HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 2:21 AM
Clarkkent2420 Clarkkent2420 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 253
#

Last edited by Clarkkent2420; Sep 14, 2018 at 10:41 PM.
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 3:19 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,353
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.



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.
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 3:41 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
As someone who might be in the minority in actually liking the Soldier Field addition, this is not the same thing IMO. There more talented architects juxtaposed the old with something unambiguously modern, which I think is the way to go in these situations more often than not (see Hearst).

The Union Station addition is really just a dated federal office building in D.C. plopped on top of a landmark. You can justify however you'd like, but this is lazy and cheap (based on O'Donnell's comments) and not worthy of such a prime site.
I concur ...
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 4:22 AM
2PRUROCKS!'s Avatar
2PRUROCKS! 2PRUROCKS! is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 509
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.
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 11:01 AM
Clarkkent2420 Clarkkent2420 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 253
#

Last edited by Clarkkent2420; Sep 14, 2018 at 10:41 PM.
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 2:48 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.



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 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!
__________________
For you - Bane
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 3:11 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,034
^ Typical SSP complaint, it’s ugly and not tall enough...

http://i68.tinypic.com/14jrxjq.jpg
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by Tom In Chicago; Jun 27, 2018 at 5:53 PM.
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 3:17 PM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 582
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.
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 3:29 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,136
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
__________________
For you - Bane
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 3:32 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,034
^ 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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Jun 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM.
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 4:15 PM
Jim in Chicago Jim in Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
"Chicago Illinois Union Station House, an Autograph Collection Hotel Extended Stay Urban Luxury Concept, by Marriott"

Hopefully in some enormous and terrible font illuminated at night on all four sides of the addition. Blocking a bunch of windows too.
The second part of your post reminds me than another option is TRUMP
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 4:27 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
^ Typical SSP complaint, it’s ugly and not tall enough...

http://i68.tinypic.com/14jrxjq.jpg
Quality over quantity, in food and design.

(And most people would benefit from much smaller portions anyway.)
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Tom In Chicago; Jun 27, 2018 at 5:53 PM.
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 4:34 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,353
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.
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 4:49 PM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,585
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.
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 4:57 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by patriotizzy View Post
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.
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 7:32 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire View Post
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
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)
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 8:25 PM
Cheap_Shot Cheap_Shot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 69


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.
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 8:35 PM
donnie's Avatar
donnie donnie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 583
Every time i see the new proposal i throw up a little bit.
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 9:04 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,901
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.
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - New York City - 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
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 9:12 PM
Ned.B Ned.B is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 588
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.
     
     
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 2:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.