CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1764

marothisu · #**35261** Posted **Oct 30, 2016, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

I've been to Wangfujing - actually stayed in a hotel just off of it where I was the only Westerner in it (the perks of traveling with a Chinese national). It was interesting to see. It's not sophisticated, but it sure as hell beats any Asian night market in Chicago.

Oh how I wish there could be a proper Asian night market in the US. I've been to a few in Queens, NYC - unfortunately they were more like "let's set up a bunch of vendors at night in a parking light where the 1964 World's Fair was." Not the same. I was very disappointed by Argyle's Night Market a few years ago and never went back

That would be cool if somehow this place set up a night market atmosphere in the middle of that rendering haha I wish

the urban politician · #**35262** Posted **Oct 30, 2016, 8:56 PM**

^ For all the importing of global amenities and experiences we try to do in our global cities........sometimes if you want a proper and authentic Asian experience, you just have to go to Asia

spyguy · #**35263** Posted **Oct 30, 2016, 9:05 PM**

https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/e...Libraries.html

Quote:

Mayor Emanuel Announces Innovative Partnership between Chicago Housing Authority and Chicago Public Library that Will Deliver Co-Located Housing and New Libraries

Mayor Rahm Emanuel joined Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) CEO Eugene Jones, Jr. and Chicago Public Library (CPL) Commissioner Brian Bannon today to announce an interagency partnership that will provide three new mixed-income housing developments with co-located libraries - strengthening communities with affordable housing and community anchors that support life-long learning. In a break from the standard, cookie-cutter designs that are common to government buildings, Mayor Emanuel envisions striking and bold architectural designs for these buildings. As part of the projects, he will call on architectural firms to bid on the work and use their creativity to leave a lasting legacy of public art in neighborhoods across Chicago.

“Chicago will be one of the first cities using this type of partnership between housing and libraries to benefit and beautify our neighborhoods,” said Mayor Emanuel. “This model will create spaces everyone can enjoy, and I hope will be the next great civic projects here in Chicago.”

The announcement was made on the site of a planned senior housing building at Pratt and Western avenues that will include a ground floor library. Two other mixed-income housing developments with co-located libraries are also planned for the Near West Side and Irving Park communities. As part of the ongoing redevelopment of the Roosevelt Square community, a new Roosevelt Branch Library is planned near Taylor and Aberdeen streets. A new Independence Branch Library is also planned near Elston Avenue and Pulaski Road.

ardecila · #**35264** Posted **Oct 30, 2016, 9:56 PM**

I can understand some of those sites, where there is limited land available for redevelopment, but Taylor and Aberdeen?

A - there's already a sizable CPL branch there, multi-story, only 18 years old.
B - this section of Taylor doesn't need more residential density when Roosevelt Square has acres and acres of vacant land.

Something smells off about this.

SolarWind · #**35265** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 4:28 AM**

October 24, 2016

Rizzo · #**35266** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 7:42 AM**

Really, if they can get the ramp and Wacker clad in some really nice materials with great architectural lighting it will be done. I don't want the end to be visually jarring. I love the open lawn that allows you to better appreciate the tall skyscrapers.

Gorgeous photos solar wind

Mr Downtown · #**35267** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 1:48 PM**

Two exercises in mediocrity (or misunderstanding) at Polk & Dearborn go before Landmarks on Nov. 3:

At the northwest corner, this is what the microunit project now looks like without the extended-stay hotel component. Architect has clumsily borrowed bits and pieces from the buildings across the street. Staff recommends approval:

On the northeast corner, the news is worse. Owner is planning a house for his own family, and has designed something that belongs in Ukrainian Village or Bucktown. Ground-floor retail (but no black iron) topped by a three-floor single-family residence. Using neither forms nor materials from the district, the fourth floor cantilevers out over a third-floor deck and is clad in corrugated metal, with fixed plate-glass windows. Holding its nose, landmarks staff is only recommending that the dark gray brick be changed to a reddish earth tone.

ithakas · #**35268** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 2:02 PM**

Can we talk about how fucking ridiculous it is that Landmarks has a mandate to guide the aesthetics of new buildings in landmark districts to the point where they're dictating brick color?

We had a nice proposal from LG for that lot originally, and now we're getting faux-historical bullshit that will look awful next to the Franklin, Donahue, and Dearborn Station.

How about focusing on getting a new landmark district passed for all of the River North low/midrises being torn down, or doing something about the continuous destruction of the Central Manufacturing District?

SamInTheLoop · #**35269** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 2:12 PM**

^ I agree. Was it Landmarks that pushed back against that original, or was it changed by the developer to the next iteration before it even reached that point?

This (last?) version is just laughably bad....

k1052 · #**35270** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 2:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

Can we talk about how fucking ridiculous it is that Landmarks has a mandate to guide the aesthetics of new buildings in landmark districts to the point where they're dictating brick color?

We had a nice proposal from LG for that lot originally, and now we're getting faux-historical bullshit that will look awful next to the Franklin, Donahue, and Dearborn Station.

How about focusing on getting a new landmark district passed for all of the River North low/midrises being torn down, or doing something about the continuous destruction of the Central Manufacturing District?

It's a study in extremes that a formerly very nice proposal gets turned into the above pile trying to (badly) mimic old building stock at their behest and the rest of the city is almost ignored.

Mr Downtown · #**35271** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 2:34 PM**

The "formerly very nice proposal" died when LG didn't get financing for the extended-stay hotel portion. Suddenly the pro forma was very different. No money for custom brick.

In the interim, this version was reported on Sloopin, with the mysterious black void on the Polk façade:

Thank heavens we dodged that bullet.

LouisVanDerWright · #**35272** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 2:42 PM**

^^^ That's 100X better than the styrofoam capped brick cube we are getting instead...

Ned.B · #**35273** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 3:18 PM**

I have a hard time believing that Landmarks staff created the current version of this proposal. They typically have no issues with contemporary interpretations, as seen in other districts around the city, provided that the materials and massing is sympathetic to the district.

k1052 · #**35274** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ That's 100X better than the styrofoam capped brick cube we are getting instead...

Yes, even a largely inoffensive (if plain) modern building would have been a lot better. I'm sure the cheap historical detailing will age just as well here as on many other buildings it's been stuck on.

SamInTheLoop · #**35275** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The "formerly very nice proposal" died when LG didn't get financing for the extended-stay hotel portion. Suddenly the pro forma was very different. No money for custom brick.

In the interim, this version was reported on Sloopin, with the mysterious black void on the Polk façade:

Thank heavens we dodged that bullet.

C'mon - this is much, much, much better than what we're getting. (though I agree that 'black void' isn't working)

ithakas · #**35276** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 3:55 PM**

Meanwhile, on the Gold Coast...

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/10/31...ast-demolition

r18tdi · #**35277** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

Meanwhile, on the Gold Coast...

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/10/31...ast-demolition

Oh come on!

Via Chicago · #**35278** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

C'mon - this is much, much, much better than what we're getting. (though I agree that 'black void' isn't working)

i guess i dont hate the new one? its boring but nothing horrible

Via Chicago · #**35279** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Oh come on!

Landmarks is a joke. in any other city this would have been protected from demo, along with all the other rowhouses coming down

and lets not pretend like we're getting any increased density out of this, since we all know its going to be another craptacular new money "single family" mansion

Mr Downtown · #**35280** Posted **Oct 31, 2016, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Landmarks is a joke. in any other city this [worker's cottage] would have been protected from demo

Which of the city's seven criterial for landmarking do you think it meets? It's not associated with any important person, event, or architect, and there are many such workers cottages remaining in the city.

To be legally defensible, landmark designation can't be a balancing test of whether we like it better than the new proposal. It must be based on substantive criteria identifiable long before a building is threatened. Even moreso in Chicago, where the landmarks staff has to walk on eggshells until the Hanna lawsuit is resolved. "It's cute" or "it's the last one on the block" are not legal defenses to an inverse condemnation action.