SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   CHICAGO | NEMA Chicago | 896 FT | 81 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218570)

UPChicago Sep 24, 2015 11:43 PM

just because
http://i61.tinypic.com/34yprg8.jpg

wierdaaron Sep 24, 2015 11:51 PM

Unfortunately that precedent of town homes was started like 150 years ago.

2PRUROCKS! Sep 25, 2015 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 7174355)
I think most people here would agree that "bulky and boxy" are complimentary qualities for Chicago architecture. And how many buildings can truly be characterized as "ground-breaking"? Like, made a noticeable impact on all architecture to follow? Among everything ever built-- even among only the buildings we praise? Not many. Much more often than not, in any field, progress occurs incrementally, and the contribution of a single actor is minimal. I don't think that's a bad thing. Not that we shouldn't all, you know, shoot for the stars (or whatever hackneyed metaphor you want to use), but I think too often, and especially in architecture, saying that something is "ground-breaking" is really just another way of saying that it's novel, which is itself often just shorthand for "look at all those zany shapes!"

So that doesn't bother me much.

I'm with you on twins, though. I hate twin towers. The only exceptions I can think of are Mies' LSD apartments. But like others have said I doubt that one will get built anytime soon, and, when it does, I'm sure the design will have changed.

I get that many may like boxy, brawny buildings. They aren't my preferred style. I prefer tall and thin and I tend to like skyscrapers with tapering forms like JHC and pointy decorative tops (I believe skyscrapers area usually better when they make a final forceful statement at their apex hence my fondness for 2 Prudential, Smurfit-Stone Container, and the Chrysler Building). I also tend to gravitate towards buildings with curves like Marina City (an exception to my twin dislike) and Lake Point tower. All of these buildings were truly ground braking when they were built or have at least become icons of their skylines. Overall I like variety however, and I wouldn't want an entire skyline full of buildings like I just described nor of boxy bulks which I feel Chicago is tending towards. People say this is very Chicago, but Chicago skyscrapers haven't always been that way (look at photos from the 1920's) or the examples I mentioned above which are all very Chicago (Chrysler excepted). To me Chicago architecture especially when it is high profile (which this is) should be innovative, unique, high quality and functional.

I am ok with phase 1 but I really hope phase 2 isn't built as currently designed. My negative reaction was largely fueled by many of the early overly effervescent, hyperbolic posts after the reveal saying these would be instant icons and all other architects should put down their pencils and redesign their buildings after this. These designs are not ground breaking and I highly doubt they will be considered icons of Chicago architecture. The trellis structures on the tops look like a cheep lazy after thought. Something that could be purchased at a big box home improvement store in the same section the Elysian's mansard roof was acquired at. The façade could turn out well if good materials are used. This means very transparent glass with little to no reflectivity and the white portions either need to be real limestone or high quality precast that doesn't try to mimic real stone like that on the Museum of Contemporary Art or the Roosevelt University tower. However, the sunset rendering gives the glass a brownish gold reflective hue that I hope is just an inaccuracy in the rendering. It reminds me too much of an unfortunate direction late 70's and early 80's modernism took or some twisted combination of Trump World Tower in NY and Trump's hideous gold monstrosity in Vegas.

2PRUROCKS! Sep 25, 2015 12:50 AM

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjnjC4HCIAA4wRl.jpg

I would love to see something like this built at the corner on Michigan and Roosevelt, with the pointy side right at the Michigan and Roosevelt corner and the sloped side facing south east toward the Lake similar to Smurfit-Stone.

VKChaz Sep 25, 2015 1:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 7176393)
Unfortunately that precedent of town homes was started like 150 years ago.

I personally think it can make sense to construct some filler-type townhomes or detached homes in certain locations to the south of there, partly to honor the history of the area (e.g,. the Prairie District). It is the large-scale, walled-off townhome developments immediately to the south that I find problematic.

pilsenarch Sep 25, 2015 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS! (Post 7176440)
...This means very transparent glass with little to no reflectivity and the white portions either need to be real limestone or high quality precast that doesn't try to mimic real stone like that on the Museum of Contemporary Art or the Roosevelt University tower...

MCA is mostly cast aluminum panels with AFAIK a limestone base.

Roosevelt?, Meaning the VOA blue glass tower? The relatively small precast volume to the north comprised of large black precast panels... don't think it's attempting to mimic anything other than large black precast panels...

Notyrview Sep 25, 2015 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPChicago (Post 7176385)

If that all happens, covering the tracks can't be more than a generation away.

Mr Downtown Sep 25, 2015 12:41 PM

^How would a developer make money from covering the tracks north of Roosevelt?

BVictor1 Sep 25, 2015 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7176852)
^How would a developer make money from covering the tracks north of Roosevelt?

By building towers atop them as they've planned... From Roosevelt to 15th the decking was to be a park and from there south to McCormick Place was to be towers.


Vinyl's design is shreaded in this Crain's article.

If you Google the name of the article, you can usually get around the paywall.


http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...not-in-chicago

September 25, 2015
REVIEW
Architect Rafael Vinoly has done good work—just not in Chicago
By: EDWARD KEEGAN

Quote:

There's a little irony in the fact that New York-based architect Rafael Vinoly's design for two tall buildings at the south end of Grant Park were unveiled just days after his 20 Fenchurch Street high-rise in London won the Carbuncle Cup.

That's an annual “award” given by U.K.-based Building Design magazine for “the ugliest building in the United Kingdom completed in the last 12 months.” That building is better known as “the Walkie-Talkie” because of its uncanny resemblance to that outdated mode of communication. It's probably even better known for the “death rays” its concave glass facade created in the summer of 2013—melting parts of luxury automobiles parked on nearby streets.

The design Vinoly has revealed for the site at 113 E. Roosevelt Road eschews the curves that created the destructive forces in the London's tower, but the aesthetic shown by the new site isn't going to do Chicago's renowned skyline any favors.

At 829 feet, the 76-story building of the pair would be the tallest structure in the rapidly growing South Loop neighborhood, which already is a mishmash of old and new construction; good, bad and mediocre design. (That is, unless an 86-story Helmut Jahn tower gets built in the South Loop.) Vinoly has proposed two towers that eventually would fill the block between Michigan and Indiana avenues. Each tower is composed of a series of square tubes—reminiscent of the design for Sears Tower.

Notyrview Sep 25, 2015 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7176852)
^How would a developer make money from covering the tracks north of Roosevelt?

I wasn't thinking about a developer, but that could be part of the mix. I was thinking about people like those in SOAR and the city and maybe one of those so-called public private partnerships.

brian_b Sep 25, 2015 1:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7176860)
By building towers atop them as they've planned... From Roosevelt to 15th the decking was to be a park and from there south to McCormick Place was to be towers.

I doubt it happens for at least 100 years. Too many existing buildings now have 99-year easements granting them air rights above the tracks. You could build townhomes or low-rises in the space below the air rights, but how could you make that economically feasible?

BVictor1 Sep 25, 2015 1:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_b (Post 7176884)
I doubt it happens for at least 100 years. Too many existing buildings now have 99-year easements granting them air rights above the tracks. You could build townhomes or low-rises in the space below the air rights, but how could you make that economically feasible?

The developers own the air rights. None of those townhouses have the right to anything over there.

Notyrview Sep 25, 2015 1:25 PM

Dude. The idea is not to build towers! Ugh. It's to make a park.

BVictor1 Sep 25, 2015 2:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview (Post 7176906)
Dude. The idea is not to build towers! Ugh. It's to make a park.

I don't know if you were talking to me, but dude...

The park only would stretch as far south as like 16th Street. From 16th south to McCormick Place is supposedly one day supposed to be towers.

http://pdnachicago.com/media%20artic...mnents/AC3.pdf

http://gapersblock.com/ac/gateway2ue5.jpg

Notyrview Sep 25, 2015 2:27 PM

No, that was a general existential "dude" of despair. I was referring to the tracks north of R. I'd love to see towers south of there.

pilsenarch Sep 25, 2015 2:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7176860)

September 25, 2015
REVIEW
Architect Rafael Vinoly has done good work—just not in Chicago
By: EDWARD KEEGAN

I am always suspicious of such very early and seemingly decisive criticism...

I think what Vinoly was suggesting when he said he did not intend for this building(s) to be iconic, is that he wants it to be beautiful in a way that is derived from its function and detail and not from overt gymnastics...

regardless, it is IMO way too early to be making such decisive judgements about this design...

ChiHi Sep 25, 2015 4:28 PM

I can't help but look at this thing and think that it looks like a much larger version of the Columbus Plaza at 233 E Wacker. Love the height but even a little effort to be creative or innovative with the design wouldn't have hurt.

brian_b Sep 25, 2015 6:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7176958)
I don't know if you were talking to me, but dude...

The park only would stretch as far south as like 16th Street. From 16th south to McCormick Place is supposedly one day supposed to be towers.

http://pdnachicago.com/media%20artic...mnents/AC3.pdf

That PDF says 12 towers from Roosevelt to 18th, not Roosevelt to McCormick Place. Then you say it will be park from Roosevelt to 16th.

That leaves 16th to 18th open for development. Really? Not gonna happen any time soon, that's for sure. Not with the Air Line there.

Well, ok, if the city pays for a connection between 18th and LSD and 15th and Prairie/Indiana, then someone might be able to make an economic case for some development along that road.

SamInTheLoop Sep 25, 2015 7:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKChaz (Post 7176503)
I personally think it can make sense to construct some filler-type townhomes or detached homes in certain locations to the south of there, partly to honor the history of the area (e.g,. the Prairie District). It is the large-scale, walled-off townhome developments immediately to the south that I find problematic.


Definitely agree with you here. For example, in my case, although I was very pro-X/O when it was proposed, I'm not necessarily offended by the idea of townhomes (now being built by Golub and a JV partner) on that site. I'm absolutely offended, however, by the idea of only townhomes on this significant parcel at Indiana/13th. That is way too far under highest and best use, and as mentioned makes part of the South Grant Park Wall merely a veneer - when it should be backed along its length fairly thick with towers.....

andydie Sep 26, 2015 3:25 PM

love the proposal! much better than what was planned there before and very Chicago Style. Lets hope they build both towers :cheers:


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:46 PM.

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