HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1081  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 11:18 PM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned.B View Post
Discussion of aesthetics aside, and flawed though it may be, an awful lot of design thought and resources went into creating the Thompson Center, and it would be a shame and a waste to just throw it all away 30 years after it's completion. Personally I think it's atrium is one of the most impressive publicly accessible interior spaces in a city that doesn't really offer that many.
This.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1082  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 11:28 PM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,053
I agree it's a beautiful building, the atrium is excellent... however the reason why they want to demolish because it noneffective. It's a terribly inefficient building, and as shown nobody likes working there. Hopefully they can try to reuse it, but I wont be complaining if they demolish it.

edit: yes the State is partially responsible for its condition
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1083  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 12:05 AM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 766
Have you ever been in the Thompson Center when even just one escalator is down, which isn't a rare occurance. Tear it down! It would be ironic if Jahn designed an iconic tower in its place though....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1084  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 12:08 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,205
200 North Michigan

October 14, 2015

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1085  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 12:40 AM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned.B View Post
If anyone looks back at preservation history, most of the arguments made now, are the same ones that brought down many buildings in the 1960s and 70s that we wish we still had today.
There is a definitely a formula at work to tear down landmarks including letting a building fall into disrepair and having someone prominent (like a governor) proclaim 'it's worthless, nobody will want it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it will be replaced with something better...' to lay the groundwork for destruction.

The arguments for tearing down Block 37 were similar. Of course, now we see those buildings could have been repurposed. And all the promises of a suitable replacement were nonsense. I recall a particularly galling newspaper article advocating for tearing down the block indicating that the presence of a wig store - I believe it was a wig store - somehow lessened a building and made it unworthy of saving (as though every store should be Tiffany). Point being, it doesn't seem to take much to sway the general public to support tearing down a landmark.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1086  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 12:59 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is online now
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 11,037
Blair Kamin weighs in on the Thompson center. He favors reuse.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...14-column.html



Spare Jahn's Thompson Center from Rauner's death sentence

Blair Kamin


October 14, 2015, 7:03 PM



Not so fast, Gov. Rauner.

In announcing that he wants the state to sell the Helmut Jahn-designed James R. Thompson Center in Chicago's Loop, the private-equity-investor-turned-governor all but endorsed its demolition. The building, he opined on Tuesday, is "just not usable for much of anything."


But handing down a death sentence for Jahn's 30-year-old postmodern glitter palace is both premature and ill-informed. By viewing the building's future through the prism of a spreadsheet, the governor is ignoring the vital role it plays in the life of the Loop — and how renovation could transform it into a far more appealing civic hub than it is today.

Renovation and repurposing, in short, should be considered before demolition.


.....
__________________
facebook

Last edited by bnk; Oct 15, 2015 at 12:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1087  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 1:35 AM
Ryanrule Ryanrule is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
its built more like a mall than an office building. build a tower on top of it with a core in the atrium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1088  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 2:16 AM
Le Baron Le Baron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 129
sloopin is reporting a potential new hotel (hilton?) for 11th and Wabash.

http://www.sloopin.com/2015/10/new-h...or-1101-s.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1089  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 1:49 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baron View Post
sloopin is reporting a potential new hotel (hilton?) for 11th and Wabash.

http://www.sloopin.com/2015/10/new-h...or-1101-s.html
A few more details from the article above. Seems a little odd with a giant hilton just two blocks away.

Quote:
mixed use tower of 29 stoires, containing on-site parking (150 spaces), Hotel/Hilton (196 rooms) and extended stay (85 rooms), structure height 298' (maximum), ground level commercial of 3,000 s.f.+/-, ground level site 13,678 s.f., total building 233,587 s.f.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1090  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 2:20 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,180
^^Well, it does say 'mixed-use', so perhaps it won't just be a hotel?

A couple of things:

Seems like there's a number of new forum members, based on recent posts, so welcome to all!

Apologies again, as I haven't yet had time to update page 1 and the project images that need to be reloaded/re-hosted. I went from 0 to 60 in about a week and half, and now I'm swamped with work. But I hope to update all of that within this next week.

Coincidentally, the projects I'm currently working on are two high-rise projects that have been mentioned here before...and cannot say anything more than that right now, unfortunately. Perhaps you'll be hearing something soon enough....
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1091  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 2:53 PM
migueltorres's Avatar
migueltorres migueltorres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned.B View Post
Discussion of aesthetics aside, and flawed though it may be, an awful lot of design thought and resources went into creating the Thompson Center, and it would be a shame and a waste to just throw it all away 30 years after it's completion. Personally I think it's atrium is one of the most impressive publicly accessible interior spaces in a city that doesn't really offer that many.

If anyone looks back at preservation history, most of the arguments made now, are the same ones that brought down many buildings in the 1960s and 70s that we wish we still had today. When the Old Federal Building was demolished in 1965 at an age of only 60, it was considered outdated, inefficient, costly to maintain and worn out. But if it had managed to hold out for another 15 years, it would probably still be here.
Maybe some savvy developer could readapt it and stradle a tower over it while keeping the Thompson Center's atrium. Something like the dead SOM Transbay proposal


Source: SOM
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1092  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 3:01 PM
chrisvfr800i chrisvfr800i is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
A few more details from the article above. Seems a little odd with a giant hilton just two blocks away.
I'm seeing 306' to upper roof on the dwgs I have. Plus, some of the units are 2 bedroom. That seems odd even for an extended stay hotel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1093  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 4:10 PM
Jim in Chicago Jim in Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
A few more details from the article above. Seems a little odd with a giant hilton just two blocks away.
I didn't read the sketchy reports to indicate that is would necessarily be branded "Hilton". They have a whole host of brands - Embassy Suites, Homewood Suites, Hilton Garden Inn, Hampton Inn to name a few. Any of those would make since at that address.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1094  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 4:14 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,972
FYI, passed by 2950 N Sheridan the other day and it is under construction with cassion rigs running full bore. This will be rising soon, great addition to the little slice of downtown that is Sheridan Rd:



curbed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1095  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 8:30 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,608
1061 West Van Buren was approved by the plan commission, granted at a smaller scale than proposed two years ago.

The tower at one time was going to be about 32-33 stories and that's now down to 25 floors.
The unit count was at one time near 400 and that's now down to 298 apartments.

The developers stated that they'd like to get started mid-2016.

There will also be 6,000 sq ft of retail space, and the "tower" will be 275'.
__________________
titanic1

Last edited by BVictor1; Oct 16, 2015 at 1:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1096  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 8:57 PM
Stunnies23 Stunnies23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
1061 West Van Buren was approved by the plan commission, granted at a smaller scale than proposed two years ago.

The tower at one time was going to be about 32-33 stories and that's now down to 25 floors.
The unit count was at one time near 400 and that's now down to 298 apartments.

The developers stated that they'd like to get started mid-2016.
Would this be a case where the developer purposely made his proposal bigger than he wanted, so that he could chop off a few floors and units to give to the Alderman some positive press when he tells the local NIMBYS he made the project smaller?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1097  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 9:02 PM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,053
Yes
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1098  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 9:30 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
1061 West Van Buren was approved by the plan commission, granted at a smaller scale than proposed two years ago.

The tower at one time was going to be about 32-33 stories and that's now down to 25 floors.
The unit count was at one time near 400 and that's now down to 298 apartments.

The developers stated that they'd like to get started mid-2016.

Thanks for letting us know.....


And, what about 465 N Park Dr? Heard (approved) or postponed?
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1099  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 9:52 PM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
10/14

200 N Mich





__________________
To have ambition was my ambition - Gang of Four
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1100  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2015, 9:54 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
1061 West Van Buren was approved by the plan commission, granted at a smaller scale than proposed two years ago.

The tower at one time was going to be about 32-33 stories and that's now down to 25 floors.
The unit count was at one time near 400 and that's now down to 298 apartments.

The developers stated that they'd like to get started mid-2016.
There will also be 6,000 sq ft of retail space, and the "tower" will be 275'.
__________________
titanic1

Last edited by BVictor1; Oct 16, 2015 at 1:08 AM.
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 12:47 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.