CHICAGO | General Developments

[wierdaaron]

The current Apple Store would be hard to rehab into something else, and Apple wouldn't like some other company reaping the benefits of their proprietary glass work. I wouldn't be surprise if they knock it down themselves once they move.

The Pioneer Court news is great to me. It won't take up very much room at the surface level, they have entrance designs much more compact than the 5th Ave cube. Plus, moving the retail nexus further south is very exciting given all the new work going on south of the river.

Edit: also, regarding Pioneer Court, they whore that thing out for branded marketing shit all the time. Every time I go through it I have to bob and weave through people handing out free samples of candy and stages set up for livestreamed concerts sponsored by Dodge Edge Shaving Gel Banana Republic Minions Now In Theaters. I don't think there's much integrity to preserve there, and as streetline points out above, they can do very compact entrance structures. I'd bet they might have it located very close to the water's edge, and the "underground" store might have an open window overlooking the river.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

This this, this this, this this this.

Honestly, I have a feeling the above is what they are thinking and I hope they do it. It would be cool (and un-replicatable almost anywhere else) if they built a glass entryway like the NYC cube (maybe in a more rounded shape like an ellipses) along the South end of the Plaza sorta piecing the existing wall along the river. They could then have secondary doors along the riverwalk and not only increase traffic on the plaza level, but draw more traffic down to the river as well. It's retail moves like this that will eventually lease up stuff like the Trump spaces and really blow up the river as Chicago's next great public space.

[wierdaaron]

When I was making that highly professional rendering I was wondering if they could fill in that lower level courtyard and bring the structure all the way out to the water, but I bet that would require thousands of agencies to approve.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by k1052

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150...-neighbors-say

West Loop Condo Building Plan 'Unsafe' in Case of Fire, Neighbors Say

Because West Loop Nimby's know more about fire safety than the people who put together the fire safety regulations for buildings. What a bunch of pompous assholes.

[J_M_Tungsten]

That's actually pretty awesome, Aaron! The boat traffic and opposite side of the river advertisement views would be worth their weight in gold. Also, how many iconic shots of Chicago are taken from that perspective? Tons. If we don't see something similar to that design, someone will have dropped the ball.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by rlw777

Because West Loop Nimby's know more about fire safety than the people who put together the fire safety regulations for buildings. What a bunch of pompous assholes.

The residents had a retire CFD guy - he probably has a point. Buildings next door will make it harder to reach the balconies.

Since the next door neighbors can not restrict the use of somebody else's land there are 3 options.

1) Purchase the lot next door and turn it over to the city for a public park.
2) Remove the balconies.
3) Live with it.

[Ned.B]

^^^ The lower plaza at river level could be filled in, but only the area that is on the 401 N. Michigan property. The western most portion, including the concrete winder stair and everything west of the transition from granite to concrete in the plaza (visible in the picture above) is public property.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yes, but as per city code, you only need to comply with the 12' setback from the lotline to avoid 2 hour fire rated glass. The exiting is not supposed to be done through balconies anyhow, especially not a highrise building like this. This building is required to have sprinklers, high fire ratings, and host of other safety measures that make it unlikely a fire will ever get intense enough to spread from one unit to another. The notion that access to the balconies is important in any respect is absurd.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yes, but as per city code, you only need to comply with the 12' setback from the lotline to avoid 2 hour fire rated glass. The exiting is not supposed to be done through balconies anyhow, especially not a highrise building like this. This building is required to have sprinklers, high fire ratings, and host of other safety measures that make it unlikely a fire will ever get intense enough to spread from one unit to another. The notion that access to the balconies is important in any respect is absurd.

So you'd take option #3.

We will see if the concerned residents put their money where their mouths are.

[wierdaaron]

It's always views. They could probably find a geologist who'll swear on a stack of bibles that if a tall building gets built next to theirs the earth will open up and swallow Chicago whole, but the real reason is views.

I should start selling view insurance. Or magnetic bracelets that protect you from tall buildings.

[SolarWind]

August 12, 2015

[rlw777]

I'm all for rational neighborhood input. I'm just not a fan of the "The Sky is FALLING" chicken little routine. If you don't want that many residents in your neighborhood just say that. Or if you think the building code needs to change then challenge the code not this one proposal cause it's really suspicious. These fears need things like um what's that called... Oh yeah evidence to justify them.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by harryc

So you'd take option #3.

Yes, if anything Chicago has one of the more irrationally strict fire codes around. As discussed ad nauseum regarding the Hilton Garden Inn behind the 17th Church on Wacker: you can't build any perforations in the building skin on a lot line in the city.

You used to be able to occasionally work around the 12 ft residential setback on commercial stuff if you did some horse trading with Asif, but now that he's gone, good fucking luck. Either you adhere 100% to the rules or spend 2 years trying to fight for a little variance no matter how logical it is.

[streetline]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

This this, this this, this this this.

Honestly, I have a feeling the above is what they are thinking and I hope they do it. It would be cool (and un-replicatable almost anywhere else) if they built a glass entryway like the NYC cube (maybe in a more rounded shape like an ellipses) along the South end of the Plaza sorta piecing the existing wall along the river. They could then have secondary doors along the riverwalk and not only increase traffic on the plaza level, but draw more traffic down to the river as well. It's retail moves like this that will eventually lease up stuff like the Trump spaces and really blow up the river as Chicago's next great public space.

I like the idea of a circular glass entry tower piercing the existing wall along the river a lot. It occurs to me that Apple's stores tend to be a bit divorced from their surroundings; I hope that in a riverfront development like this they do something a bit more contextual than a geometric primitive centered in the lot. Apple's stores in Chicago have been a bit uninspiring compared to some of their work elsewhere, I really hope they take this opportunity to turn that around.

[wierdaaron]

Apple's done some very nice work with existing and unusual locations, like the Grand Central Station store which doesn't even really have an exterior but basically just melted a store into the existing facility.

http://www.apple.com/retail/grandcentral/

And their newest Berlin store moved into a beautiful old building and didn't change a thing about the exterior.

http://www.apple.com/de/retail/kurfuerstendamm/

And as for adapting to unusual infrastructures, their first Hong Kong store managed a buildout in a shopping mall that blew out the exterior wall to create huge glass windows opening the store to the outside world and street below.

http://www.apple.com/hk/en/retail/ifcmall

Quickly flip through this gallery of Apple storefronts and you'll see some real spectacles of inventive architecture and engineering, along with all of the cookie-cutter copy and paste jobs.

Hopefully they'll bring that kind of inginuity to make something really great out of this challenging location with huge potential.

[streetline]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Apple's done some very nice work with existing and unusual locations, like the Grand Central Station store which doesn't even really have an exterior but basically just melted a store into the existing facility.

http://www.apple.com/retail/grandcentral/

And their newest Berlin store moved into a beautiful old building and didn't change a thing about the exterior.

http://www.apple.com/de/retail/kurfuerstendamm/

And as for adapting to unusual infrastructures, their first Hong Kong store managed a buildout in a shopping mall that blew out the exterior wall to create huge glass windows opening the store to the outside world and street below.

http://www.apple.com/hk/en/retail/ifcmall

Quickly flip through this gallery of Apple storefronts and you'll see some real spectacles of inventive architecture and engineering, along with all of the cookie-cutter copy and paste jobs.

Hopefully they'll bring that kind of inginuity to make something really great out of this challenging location with huge potential.

I was thinking more in terms of a new building integrating with the surrounding environment (the border between the river and plaza in this case), rather than integrating a store into a existing building. Apple has certainly built some interesting stores, as well as made great use of some historical spaces. But I don't recall an instance of them integrating with a natural site feature like a river, and they seem to have a habit of centering their entrance structures in a plaza that I don't think would work well here. I just hope they get their best team on it, and spend the thought needed to really take advantage of the site.

[marothisu]

In other news, since we don't seem to have a high rise thread anymore... The 31 story tower at Clark & Chestnut in the US Bank parking lot got its foundation/superstructure building permit issued on Monday.


...and the Englewood Whole Foods also got its permit on the same day.

[Randomguy34]

We still have a highrise thread, version 7 now. It will take a few days before the thread is linked under the Chicago tag. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218289

[ardecila]

I'm not too concerned about the Apple proposal. I've always been a big fan of Pioneer Court, I think it is one of the rare open spaces we have downtown that is well-defined and spacious like the grand plazas of Europe. Plus it is probably the most bustling nexus downtown, the foot traffic there is astronomical.

I really wish Equitable didn't present such a boring face to the plaza, even NBC-5 couldn't activate it. They should really look into creating another one or two outdoor restaurants like Howells and Hood or South Branch on the ground floor of that building.

I was pleasantly surprised by the plaza at North/Clybourn, even if the store itself was based on a design from Scottsdale. It works well on that site and gives some nice breathing room around the CTA entrance in an area where the pedestrian space is minimal. I'm sure Apple's design will be equally thoughtful at Pioneer Court, even if they rehash certain elements from past store designs.

[wierdaaron]

Starbucks or fast food would make a killing there if they were set up for theme park sized crowds.

The mouth of Michigan Ave north of the bridge really is like the gates to an amusement park. Whenever I'm doing something touristy I always wind up going through there, and I think the grand open plazas on either side act like a U bend in a sink to catch the crush of people pouring through it and make them linger around for a while, yet it has generally been activated fairly poorly. Those plaza-facing storefronts could be doing way more business if they gave visitors something to do.