CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

speaking of crappy townhomes...

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Seriously? It screams postmodern. The simplification of ornamental details and geometric shapes. Look at the cornice and window surrounds! The embellishment with the horizontal stripes of lighter stone look arbitrary and unnecessary to the facade composition.

Seriously.

Lazy (or sloppy) Traditionalism/Neo-Historicism/Neo-Classicism (or whatever the hell you want to call it) does not equal Post Modernism.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

What's going there:

Oh, beautiful.

[Busy Bee]

What an upgrade *facepalm*

Although to be honest I always hated the townhome base of the proposal - I thought it looked like garbage with 2 awesome towers growing out of it.


_

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

What an upgrade *facepalm*

Although to be honest I always hated the townhome base of the proposal - I thought it looked like garbage with 2 awesome towers growing out of it.


_

I was never a fan of this proposal. The base design was horrendous, and the towers were no big deal either. Generic glass towers with cantilevered top floors? Cheap gimmick if you ask me. Never understood the love this (thankfully dead) proposal got.

[i_am_hydrogen]

^One of only a few Lagrange designs I like, save for the base. The others: Intercontinental Hotel North (never built) and Erie on the Park.

Erie on the Park (taken by me)

[Tom Servo]

Yeah, that's actually a really fantastic building. The lobby is really amazing.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I was never a fan of this proposal. The base design was horrendous, and the towers were no big deal either. Generic glass towers with cantilevered top floors? Cheap gimmick if you ask me. Never understood the love this (thankfully dead) proposal got.

So if you had to choose between the X/O generic towers that you hated and the crappy current town-homes which you hate, which would you choose?

Nothing ever seems to be good enough, so can we see or hear about your proposal?

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by rlw777

1k fulton

Sterling Bay is a client, so I should tread lightly with my criticism, but I'm not a fan on the blue glass. I've seen shots where the glass looks really blue and others where it looks clear. Guess I need to pay the site a visit to confirm firsthand.

Chicago Architecture Blog:


http://www.1kfulton.com/development/construction.php

[wierdaaron]

Hopefully the neighbor who was concerned about the demolition at the XO site warehouse causing a stampede of rodents will make it through this time safely.

[Mr Downtown]

You know, I’m going to speak up for those 1700 Prairie Avenue townhouses. They’re appropriately scaled to the neighborhood, don’t overpower or visually compete with neighbors such as the Glessner and Kimball houses, and front the sidewalk in the time-honored fashion (even if it is at grade; full disclosure: I was quite critical of an earlier design for the entry yards). The massing is intelligible and human-scaled; the materials (except the top floor, perhaps) are honest, appropriate, and used properly. There’s no attempt to fool anyone into thinking they are from 1890, and no attempt to invent a new vocabulary merely for novelty’s sake. We need only look across the street at red-painted crosses masquerading as architectural innovation, or CMUs masquerading as cut limestone, to realize how lucky we are. From an urban design standpoint, they are exactly what we should want to see built in many, many neighborhoods.

Let Tom Servo and his species move to Dubai or Miami or Irvine, where they can experience architectural novelty at 45 mph and never get stuck behind a bus.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

So if you had to choose between the X/O generic towers that you hated and the crappy current town-homes which you hate, which would you choose?]

A parking lot.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

http://www.1kfulton.com/development/construction.php

This is pretty nice. But I'm curious, when was the brick added to the secondary building?

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

^You're right. Can't say I agree with that choice. Here's a shot I took today.

This affect has more to do with the reflection of the sky than the color of the glass.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You know, I’m going to speak up for those 1700 Prairie Avenue townhouses. They’re appropriately scaled to the neighborhood, don’t overpower or visually compete with neighbors such as the Glessner and Kimball houses, and front the sidewalk in the time-honored fashion (even if it is at grade; full disclosure: I was quite critical of an earlier design for the entry yards). The massing is intelligible and human-scaled; the materials (except the top floor, perhaps) are honest, appropriate, and used properly. There’s no attempt to fool anyone into thinking they are from 1890, and no attempt to invent a new vocabulary merely for novelty’s sake. We need only look across the street at red-painted crosses masquerading as architectural innovation, or CMUs masquerading as cut limestone, to realize how lucky we are. From an urban design standpoint, they are exactly what we should want to see built in many, many neighborhoods.

Let Tom Servo and his species move to Dubai or Miami or Irvine, where they can experience architectural novelty at 45 mph and never get stuck behind a bus.

Of course you'd speak up for them. There's nothing appropriate about these. It's a total waste of space and under scaled for the central area. There's nothing wrong with big and not everything has to be contextual. These may be okay in Jefferson Park or Bronzeville, Lakeview perhaps... But what I've come to realize is that developments like this in the downtown/central area region are nothing but NIMBY incubators. People bitching and moaning about height, density, light and all other kinds of bullshit that's more fitting of Homer Glen.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Of course you'd speak up for them. There's nothing appropriate about these. It's a total waste of space and under scaled for the central area. There's nothing wrong with big and not everything has to be contextual. These may be okay in Jefferson Park or Bronzeville, Lakeview perhaps... But what I've come to realize is that developments like this in the downtown/central area region are nothing but NIMBY incubators. People bitching and moaning about height, density, light and all other kinds of bullshit that's more fitting of Homer Glen.

Well said.

[the urban politician]

Chicago's central area is huge and there is room for lower density, including townhome/rowhome districts.

What these concerns indicate to me is the need for denser development to break out of the downtown area and proliferate more in the neighborhoods. We need more density, particularly along transit corridors, throughout the city.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Chicago's central area is huge and there is room for lower density, including townhome/rowhome districts.

What these concerns indicate to me is the need for denser development to break out of the downtown area and proliferate more in the neighborhoods. We need more density, particularly along transit corridors, throughout the city.

The problem is that the zoning isn't there in the neighborhoods and if you go to as many community meetings as I have over the past decade, you'd know the insolent pettiness that festers in the neighborhoods and the hackery that is the local elected officials, catering to the stupidity of the no-nothings.

The central area is where the densest zoning is at this time and it shouldn't be wasted on the mediocrity that townhouse developments like this usually are.

Trust me, they're NIMBY rat havens i.e Prairie District who bitched and moaned about X/O, East North Water Street on Ogden Slip who bitched and moaned about the Spire, Kinzie Park on the north branch who actually complained to the alderman about the architectural tour boats on the river and complained to the alderman.

Fuck townhouses in the central area. Chicago is about 229 sq. mi, the central area is what 10 to 15 sq. mi? Build that shit somewhere else.

BUt I also understand what you mean by occasionally having visual space and breathing room.

[dropdeaded209]

any updates on maggie daley park? that must be close to done at this point, no?

[george]

3/21





http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...320-story.html