CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 809

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**16161** Posted **Jul 19, 2012, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by killaviews

Finally, IIT will no longer be the only major university in the city (the U.S.?) without a building under construction.

http://www.iit.edu/news/iittoday/?p=5662

Great news! IIT has such a prominent location but it's underutilized. Looks like they're taking a page out of Learning From Las Vegas and finally using architecture as a way of advertising their presence to the tens of thousands of people who use the Dan Ryan each day. Alongside the Main Building and Machinery Hall, a nice streetwall will be created.

Vlajos · #**16162** Posted **Jul 19, 2012, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

Luxe hotel planned for former Chicago Athletic Association

By: Alby GallunJuly 19, 2012

12 S. Michigan Ave. Photo from CoStar Group Inc.

(Crain's) — Chicago-based developer AJ Capital Partners LLC has teamed up with hotelier John Pritzker to convert the former Chicago Athletic Association building across from Millennium Park into a luxury hotel with as many as 260 rooms.

...

Read more: http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.co...#ixzz216Mo1kz8

Great use for the building. A hotel should do extremely well there.

bnk · #**16163** Posted **Jul 19, 2012, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Great use for the building. A hotel should do extremely well there.

Still I was conserned when the figure of 260 rooms was put out.

Quote:

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....investmen.html

July 19, 2012

What happens now to the Chicago Athletic Association building?

BY BLAIR KAMIN

Reuters has picked up on the Bloomberg News scoop that John Pritzker, son of the late Hyatt hotels chief Jay Pritzker, is joining with an investment company to buy the Chicago Athletic Association, the Henry Ives Cobb-designed Venetian Gothic gem at 12 S. Michigan Ave, and turn it into a boutique hotel. But this isn't just a real estate story.

Several years ago, a developer planned to hack off the rear two-thirds of the building as part of a plan for a new hotel. That drew a rebuke from local preservationists and

...

In an interview, Fine told me: "It’s our understanding that this concept is a much less invasive, much less destructive proposal" than the previous plan. "It’s a proposal," he added, "that does the least amount of harm to the historic fabric of the building."

Andrew|W · #**16164** Posted **Jul 19, 2012, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

Still I was conserned when the figure of 260 rooms was put out.

This includes the annex too, right? The annex is 20 floors tall, 17 of which have decent size windows. If they could fit 10-12 hotel rooms per floor (only 3 would have good views, the others looking into the sides of neighboring buildings), you have 170 to 204 rooms there.

260 rooms sounds possible without enormous high rise additions or destroying all of the significant interior spaces.

Rizzo · #**16165** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 1:14 AM**

Yes it includes the annex. Plenty of space for rooms. I'm certain the structure fronting Michigan Ave will retain much of it's interior features.

Rizzo · #**16166** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 3:42 AM**

Esquire conversion continues along the Oak Street Mall

ardecila · #**16167** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 5:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I don't get that from the Crain's story; do you have some other source?

The LaSalle Park PD was supposed to require a community park big enough for a ballfield, and that's already gotten shaved down to a little dogshit square. I don't think I can countenance it just becoming a little landscaping on a roof, or a private soccer field.

Did you miss the part where Fioretti talks about the loss of green space? Maybe I'm confused; I thought all the land between the loading docks at Taylor and the segment of 9th, Wells to the Rock Island would be a Great Lawn. Has this been downsized? Right now it's all mud, so I don't know how it's been divvied up.

Is there really a need for low-quality greenspace abutting a rail viaduct? It would be nicer to have a series of small plaza spaces, like the ones in Adrian Smith's plan for Franklin Point. Sucks for the kids, but they've got Grant and Ping Tom.

Quote:

The planned development for the Roosevelt Collection calls for the developer to create park land that the Chicago Park District would own and operate, so McCaffery is likely to be asked to provide more than a small rooftop park as part of the project.

[Fioretti] says he “will not allow open space to disappear. We have to make up the space.”

denizen467 · #**16168** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 5:48 AM**

Do we have an architect name on the IIT project?
The 35th/Dan Ryan area is really getting to be an interesting (non-downtown) urban expressway streetscape, as with the new Rush building on the Ike. Drivers will know they've really arrived in the city without having to wait until the Sears Tower is virtually on top of them (an unfortunate but common misconception).
Now if only the Sox campus side will reciprocate with something interesting following IIT's turn.

george · #**16169** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 1:45 PM**

7-20
Starbucks on Rush

george · #**16170** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 3:04 PM**

Columbia College 618 S Michigan Ave

Mr Downtown · #**16171** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 3:13 PM**

^You probably can't quite see, but the frit pattern is birds of differing sizes.

Rizzo · #**16172** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

All was good till the flashing detail went up. Ewwww

Wish they did a stone coping at the top. Should've used a taller fascia beam to conceal that awful headwall detail

Andrew|W · #**16173** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^You probably can't quite see, but the frit pattern is birds of differing sizes.

I like how there isn't a backer to the spandrel sections of the curtainwall, letting the rugged remainder of the original front wall peak through. It will be interesting to see how they detail the actual window openings behind. I am assuming this will be a double facade of sorts.

Rizzo · #**16174** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew|W

I like how there isn't a backer to the spandrel sections of the curtainwall, letting the rugged remainder of the original front wall peak through. It will be interesting to see how they detail the actual window openings behind. I am assuming this will be a double facade of sorts.

I was curious about that as well. Essentially, the whole glass wall is insulating so the inside can be whatever it wants to be. But, there's no indication of a fire stop between levels, so there will probably be a second layer of rated glazing within those openings

ardecila · #**16175** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

All was good till the flashing detail went up. Ewwww

Wish they did a stone coping at the top. Should've used a taller fascia beam to conceal that awful headwall detail

I don't mind the metal coping in this case, it outlines the top of the building with a crisp gray line. The detailing around the canopy is definitely clumsy though...

This is not tackling the larger issue of the way the building pulls back from its neighbors and the weird 2-story height. A third story would have been nice, even if it was a fake one with a Starbucks billboard.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**16176** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

The detailing around the canopy is definitely clumsy though...

It looks shoddy, too.

Andrew|W · #**16177** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is not tackling the larger issue of the way the building pulls back from its neighbors and the weird 2-story height.

Are we talking about the space to the left of the building? As access to the Back Room, it either belongs to the building next door or is some sort of narrow public easement. I'm sure Starbucks would have built right up to the neighboring building and have saved themselves the cost of finishing and weatherproofing an additional facade if they could.

Rizzo · #**16178** Posted **Jul 20, 2012, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew|W

Are we talking about the space to the left of the building? As access to the Back Room, it either belongs to the building next door or is some sort of narrow public easement. I'm sure Starbucks would have built right up to the neighboring building and have saved themselves the cost of finishing and weatherproofing an additional facade if they could.

It was a gangway at one time that backroom now has control over. It connects to another gangway from Oak that's restricted access. Though I can only think of two times I've had to unlock the gate that's normally kept open.

denizen467 · #**16179** Posted **Jul 22, 2012, 5:27 AM**

City Winery has made its presence known on Randolph with newly-installed signage. The new addition portion is still not entirely enclosed and you can still see some of the interior. I forget if they open by the end of this year or sometime next year, though (as they will be making wine there as well as hosting performances, a lot of interior buildout presumably remains to be done).

montasauraus · #**16180** Posted **Jul 22, 2012, 5:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467

City Winery has made its presence known on Randolph with newly-installed signage. The new addition portion is still not entirely enclosed and you can still see some of the interior. I forget if they open by the end of this year or sometime next year, though (as they will be making wine there as well as hosting performances, a lot of interior buildout presumably remains to be done).

According to the Chicago Journal they hope to open as early as August 1st

City Winery opening Aug. 1
West Loop venue and restaurant will debut with Lewis Black
http://www.chicagojournal.com/Blogs/...opening_Aug._1