
On Tuesday, Chicago’s Community Development Commission agreed to award $96 million in tax-increment financing for the massive mixed-use project located between 79th Street and the Calumet River known as South Works. Based on a masterplan by SOM Chicago and Sasaki Associates, the development could eventually include millions of square feet of retail and residential space as well as a series of new lakefront parks, and function as a new center for the city’s South Side.

The public money will fund construction of roads, sewers and other elements currently absent from the former industrial land. “The TIF money is absolutely necessary for us to move ahead, since there’s no public infrastructure on site,” said Nasutsa Mabwa, a project manager with McCaffery Interests, the project’s co-developer along with U.S. Steel. The most important piece of infrastructure is a new access road, U.S. 41, which will function as a four-lane extension of Lake Shore Drive with a landscaped median. “It’s an important catalyst,” said Phil Enquist, SOM’s partner in charge of urban design and planning. “This will allow access to the lakefront and spur development on a site that isn’t currently being used by anyone.”

The total project area covers 369 acres, approximately 120 of which have been reserved for lakefront parks. The project follows LEED for Neighborhood Design guidelines, so it emphasizes connectivity with pedestrian-scaled streets, along with innovative water management to filter much of the runoff back into Lake Michigan. The project, which would be built out over a 20- to 45-year period, could eventually include up to nearly 14,000 units of housing and a new elementary and high school, as well as extensive retail and some office space, plus a 1,500-slip marina. A smaller tract of land to the south, owned by Solo Cups, remains undeveloped, and no plans for the property have been announced.





__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10091  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 5:29 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
155 N Wacker - Plaza


April 9


April 28


April 28


April 28


April 28
__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- 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
     
     
  #10092  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 5:49 PM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
5-18

Randolph Pocket Park



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10093  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 5:56 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
The beauty is nauseating.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10094  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 7:08 PM
Chicago3rd Chicago3rd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cranston, Rhode Island
Posts: 8,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
I dont understand this quote. What does have to do with the neighborhood? Locally owned restaurants, bars, and clubs in seperate unique storefronts have far more to do with the fabric of a given hood than faceless corporate chains plopped in a block long mall.

Im not opposed to the idea of a development here. Change happens. But I am very opposed to its execution in this instance. I've long ago tired of the Chicago style clear-cut trend which obliterates entire neighborhood blocks in favor of one "master plan". What makes Chicago great is its diversity; designs like this decrease that.

This block is one of the few in that increasingly soulless area that actually contains some character (with Chicago-centric institutions to boot). I for one, will be sad to see it go. I seriously question if this is what residents actually "want".
Except for the theater...this area is the arm pit of the north-side and contributes very little to the neighborhood. It is dirty, dangerous and awful, filled with tons of crappy out of towners. Having places there that cater mainly to the neighborhood will at least let us take some of that area back.

If this stuff gets built and it goes out of business...then I will believe your opinion. Lifeless....we are getting rid of some surface parking....huge billboards...buildings that roll down their fricken security doors at night...and getting something that serves the neighborhood all day verses just game day and the weekend.
__________________
All the photos "I" post are photos taken by me and can be found on my photo pages @ http://wilbsnodgrassiii.smugmug.com// UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED and CREDITED.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10095  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 7:13 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago3rd View Post
this area is the arm pit of the north-side and contributes very little to the neighborhood. .
Haha I know what you are saying, but this is very debatable. I think the honor of "armpit of the north side" belongs to Uptown or West Rogers Park...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10096  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 7:21 PM
Kippis's Avatar
Kippis Kippis is offline
Chicagoland Runaway
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Winfield, IL
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
The beauty is nauseating.
No...it's just nauseating. And nothing else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10097  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 7:42 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
I think the honor of "armpit of the north side" belongs to Uptown or West Rogers Park...
^ Really?

What part of W. Rogers Park would you consider the "armpit of the north side?"
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10098  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 8:00 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Really?

What part of W. Rogers Park would you consider the "armpit of the north side?"
Well its not entirely in the West half of the neighborhood but there is a crescent of city blocks that begins in the Howard mess and stretches down Ashland for a while and then heads over to Indian Boundary Park. Its not so much that this area is run down or lacking in greenspace, but that its gang-ridden and high crime. Rogers Park is pretty to look at but has some major festering cesspools of crime especially to the North and West. I would never go in Potowatamie Park or Indian Boundary Park after dark, thats just asking to get mugged.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10099  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 8:02 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ I've never felt that outstanding architecture makes up great cityscapes. It is collections of regular buildings, punctuated by greatly designed buildings of importance, that make great places.

I tend to subscribe to that kind of thinking.

There are some forumers around here who believe that every single building must resemble an ant humping a beetle, or else it is a blight on the cityscape. I think that kind of thinking is way misguided, and has been damaging to cities.
Really? I don't wish to argue with you--I kind of agree with you--but this is an unusual sentiment. Maybe it has to do with what you mean by "normal."

When I'm discovering an impressive environment for the first time--whether it's Pilsen or Bronzeville, Printer's Row or Hyde Park, London or Barcelona; I'm usually impressed by the uniform quality of the streetscape--that the average building is above average and they come together to make something great. I don't think every townhouse needs to be designed by I.M. Pei, but when a whole neighborhood is tied together by quality I like it a lot better than when I see mediocre construction but with a beautifully preserved cathedral at the end of the block.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10100  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 8:17 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post

x


x
wow... sad.

let the destruction begin, i guess.
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 > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:33 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.