CHICAGO | General Developments

[denizen467]

^ Being on the third and fourth floors is kind of counterintuitive ... but I guess you have to invert the way you look at this building because of the sky lobby. So in a way it's just like adding two extra future-use floors at the top of a "normal" building.

------------------

Hayward, do you have any photos of the Louboutin storefront next to Del Frisco's? It's so red, red, red. (Of course.)

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ Being on the third and fourth floors is kind of counterintuitive ... but I guess you have to invert the way you look at this building because of the sky lobby. So in a way it's just like adding two extra future-use floors at the top of a "normal" building.

------------------

Hayward, do you have any photos of the Louboutin storefront next to Del Frisco's? It's so red, red, red. (Of course.)

Kind of....but it's cut off. Was trying to take a picture of the Esquire Marquee

[ardecila]

The Lathrop Homes had their community meeting a few weeks ago, and now they are accepting feedback on the three site-plan alternatives. Some of these include high-rises, so many members here might want to provide feedback. The web survey runs until December 15.

http://www.lathropcommunity.org/index.html

[spyguy]

Saw this yesterday on the Tribune website:


The dome of the InterContinental Hotel and the skyline of Chicago, including the Hancock Center, background, are lit for the holidays. — Brian Cassella, Chicago Tribune, Nov. 30, 2012

[rgolch]

The Intercontinental lighting is actually spectacular in person, and it's dynamic lighting.

[Rizzo]

Spectacular photo!

[Mr Downtown]

O N _ A R C H I T E C T U R E
Burberry building review: Plaid bad on Michigan Avenue
By Cheryl Kent
This very aggressive, shiny, five-story little building — occupying the site of the old demolished Burberry building — takes the intertwining of architecture and identity to a distressing new level. It compares unfavorably with the Apple store just a few blocks to the north. That store is impossible to mistake as anything other than an Apple store, but it is also a fine and compelling piece of architecture with an arresting yet mannerly presence on the street. So, it is possible to do all these things at once. Nobody wants to be the noisy drunk at the party. So, why be such a boor, Burberry?
***
Burberry works hard to hold on to an upper-crust image and to look forward at the same time. The clothing, accessories and ads do all that. But this building, with its backlit, angled, checked pattern is the dissonant score in the company repertoire. It is loud and vulgar. It's the car salesman who won't go away. Worst of all, it's not architecture — it's a building as billboard.

This is not the kind of building one lives with, it is for people to visit. Like Las Vegas is a place to visit. Its draw is novelty, but that wears off fast; and then what? Ratchet up the noise, and think of something more outrageous? This store is more Navy Pier than Michigan Avenue; more Times Square than Fifth Avenue. It would be a terrible thing if other retailers on the Mag Mile felt compelled to match Burberry's cacophonous example.

Full column here.

[Kippis]

Looks like "The Maxwell" has undergone a major aesthetic change in this revision. From these renders, it looks like the developer is dropping the residential component from the project completely. In essence, we're now looking at a 216,000 sf retail-only development.









All images credited to: http://www.bondcompanies.com/The-Maxwell.html

[the urban politician]

^ Must be because there was a complaint about residential for this site.

I actually really like the design. We need to do away with all of the strip mall style development in this district and promote more development like this.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Honestly, this area doesn't need any more stand-alone retail. At least combining this with residential would have given the area a more pedestrian feel. How do they expect people to get to these new stores? They will drive... Whod you happen to know the on-site parking numbers?

[pilsenarch]

[QUOTE=Mr Downtown;5922312]O N _ A R C H I T E C T U R E
Burberry building review: Plaid bad on Michigan Avenue
By Cheryl Kent


Art Break: Burberry Dresses Up for Mag Mile

The Magnificent Mile is not what it used to be. Although the site of prestigious and historic architecture like the Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower and Drake Hotel, the pseudo-boulevard now seems more suburban than urban, with so many inward-turned shopping malls. In the mid-1990s, architecture critic Blair Kamin lamented the avenue’s “descent from exquisite ensemble of beaux-arts buildings to a crass visual jumble,” dubbing it the “Mediocre Mile.” Today, there is a budding renaissance happening on the strip, most vividly illustrated by the new Burberry flagship store, the best architectural addition to the district since the John Hancock Center nearly forty years ago.
The Burberry building is stunning, in that it fuses fashion with architecture. At five stories tall, dressed in black with an ornamental chrome tartan check, it stands like a model on the runway of Michigan Avenue. In contrast to the blank facades and anonymous awnings of neighboring competitors like Chanel and Gucci, the Burberry store demands attention and draws the eye—like anything exemplary among the ordinary.

http://art.newcity.com/2012/11/13/re...lagship-store/

[J_M_Tungsten]

Hahaha, exactly! Like any other building in the city, there are multiple extremes of viewpoints on what is good and what is bad. My opinion, and the opinion of most casual passerby's (many of my friends who don't care about architecture), is that this is a pretty cool building, and in no way makes the mag mile any less mag.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Must be because there was a complaint about residential for this site.

I actually really like the design. We need to do away with all of the strip mall style development in this district and promote more development like this.

I think it looks exactly like a strip mall.
Long expansive bland facade, two stories, on site parking. The area is basically a total loss in terms of any intriguing sort of shopping environment. You drive from one building to another in your car. In this proposal only perpetuates this trend, regardless if the building coincidentally has entrances on the street.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

O N _ A R C H I T E C T U R E
Burberry building review: Plaid bad on Michigan Avenue
By Cheryl Kent
This very aggressive, shiny, five-story little building — occupying the site of the old demolished Burberry building — takes the intertwining of architecture and identity to a distressing new level. It compares unfavorably with the Apple store just a few blocks to the north. That store is impossible to mistake as anything other than an Apple store, but it is also a fine and compelling piece of architecture with an arresting yet mannerly presence on the street. So, it is possible to do all these things at once. Nobody wants to be the noisy drunk at the party. So, why be such a boor, Burberry?
***
Burberry works hard to hold on to an upper-crust image and to look forward at the same time. The clothing, accessories and ads do all that. But this building, with its backlit, angled, checked pattern is the dissonant score in the company repertoire. It is loud and vulgar. It's the car salesman who won't go away. Worst of all, it's not architecture — it's a building as billboard.

This is not the kind of building one lives with, it is for people to visit. Like Las Vegas is a place to visit. Its draw is novelty, but that wears off fast; and then what? Ratchet up the noise, and think of something more outrageous? This store is more Navy Pier than Michigan Avenue; more Times Square than Fifth Avenue. It would be a terrible thing if other retailers on the Mag Mile felt compelled to match Burberry's cacophonous example.

Full column here.

Just about every building that has gone up on the Mag mile has reflected branding and image. I don't think anyone needs to be told repeatedly it's a Burberry label literally translated onto a building. 80% of the article debates the merits of that. Yeah we get it. I think what goes unmentioned is the beautiful detailing of joinery, crisp corners, polished material palette, and tactile facade. Ignoring these important architectural aspects makes that article mostly a subjective piece. This critique sounds as if the building was investigated in a windshield survey rather than in person.

Think of it like this. You could tirelessly debate whether a faux art-deco design for the Rtiz was appropriate. But worth mentioning was the clumnsy details and clunky scale and expression of reveals and projections.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I think it looks exactly like a strip mall.
Long expansive bland facade, two stories, on site parking. The area is basically a total loss in terms of any intriguing sort of shopping environment. You drive from one building to another in your car. In this proposal only perpetuates this trend, regardless if the building coincidentally has entrances on the street.

^ HUH?

What is the difference between a strip of stores facing a sidewalk built in 1912 and a a strip of stores facing a sidewalk built in 2012?

The former is a quaint collection of shops while the latter is a strip mall.

I don't get some of the posters here. Yes, the building will have parking but it's clearly not obstructing pedestrian activity. This in no way resembles a strip mall.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

What is the difference between a strip of stores facing a sidewalk built in 1912 and a a strip of stores facing a sidewalk built in 2012?

Come on now, you don't really think they are in any way similar do you?

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by Kippis

All images credited to: http://www.bondcompanies.com/The-Maxwell.html

The third image (massing) makes it look like the residential is staying put. Only a sliver of hope at this point, especially given Bond's website makes no mention of residential, but I'll hold out.

[Mr Downtown]

Hayward, how can this possibly be thought of as a strip mall? It comes to the sidewalk and has no visible parking.

I'm a little puzzled about this project and the PD negotiations. Last summer, Ald. Fioretti gave me the impression that DHED was objecting to the residential, but when I asked a high-level DHED source he said the alderman had some unspecified objection. In addition, my DHED source was anxious to make sure the project was a well-designed gateway that would work well with a future Taylor Street bridge.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Come on now, you don't really think they are in any way similar do you?

^ What's the difference besides the date in which they were built?

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Hayward, how can this possibly be thought of as a strip mall? It comes to the sidewalk and has no visible parking.

I'm a little puzzled about this project and the PD negotiations. Last summer, Ald. Fioretti gave me the impression that DHED was objecting to the residential, but when I asked a high-level DHED source he said the alderman had some unspecified objection. In addition, my DHED source was anxious to make sure the project was a well-designed gateway that would work well with a future Taylor Street bridge.

The functionality behind a classic strip mall (like you'll see across the street) and this building as well as the Southgate Center are very similar. They are both primarily accessed by automobile and internalize the bulk of their circulation.

I'm hard pressed to believe the bulk of their customers will arrive by public transit or walking (though I've been one of those people). They provide free parking by only shopping within their center...very similar to the policies of any strip mall. "Don't park here and walk somewhere else."

As for its placement up to the street, that's great. Yes it "appears" to be more urban. Even bond companies admits that. The problem is hundreds of lineal of feet of unchanging architecture....which lends itself to the long horizontal exteriors of its cousins in the burbs. Granted there's plenty of buildings in the loop like Marshall Fields building or Block 37, or Water Tower Place that literally have an entire city block of the same architectural expression. But these structures compensate in height, articulation, and materials.

I still think this building feels too introverted. I understand it's an adaptation to what's already there. Even though Roosevelt is primilarly auto-centric I'd like the building to break down in scale a bit. It would be nice to see more facade variation and enhancement to that lobby to open up to the street. Not that I'm trying to celebrate this particular development, but the proposed improvements to the Wrigleyville mall might be appropriate for the Canal project.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....-home-run.html