CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS - Page 21

Notyrview · #**401** Posted **Mar 4, 2016, 2:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pimp

No disrespect to anyone. But I'm saying bs.

Sorry... that was harsh.

Don't worry i'm not offended.

I'm not even sure what the criticism is. I'm saying the first design was more cerebral because it challenges you to think about what a building should look like, or the limits of structural engineering. Commodities don't do that. They rely on provoking impulse, like "wow, i want that shiny sports car'. I'm okay with sports cars btw.

BVictor1 · #**402** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 1:15 AM**

Also, can a moderator change the rendering that represents 1000 South Michigan Avenue?

Plan Commission agenda (April 21, 2016) meeting 10:00AM

Quote:

A proposed Residential Business Planned Development and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Application No. 677 (Private-Use Zone), submitted by the Applicant, 1000 South Michigan Equities, LLC, for the property generally located at 920-1006 South Michigan Avenue and 1011-1015 South Wabash Avenue. The Applicant intends to create two subareas within the overall 46,287 square foot site. Subarea A, located at 920 South Michigan Avenue will be redeveloped with an 832’ residen- tial building with 506 dwelling units, 486 parking spaces and ground floor commercial space. Subarea B, located at 1006 South Michigan Avenue and 1011-1015 South Wabash Avenue is improved with an approximately 102’ commercial building and parking lot, respectively, and will remain as such. The overall site is currently zoned DX-12 (Downtown Mixed-Use District) and DX-16 (Downtown Mixed-Use District) and will be rezoned to a unified DX-16 prior to establishing the proposed Residential Business Planned Development. (4th Ward)

Tom Servo · #**403** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by James_Mac

How could he think this is "graceful?" It's a mess. If someone gave me a vase like that, I'd return it.

Because Kamin is an idiot NIMBY, posing as an architectural critic. His opinion is useless. He's only calling it a successful redesign because it's 200 feet shorter, and NIMBY morons are notoriously afraid of tall buildings.

Tom Servo · #**404** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019

It honestly looks like some 333 Wacker/River Point combo on a cheap, awkward podium

It looks like a confused, sloppy mess. The design is horrible. Just horrible.

I almost feel like it's a collective "fuck you" from the Jahn office to the clowns that opposed the original, brilliant, design.

They're all probably sitting back laughing, making jokes about how fucking stupid developers and community groups in this city are.

The original design would have been groundbreaking and an instant icon.

r18tdi · #**405** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

The original design would have been groundbreaking and an instant icon.

Haven't you heard? Instant icons are bad.

Chicago is a city defined by its old icons and knee-jerk mass hang-wringings over any sign of change.

Tom Servo · #**406** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Haven't you heard? Instant icons are bad.

Chicago is a city defined its old icons and knee-jerk mass hang-wringings over any sign of change.

Huh?

Kngkyle · #**407** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It looks like a confused, sloppy mess. The design is horrible. Just horrible.

I almost feel like it's a collective "fuck you" from the Jahn office to the clowns that opposed the original, brilliant, design.

They're all probably sitting back laughing, making jokes about how fucking stupid developers and community groups in this city are.

The original design would have been groundbreaking and an instant icon.

For once, you are spot on. This is terrible architecture.

Mr Downtown · #**408** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 11:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

two questions if you have the developers ear

Sorry, but I've had no contact at all with the developer. The only meeting about this has been the one convened on March 31 by a developer organization. Without a Fourth Ward alderman, community groups are left just whistling in the dark, not sure what to do.

sentinel · #**409** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 11:50 AM**

I honestly wish they could just lop off the base and push the rest of the building down, I don't care if it would be about 200' shorter; quality over quantity.

new.slang · #**410** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 3:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

I honestly wish they could just lop off the base and push the rest of the building down, I don't care if it would be about 200' shorter; quality over quantity.

For real. this new design is actually sad. i almost wish we hadn't seen the original design to spare us from the disappointment of this generic MESS. the original fit chicago so well

pilsenarch · #**411** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 4:06 PM**

ditto on Kamin is a hack, nimby tool, and Jahn either handed this off or is going senile

aaron38 · #**412** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 4:36 PM**

^^^ He designed metal curves, he designed a metal box. Then he put curves on top of a box. About what passes for modern design these days. Unless of course we're being punked.

braun06 · #**413** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 5:41 PM**

If you make something amorphous because people were reacting to architecture with a statement, then it just becomes meaningless noise. This is exactly what the neighborhood wanted, something that doesn't stand out. It screams code and community based design. Now to see if people buying into an expensive price point image will to pluck down big bills to be inside Moby Dick standing on his tail above Spongebob Squarepants. I would rather buy into Crescent Heights or Wanda.

sox102 · #**414** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 7:02 PM**

The problem is the owner has set a budget for the exterior facade that won't work for anything they design. The budget will get the owner window wall, not a fancy unitized curtain wall skin. Cheap, cheap, cheap.

rlw777 · #**415** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 7:19 PM**

The design obviously needs some work and the base currently looks like an afterthought. I won't be surprised to see that change before any construction begins.

r18tdi · #**416** Posted **Apr 5, 2016, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777

The design obviously needs some work and the base currently looks like an afterthought. I won't be surprised to see that change before any construction begins.

Fingers crossed. The transition between the tower and base is currently a hot, wet mess.

BVictor1 · #**417** Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Sorry, but I've had no contact at all with the developer. The only meeting about this has been the one convened on March 31 by a developer organization. Without a Fourth Ward alderman, community groups are left just whistling in the dark, not sure what to do.

There've been two meetings on 1000 S. Michigan. One for the previous design and one for the current design.

Mr Downtown · #**418** Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 1:31 PM**

Those were merely presentations. At a meeting, there would be some sort of meaningful discussion. No one from any city department, nor from the alderman's office, was even at the March 31 meeting.

PKDickman · #**419** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 2:21 PM**

Just a heads up.
I was parked at the landmarks PRC meeting yesterday on another matter and Jahn's 1000m tower got the go ahead from landmarks.

BVictor1 · #**420** Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Those were merely presentations. At a meeting, there would be some sort of meaningful discussion. No one from any city department, nor from the alderman's office, was even at the March 31 meeting.

What alderman's office. Has a replacement been named? I remember you getting a chance to ask questions. I know that I had a chance to speak. Anyone with a mouth and voice could have gotten up and stood behind the microphone to express their views. People (those with the time) could have gone to the landmarks meeting a few months ago like you did and I did and spoke, so...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Just a heads up.
I was parked at the landmarks PRC meeting yesterday on another matter and Jahn's 1000m tower got the go ahead from landmarks.

Good...