HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #18221  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 2:01 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yackemflaber69 View Post
First proposed in Summer '19. It has its own thread:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=239273
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18222  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 3:13 AM
Briguy Briguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 162
I guess fultonization is better than river-northification? IE very little podiums here at least
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18223  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 3:10 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
^ And the Fultonization continues
I'm not picking on you, but I hear a lot of complaints about "fultonization" and it grinds my gears. What they hell do we want to happen to our cities?

If you asked me what the ideal development pattern for Chicago would be I would say, "Umm... high density, high intensity mixed use development paralleling transit infrastructure in Loop adjacent neighborhoods coupled with historic preservation and pedestrian focus a half block offset from the new construction corridor?"

Sure the new stuff looks of a time and place, but it's almost all pretty-to-very high quality design and materials with massing that doesn't ruin the street environment. We should be so lucky all over, all the time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18224  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 3:36 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
I dont have a problem with the overall design elements but some of these buildings are now seemingly making clones of one another. I have an issue with that. A little variation in future design even within a particular style is welcome.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18225  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 3:40 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum View Post
I'm not picking on you, but I hear a lot of complaints about "fultonization" and it grinds my gears. What they hell do we want to happen to our cities?

If you asked me what the ideal development pattern for Chicago would be I would say, "Umm... high density, high intensity mixed use development paralleling transit infrastructure in Loop adjacent neighborhoods coupled with historic preservation and pedestrian focus a half block offset from the new construction corridor?"

Sure the new stuff looks of a time and place, but it's almost all pretty-to-very high quality design and materials with massing that doesn't ruin the street environment. We should be so lucky all over, all the time.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18226  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 4:03 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Briguy View Post
I guess fultonization is better than river-northification? IE very little podiums here at least
ABSOLUTELY!

say whatever you will about the repetitive design elements of many of these west loop developments, they're still light years better than the unrelenting wave of beige vertical turds that was unleashed upon river north in the '00s.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18227  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 4:11 PM
Toasty Joe Toasty Joe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
ABDOLUTELY!

say whatever you will about the repetitive design elements of many of these west loop developments, they're still light years better than the unrelenting wave of beige vertical turds that was unleashed upon river north in the '00s.
I wonder if we'll see any recladdings or paint jobs in the near future. Many already look dated and imagine they will look more so with One Chicago, Old Town Park, North Union, and up&coming West Loop urban living scene siphoning away residents
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18228  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 4:38 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum View Post
I'm not picking on you, but I hear a lot of complaints about "fultonization" and it grinds my gears. What they hell do we want to happen to our cities?

If you asked me what the ideal development pattern for Chicago would be I would say, "Umm... high density, high intensity mixed use development paralleling transit infrastructure in Loop adjacent neighborhoods coupled with historic preservation and pedestrian focus a half block offset from the new construction corridor?"

Sure the new stuff looks of a time and place, but it's almost all pretty-to-very high quality design and materials with massing that doesn't ruin the street environment. We should be so lucky all over, all the time.
The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18229  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 5:16 PM
joeg1985 joeg1985 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 324
It would indeed make for a more interesting city. You don't have to convince us. Talk to the folks with all the money behind the developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18230  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 6:11 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.
Agree. I really like the design that Hirsch came up with for 311 N Sangamon. Squared primary divisions in the facade, a nice rhythm to the fenestration, and just enough brick for material richness and texture and to tie it in with the neighborhood. And the design incorporates brick in a way that's honest about its place in the structure, as a purely decorative element. There is a slew of new construction in Fulton that has vast swaths of brick for "walls" and "piers" and the falseness of its application is readily apparent (and displeasing). 800 Fulton is actually one of the main offenders, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18231  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 6:28 PM
Toasty Joe Toasty Joe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
800 Fulton is actually one of the main offenders, IMO.
Yeah, but if it had kept the lighter brick and invested in it being real - it'd have been 10x better and more unique to the neighborhood.

And agreed with everything else, I'm really looking forward to seeing 906 W Randolph rise: https://chicagoyimby.com/2020/12/app...countdown.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18232  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 10:17 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.

Precisely this.

Fultonization is a thing - and it's bad. At the same time, as Briguy and Steely point out, it's important to maintain a relative sense of perspective. River Northification is worse, because it's a combination of not only crap design (albeit a different sort of bad from standard crap Fulton design), but crap massing, crap urban design, crap pedestrian experience, garages on steroids, etc etc etc.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18233  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 10:23 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe View Post
I'm really looking forward to seeing 906 W Randolph rise: https://chicagoyimby.com/2020/12/app...countdown.html


As am I - this may sound strange, but I like to see the rare square or nearly square floorplate residential tower, just in terms of tower massing variety in the skyline.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18234  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 12:21 AM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
As am I - this may sound strange, but I like to see the rare square or nearly square floorplate residential tower, just in terms of tower massing variety in the skyline.
I hope it gets axed. It's very cheesy and already looks dated (and hasn't been built yet).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18235  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 3:12 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
I think by some definitions this qualifies as a high rise. There is a zoning application up to tear down the existing 2 story brick building at 1229 W Randolph (& Willard Ct) and build a 7 story, 120 foot tall building in place with ground floor retail/commercial and office above. The developer is Thor Equities (NYC). Previous plans were to renovate the building and put something like a rooftop there. It looks like they're going a bit bolder now. This site is basically across the street from Alhambra Palace. The scanned in zoning app is black and white but it appears that the facade would be dark gray brick.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8841...7i16384!8i8192
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18236  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 3:43 AM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.
I'm a rabid fan of historic preservation, and I'm quite enjoying some of the "faux historic" stuff they are putting up. How exactly do these buildings hurt historic preservation? To me they galvanize historic preservation and they show that these styles are often preferred to soulless modern boxes.
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18237  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 5:30 AM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
I'm a rabid fan of historic preservation, and I'm quite enjoying some of the "faux historic" stuff they are putting up. How exactly do these buildings hurt historic preservation? To me they galvanize historic preservation and they show that these styles are often preferred to soulless modern boxes.
I'm not advocating for a bunch of soulless architecture. I just think that imitations diminish the authenticity and value of the original. I think it's much better to have contrast that highlights and draws attention to the authentic. I think this benefits preservation efforts because it's common sense that people are much less likely to get rid of something that is obviously unique than something that without more scrutiny appears to be ubiquitous.

This same sort of thinking is the reason why the design guidelines for new construction in the Michigan Avenue Historic District ask for contemporary designs that do not replicate historic designs.

Quote:
replacing non-contributing buildings of the current streetwall. The composition of historic and contemporary architecture can be dynamic, resulting in a richer visual environment, adding new life to the streetscape.

New construction must understand the relationship of its location and deal sensitively with the district’s historic resources when designing infill buildings. The Commission encourages sound contemporary design that respects the district’s existing architectural and historic qualities, but does not necessarily replicate historic designs.
from Guidelines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18238  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 5:46 PM
rgarri4's Avatar
rgarri4 rgarri4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,022
917 Fulton rendering in Crains

__________________
Renderings, Animations, VR
Youtube
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18239  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 6:15 PM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 519
Can someone please explain why they chose to add the glass and metal portion for the top two floors instead of two additional brick and glass floors? It doesn't look bad, but I think it would look more coherent with all brick. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18240  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 6:21 PM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 442
They're trying to make it look like they preserved an old warehouse and added a two-story modern addition on top. I'm sure it fools the average viewer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.