#

The way the architect explained it last night was that they looked at the original Union Station complex of both headhouse and concourse: one building neoclassical and one more industrial/Crystal Palace in feeling.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YQp-H_1LO...B/s1600/32.jpg

Thinking about that exposed structure led them to look at "Second Chicago School" solutions. There are a couple of hops in that logic, but that was the explanation.

I think Lynn Becker is very much on point with his description of the design as "viable." As in what depth is required to make double-loaded corridors of apartments viable in this envelope of space. That depth is what forces the cantilevers, which in turn requires the beltline floor.

I concur ...

I concur as well. While not perfect I rather like Soldier Field. This design however is abysmal. It looks top heavy and stuck in between. A far better strategy would be to do a compatible design inspired by the original vision like Lagrange proposed or do something completely bold and new like Herst Tower or Soldier Field. This design is the worst of all possible options.

#

I can't believe we have someone defending this pathetic excuse for a design, but it being Mr. Dt isn't all too surprising. Even if you think their explanation isn't bad, you must admit that the execution of their theory leaves much to be desired. It's so damn squat!

^ Typical SSP complaint, it’s ugly and not tall enough...

http://i68.tinypic.com/14jrxjq.jpg

At any rate, doing nothing to Union Station seems preferable to this design. The previous two-tower version was OK. Pedestrian, unexciting, sure, but inoffensive at least.

Maybe they could just leave Union Station alone, transfer all the FAR entitlements or whatever to 222 Riverside, tear that down, fix the platform and concourse levels (including adding through tracks) and then just build something GIGANTIC on top of the tracks at 222.

For Phase 1, build one of the towers planned for the adjacent blocks and relocate 222's tenants there.

ardecila, it is ugly, and it is 7 floors of squat on a pedestal that was designed for something much taller. You can bitch that it's an overused critique, but it isn't wrong. I guess we have 2 people who like it now, you and Mr. Dt

^ I don't love the design, I just don't get the hysteria against. It's bland and forgettable, ergo I will forget about it after it goes up. It doesn't really alter the appearance of the station inside or out.

The only reason I'm in favor is that it enables a full top-to-bottom renovation of the historic parts of the headhouse, which needs to happen yesterday. If they wanted to put a giant stovepipe hat on top of the headhouse, I would support it so they can get renovations underway before the historic station crumbles any further.

If I could go back in a time machine I would tell Burnham to build a dedicated station without plans for an enormous commercial highrise on top, let the station be a low-rise jewel box among giants like Grand Central Terminal. But Burnham did provide a beautiful concourse that was supposed to be the jewel box, and then a few decades later Penn Central decided to build an office tower in place of the concourse instead of the headhouse where a tower was supposed to be. I assume this was because the foundation capacity in the headhouse would not support a true highrise, and fluorescent lighting made light court towers obsolete and inefficient.

The second part of your post reminds me than another option is TRUMP

Quality over quantity, in food and design.

(And most people would benefit from much smaller portions anyway.)

Some of you guys should read for comprehension. I believe the closest I've come to praising this design is calling it "inoffensive."

As for the history, first, Daniel Burnham had virtually nothing to do with Chicago Union Station, except recommending that one be built. When he died in 1912, all that had been done was a parti sketched out by Thomas Rodd of the Pennsylvania R.R. The design that got built was by a successor firm to the successor firm to D.H. Burnham & Co.

During construction, the railroads decided to add the office building over the headhouse, and they actually had to go back and redo the building foundations (at no little expense) to allow that. A few years later, they concluded there was no market for so much office space west of the river and dropped that part of the plan.

Fifty years later, no one wanted 50-foot-deep square-doughnut office floorplates, but Penn Central controlled an entire block next to the river where a modern office tower could go, and saw no future for that big empty concourse. Only two years later, of course, Amtrak decided Union Station would be the station to use in Chicago, and five years later RTA was created to preserve and expand suburban train operations.

Can we start a petition? I think we can get enough signatures/comments from this thread alone to gather further attention to the desecration of Chicago's old beauty.

This.

My feelings exactly. I don't mind that its short (although I think more height probably would help moderate the weird look and proportions of this proposal), but it really is pretty damn ugly. If this was just a forgettable box somewhere else in the neighborhood, fine. It might even fit in with all the other econoboxes. But this is going to sit literally on top of Union Station, which is a gorgeous landmark, and a highly visible one for the city with all the Metra and Amtrak train riders. I do feel that the architects can do better, and I certainly hope they listen to all the critique this is getting. (Not SSP, other more legitimate sources lol)

https://i.imgur.com/OXuKA4Qh.jpg

Taken 6/27

Also, hard to tell in this photo, but every few weeks, there have been teams of guys in suits/business casual up on the roof walking around with what look to be like more construction oriented workers (jeans, boots, etc.). There's a small group in the NW corner in this photo.

Could be part of the restoration that's been underway for a while, or related to the new proposal.

Every time i see the new proposal i throw up a little bit.

A question for those who have actually been involved in serious proposals for major construction projects - how much does public opinion actually sway a developer? Do they even use public criticism to adjust their process at all or is it typically a closed group of architects, engineers, contractors etc and they don't generally care what the public has to say? Because everywhere I turn people are talking about how horrible this addition is.

Goettsch most likely shared the news on their Linkedin in support of their client the developers, as they are still the architect of the yet to be revealed office tower. Goettsch has also been involved in most of the restoration and renovation work at the station over the last eight years. Based on their work at LondonHouse, Viceroy, etc and having actual preservation people in their office, they probably would have come up with a more sensitive solution. But the project is where it is now...SCB seems to do a lot of work for Convexity, so it could have been Convexity's involvement that pulled SCB onto the project.

I've also heard that while the Headhouse was built to accommodate the weight of 12 additional floors, the historic building doesn't have the lateral bracing or a traditional core in order to support modern construction methods, and that is what has complicated this project and all of the previous proposals.