SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 195 N Columbus (LSE) | 502 FT | 47 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=213523)

bcp Oct 29, 2014 11:04 PM

^ this is where i just disagree...height has nothing do do with that...sterility / lack of relatability does not come from height or lack of setbacks - it comes from lack of density, unnecessary plazas, no articulation, no transparency in ground-level materials, and no activation.

parks and refuge? quality over quantity....chicago has quite a bit of green in my book. and it's not as if the city is THAT oppressive...i lived in NYC and whew...it can beat you down. I find walking by parking lots and massive setbacks much more exhausting than a busy, tall, no-setback street. let's let the city be the city...big and a bit messy.

HomrQT Oct 29, 2014 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 6786106)
I'm digging my own grave by saying this, but I wouldn't be opposed to completely covering the Water Tower's base in digital ads...

:stunned:

:runaway:
:goodnight:

I'm with you on that. Blank walls simply don't do anything for anyone. If they aren't going to be windows for someone to peer out of, then I agree they should be used for lights and screens that add some pizzazz to the area.

HomrQT Oct 30, 2014 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6785343)
^ Exactly what I thought... ;)

Anyhow, here's a question: what's wrong with overwhelming the pedestrian? There is always talk about having tall towers without "disrupting the human scale". Yes, I believe active street level activity is important (retail, for example), but beyond that, why is it wrong to have towers right up against the street?

Humans are feeble & whiny creatures. They are annoying, they are a distraction. They complain too much and talk too much about their feelings. They really don't deserve special consideration. Humans should be made to feel tiny & irrelevant. The greatest cities in the world always make people feel small. I want to feel small, because that makes me feel that the city I'm in has endless possibilities, and that I really have to strive to make it to the top. That's how one feels in Manhattan, and it works to that city's advantage.

I agree. Chicago should move forward and continue to awe and inspire and stop micro catering to the whims of the people in the immediate vicinity. This is a city striving for global excellence. As long as things are done intelligently with concern for street level access and activity, we should be building upwards and with density. If we don't continue to take those grand steps, we'll never truly compete with the global big dogs.

SamInTheLoop Oct 30, 2014 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 6787770)
^ this is where i just disagree...height has nothing do do with that...sterility / lack of relatability does not come from height or lack of setbacks - it comes from lack of density, unnecessary plazas, no articulation, no transparency in ground-level materials, and no activation.

parks and refuge? quality over quantity....chicago has quite a bit of green in my book. and it's not as if the city is THAT oppressive...i lived in NYC and whew...it can beat you down. I find walking by parking lots and massive setbacks much more exhausting than a busy, tall, no-setback street. let's let the city be the city...big and a bit messy.


This. All. Especially that last sentence....


^ And this. And TUP's.

LouisVanDerWright Oct 30, 2014 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 6787770)
^ this is where i just disagree...height has nothing do do with that...sterility / lack of relatability does not come from height or lack of setbacks - it comes from lack of density, unnecessary plazas, no articulation, no transparency in ground-level materials, and no activation.

parks and refuge? quality over quantity....chicago has quite a bit of green in my book. and it's not as if the city is THAT oppressive...i lived in NYC and whew...it can beat you down. I find walking by parking lots and massive setbacks much more exhausting than a busy, tall, no-setback street. let's let the city be the city...big and a bit messy.

I'm not saying there are some arbitrary height and setback requirements attached to making things human scaled. I'm saying a city consisting of entirely Aon buildings with plazas on every block would be absurdly sterile, just like the Marina is Dubai is. There is room for monumental architecture that overwhelms, but it doesn't work if the entire city consists of that style. We need a lot more of this:

http://studiogang.net/sites/default/...op2_BRIGHT.jpg
studiogang.net

It is still a very dense, sculptural building, but it has scale. It does not crush your soul. It doesn't really have setbacks, but it does have some more relatable details like the arcade and massing at ground level.

rlw777 Oct 30, 2014 8:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp (Post 6787770)
^ this is where i just disagree...height has nothing do do with that...sterility / lack of relatability does not come from height or lack of setbacks - it comes from lack of density, unnecessary plazas, no articulation, no transparency in ground-level materials, and no activation.

parks and refuge? quality over quantity....chicago has quite a bit of green in my book. and it's not as if the city is THAT oppressive...i lived in NYC and whew...it can beat you down. I find walking by parking lots and massive setbacks much more exhausting than a busy, tall, no-setback street. let's let the city be the city...big and a bit messy.

It seems like you're advocating poor design here simply because you like tall buildings squished together. I would suggest watching the following.

The Rookery: A Natural Light Challenge

wierdaaron Oct 30, 2014 8:45 PM

Soil trucks have been on-site every day this week. How long does that process take?

bcp Oct 31, 2014 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 6789050)
It seems like you're advocating poor design here simply because you like tall buildings squished together. I would suggest watching the following.

The Rookery: A Natural Light Challenge


That pic above is a great example...it's great because it has activity, transparency, articulation, and good materials. absolutely with you that a city full of Aon would be bad...i'm just arguing against plazas and setbacks just for the sake of them - it's the wrong fix. i'm all for open space, but quality over quantity (i'll take a small pocket park, or the highline canal over a huge new park that cuts the city off from the lake)

george Nov 25, 2014 1:19 AM

11/23

If it hasn't been mentioned already, I believe these trees are remnants from the driving range/golf course that once occupied the site.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/673/1X61zE.jpg

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/aSpMm2.jpg

munchymunch Jan 1, 2015 3:52 AM

Drawing by Koodoo

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=104525

Well done :multibow:

rlw777 Feb 3, 2015 3:57 PM

Hmm looks like a possible road block.

Downtown Skyscraper Could Hit the Skids Because of Feds

SamInTheLoop Feb 3, 2015 4:25 PM

^ Nah....

They were merely exploring this - at some point in the past (perhaps it's still under consideration) - as a small piece of the financing, afaik, and were certainly not depending on it. Not a big deal to have to go fully 'conventional' and in fact in imo likely preferable. That being stated, I've heard there may be a bit of a delay from a spring groundbreaking as there has to my knowledge been some shifting of the decks as far as the hotel flag(s). Nothing definite I can share at the moment......(except that one or both of JDV and Tommie are now gone).....my guess is it won't be too long before those i's are dotted and we have some announcements on this one.

The Sun-Times article does bring light some of the major problems with EB-5. I've always been skeptical of it for multiple reasons.

At any rate, I have to also add that the Chicago Architecture Blog has some jacked-up 'reporting'. They definitely occassionally have some great render reveals and some nice updates and reveal some detail that's newsworthy, however when it comes to interpreting and analyzing and characterizing, etc......well, I've been going to their site weekly for at least a year or two now, and critical thought in general isn't their strong suit, suffice it to say.............

........and then of course in the undiscerning world of today's internet echo chambers, I see that Curbed picked up the CAB 'story' here and ran with a similar idiotic headline....

123fakestreet Jun 2, 2015 8:06 PM

...

wierdaaron Jun 2, 2015 8:25 PM

I'll ask around. I've been wondering the same thing. Wanda might have pushed it back.

Notyrview Jun 2, 2015 8:27 PM

Might have to be a bit more patient than that - just cause there's been no news at all on this in a long time. It will happen though.

timpdx Jun 2, 2015 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george (Post 6819809)
11/23

If it hasn't been mentioned already, I believe these trees are remnants from the driving range/golf course that once occupied the site.

I played golf on that short course in 1995. Best city golf setting ever. (I'm not a golfer, just took swings with the clubs and swigs of some beers...):cheers:

wierdaaron Jun 4, 2015 9:57 PM

I've heard things are on track with this project, going through the approvals process. I guess the financing trouble rumors were wrong.

Notyrview Jun 5, 2015 11:19 AM

Sweet, thanks for sharing

SamInTheLoop Jun 5, 2015 5:03 PM

Good news - thanks for doing the digging and sharing. Yeah, those 'rumors' were never anchored in any sort of reality....see my post above - they revolved around the gimmicky, faddish and foolish EB-5 visa program, which hopefully will be tightened up dramatically some point soon.......also, I doubt the delay has anything at all to do with Wanda, as others have speculated. Plan was and is to have this one launch first - and by considerable margin.......Magellan and partners have the capacity - and the market timing at their back - to pull it all off....

So, other than the obvious question of what the hotel flags will now be, my question is: What does this one need to go through for approval? Is Reilly going to demand that it gets grouped in with Wanda and other changes that are necessary for an amended overall LSE PD (he alluded to this - not regarding 'O' specifically of course - at public Wanda meeting a couple months back), or can it get through before that process happens through administrative changes alone? I hope the latter, because if the former, that is likely - and most certainly will be going forward - at least one cause of continued delay with this project.....

munchymunch Aug 8, 2015 3:37 PM

Sorry to post this with no construction news, but BKL has a really nice rendering here.

http://bklarchitecture.com/wp-conten...ure_2015-2.pdf


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.