HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #281  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2014, 4:27 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
I was so charmed with downtown yesterday (hadn't seen it in 2 years) that I think this tower can be absorbed by Streeterville without ruining it. It might complement all the new glass ok. When Gang's tower is built, it definitely won't matter.

I hope you're right. Still, Streeterville deserves much better than Stern, especially for something that will be a focal point of this part of the skyline. I actually hope - not through aldermanic force, but I just hold out hope that something will happen -to make this tower a couple hundred feet shorter, at least. Otherwise, it would be too prominent for this garbage. Stern buildings are perhaps at their least worst when they are minimally noticeable - sort of a fade into the background mid-rise or shorter high-rise stature, eg what the planned size of Parkview East originally was......that's the ideal size for a Stern building if taken for granted that one is going to be built. The smaller the pile of steaming sloppy dogshit, generally I find the better.....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Sep 22, 2014 at 6:53 PM.
     
     
  #282  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2014, 4:29 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post

Looking through my 30-year-old files on Cityfront Center (which includes both NBC Tower and this site), I was reminded that the internal (but mandatory) design standards said buildings must have tripartite division (distinctive base-shaft-top) and be clad in natural stone, masonry, or precast concrete, in naturally occurring colors. Buildings with façades predominantly of glass are discouraged, and there’s a 40% limit on glass on building bases. I'm not sure why Park View at the west end of the park didn't observe those guidelines; perhaps they no longer apply for some reason.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes - they clearly do no longer apply!
They were quite silly to begin with - and at any rate, design guidelines from the height of PoMo (ok, maybe like ~5 years before the height of PoMo) are best dealt with by being worked around, ignored or repealed in general......
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #283  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2014, 10:49 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes - they clearly do no longer apply!
They were quite silly to begin with - and at any rate, design guidelines from the height of PoMo (ok, maybe like ~5 years before the height of PoMo) are best dealt with by being worked around, ignored or repealed in general......
I generally agree... Cooper Robertson wrote the guidelines, and they were easily one of the most prominent PoMo urban design firms.

The materials guidelines might not make sense today, but at the time, the alternative to "traditional materials" was the typical boring-ass 1980s glass box, usually with hefty amounts of glare and oilcanning. I don't blame PoMo designers for seeking alternatives, considering the massive rut that Modernism fell into by 1975 or so.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #284  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 2:01 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,331
I object to the term PoMo to describe contextualism. We were trying to avoid the mistakes of Illinois Center, and Cooper Eckstut's work on Battery Park City was widely admired. Surely no one would deride that as PoMo.
     
     
  #285  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2014, 3:59 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
^ Sorry, it's PoMo. Contextual - only if you mean in the context of other proximate PoMo? Some things are worth forgetting, and rejecting to the trash heap - such as architecture in the 80s (and holdover early 90s). The music and movies were fun and campy and all, but the design, well, we can do without....


I guess when it comes down to it, all I'm trying to say is that PoMo sucks, as does Stern - and he's also a major hack.......at least he's of pretty advanced age - I guess that could be construed as a positive......
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #286  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 10:56 AM
vandelay vandelay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 871
Adds some much needed diversity and elegance to an area dominated by mediocre 80s and 90s boxes.
     
     
  #287  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 11:43 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandelay View Post
Adds some much needed diversity and elegance to an area dominated by mediocre 80s and 90s boxes.
Across the street .....
__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
     
     
  #288  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 3:24 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandelay View Post
Adds some much needed diversity and elegance to an area dominated by mediocre 80s and 90s boxes.



Robert AM Stern does not do elegance. Stern is an (inner - or outer) rube's idea of what constitutes elegance.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
     
     
  #289  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 3:48 PM
vandelay vandelay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryc View Post
Across the street .....
Nice early 90s box towering over that warehouse.
     
     
  #290  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2014, 11:57 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I object to the term PoMo to describe contextualism. We were trying to avoid the mistakes of Illinois Center, and Cooper Eckstut's work on Battery Park City was widely admired. Surely no one would deride that as PoMo.
I wasn't trying to deride this style of urban design. Battery Park City is indeed well-done, and Cityfront Center would have turned out well too if we didn't have this blight of parking podiums. Admittedly River View did screen with townhomes.

Unfortunately the public spaces of Cityfront are just as empty as those in Illinois Center. They just have more red brick (and in some cases more hoboes). Part of this is the lack of offices... broader transportation decisions kept Streeterville isolated and turned it into a bedroom community outside of Northwestern. There's no daytime activity. Same problem killed offices in Lakeshore East and Central Station.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #291  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2014, 4:13 AM
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,648
^will the dream of the circle line ever be?
     
     
  #292  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2014, 6:11 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,667
This isn't really a transit thread but the Circle Line had no impact on Streeterville or any other part of downtown.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #293  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2014, 7:27 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,761
When were they aiming to get this one going? It would be cool to have this 545 mcclurg and optima II all going at once.
     
     
  #294  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 1:40 PM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,070
SOAR Strikes, in a good way

Quote:
The minions at Robert A.M. Stern Associates in New York have been refining the design of the 843-foot-tall building to make it more palatable to Chicago tastes. Does that mean the final design will look less Park Avenue and more Milwaukee Avenue? That remains to be seen. But we can get some hints about the changes coming down the pike from the people over at SOAR.
SOAR, which has earner a reputation over the years for shooting down many skyscraper projects, has actually given this one its blessing. Its poo-bahs spent some time going over the Stern plans and according to a letter the organization sent to 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly, the developer agreed to make a few changes. Among them:
The condominium entrance will be placed on East Grand Avenue, and the apartment-dwellers will enter on North Peshtigo Court. No nasty mixing of the two classes of people like at other buildings.
There will be fewer residents to mix, anyway. The number of residences in the building has been reduced from the initially announced 450 down to 350.
It looks like there will be mechanical elements on the East Illinois and North Peshtigo sides of the building, necessitating blank walls. SOAR tells the alderman that Related has pledged to light the building in an interesting fashion, and landscape the walls to soften their impact on the local streetscape. “This highly trafficked area is important to the pedestrian’s experience along Illinois.”
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2...big-thumbs-up/

I mean I hope it can be a little better, they're still using shit materials though. The loss of units also means a height reduction, maybe?
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
     
     
  #295  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 3:21 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 786
How much of a height reduction do we expect? 100-150'?
     
     
  #296  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 3:34 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,392
I'm sure the design is only getting worse. It is probably only 700'ish now and I'm sure is just as hideous. They aren't changing any of actual bad design elements like the blank walls on the base, they are just reducing the size of the building which was really the only remarkable thing about this design in the first place... Related is literally the worst developer operating in Chicago.
     
     
  #297  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 3:56 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
I'm sure the design is only getting worse. It is probably only 700'ish now and I'm sure is just as hideous. They aren't changing any of actual bad design elements like the blank walls on the base, they are just reducing the size of the building which was really the only remarkable thing about this design in the first place... Related is literally the worst developer operating in Chicago.
^ This. All of this.

A shorter turd will still be a turd, albeit far less impressive.
     
     
  #298  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 4:07 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Yep, doesn't look like anything earth-shattering will change, only the height will be less.

Of course, on the flip side I wonder how much Related will lower the height given the fact that a building taller than 500 N LSD just east of it is essentially crucial for good views of Lake Michigan and condo values? Perhaps they won't shave the height off much (or at all!) and just market larger units?
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12
     
     
  #299  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 4:09 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,971
^The height is not less.

The height has gone from the original 825' to 843'.

Where did you all get the idea there would be a height reduction?
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #300  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2014, 4:15 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 BVictor1 View Post
Where did you all get the idea there would be a height reduction?
^ Well, it's just an assumption based on the likelihood that there will be 100 fewer units.
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:51 PM.

     

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