CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[george]

Good update shots of 8O5 LaSalle, Jibba. I also like the way they handled the concrete wall, vents, trees... form follows function. However on that high profile corner, the interaction of a more storefront feeling context would have been appreciated. The current design solution is more appropriate for a well traveled alley.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Today from Rush

Not the greatest detail, but you can see many tower cranes or buildings sprouting up all around town.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ But a blank wall at street level is a blank fucking wall at street level. I don't want blank walls to "be themselves" when we are trying to build an interesting, pedestrian-friendly environment. I guess I'll never be able to accept that.

I agree. A wall that ruins the pedestrian experience is nothing more than a crappy wall, regardless of its adherence to an orthodoxy. Would anyone really be happy if an entire city was made up of this? When "form follows function" is simply used as a justification for doing nothing, then we need to question the application of the principle.

[marothisu]

Was coming in off the expressway today at the Ohio St exit - that Grand/Milwaukee tower is starting to rise and you can actually see a little bit of it from there now.

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Was coming in off the expressway today at the Ohio St exit - that Grand/Milwaukee tower is starting to rise and you can actually see a little bit of it from there now.

I noticed it yesterday too, that thing is going to be massive, and will kind of stick out like a sore thumb for the moment

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

I agree. A wall that ruins the pedestrian experience is nothing more than a crappy wall, regardless of its adherence to an orthodoxy. Would anyone really be happy if an entire city was made up of this? When "form follows function" is simply used as a justification for doing nothing, then we need to question the application of the principle.

yes, thank you. trying to justify it as the building "being itself" just seems like making an excuse for a shitty design.

"woah, look at this 2,000 space surface parking lot! its terrible urban planning, but they poured nice concrete and its expressing its function beautifully. A+!"

no one enjoys these kinds of oppressive street level experiences. we built this city right the first time, but we seem very intent on making it an alienating place.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

^
trying to justify it as the building "being itself" just seems like making an excuse for a shitty design.

"woah, look at this 2,000 space parking lot! its not really great urban planning, but its expressing its function beautifully. A+!"

That's an exploitation and a sophistic interpretation of the rationale--you've simply stripped the opinion down to the minimum sentiment. It's a matter of degree and circumstance, not just of type.

If there has to be a garage, and if the programmatic and site requirements are such as to have its face street-side, then their solution is good because it is elegant (for what it is) and honest so far as it's not some tarted-up simulacrum.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Jibba

That's an exploitation and a sophistic interpretation of the rationale--you've simply stripped the opinion down to the minimum sentiment. It's a matter of degree and circumstance, not just of type.

If there has to be a garage, and if the programmatic and site requirements are such as to have its face street-side, then their solution is good because it is elegant (for what it is) and honest so far as it's not some tarted-up simulacrum.

their "solution" is a blank concrete wall with massive exhaust vents looming over the sidewalk. if you consider this elegant i suppose youre entitled to that but i will have to disagree.

[Jibba]

To me, visually, yes, it is elegant. Aesthetics are, of course, a matter of opinion, so it will stay just that. But for having a street-facing garage, I find it elegant. Certainly much more so than these:

[Steely Dan]

article in tribune about south loop boom mentions a height figure of 515' for 800 S Michigan (essex inn addition). I hadn't seen a height figure for that one yet, just floor count.

Mr. D also has some "choice" quotes in there too (OMFG!!!!! shadows!!!!! we're all gonna die!!!!!).

additionally, the article mentions that 1000 S Michigan would be the city's 6th tallest, but, if built today, it would actually be the city's 5th tallest. maybe they're assuming wanda vista is already in the bag? (never a good assumption in this town).

South Loop poised for big residential building boom
New developments planned for the South Loop
Robert Channick
Chicago Tribune

Live in the South Loop? Get ready to have a lot more neighbors.
The South Loop, which has worked to reinvented itself in fits and starts, is poised to become the next big thing in Chicago's housing market.

Four developers announced plans recently for high-rise apartment buildings at the south end of Grant Park along South Michigan Avenue, including a striking 86-story tower designed by star architect Helmut Jahn that would be the 6th tallest in the city.

Other lofty rental projects include a 76-story tower and two nearly 50-story buildings that, if approved, will flood the South Loop with some 2,000 upscale apartments over several years. On top of that, hundreds of condominium units also are on the drawing board.

...........

Chicago-based developer Oxford Capital filed a proposal last month for a 48-story, 515-foot high-rise with 388 apartments at 800 S. Michigan Ave., just south of the co-owned Essex Inn, to be built on the site of the hotel's current parking garage. Designed by Hartshorne Plunkard Architects, the building would include on-site parking and ground floor retail, with plans to open by 2018, according to John Rutledge, Oxford's president and CEO.

full article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...002-story.html

[Randomguy34]

Tribune also included an updated mockup of all the new South Loop high rises



That sure is going to be one hell of a wall if all of these get built. Watch out 59th Street, Michigan Ave is going to give you a run for your money

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Jibba

If there has to be a garage, and if the programmatic and site requirements are such as to have its face street-side, then their solution is good because it is elegant (for what it is) and honest so far as it's not some tarted-up simulacrum.

Be that as it may the result is not, as you say, elegant. Elegance, denotes a graceful or stylish appearance or an ingenious solution. Which would, in this context, be a result which satisfies not only expresses the underlying form of the structure but also has a result that, in this case, yields a pleasing pedestrian experience.

What you describe, while it may satisfy one aspect of the above, is not an elegant solution based on the commonly accepted meaning of the word "elegant."

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by JK47

Be that as it may the result is not, as you say, elegant. Elegance, denotes a graceful or stylish appearance or an ingenious solution. Which would, in this context, be a result which satisfies not only expresses the underlying form of the structure but also has a result that, in this case, yields a pleasing pedestrian experience.

What you describe, while it may satisfy one aspect of the above, is not an elegant solution based on the commonly accepted meaning of the word "elegant."

I wouldn't call this design elegant either but this comment is sooo pedantic and the definition so tortured that I'm almost inclined to change my mind.

[The Pimp]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Today from Rush

Not the greatest detail, but you can see many tower cranes or buildings sprouting up all around town.

Great pic.

[Steely Dan]

Moderator Note:

i carried all of the off-topic UIC University Hall discussion to a new thread. please continue the discussion there.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=219078

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Jibba

That's an exploitation and a sophistic interpretation of the rationale--you've simply stripped the opinion down to the minimum sentiment. It's a matter of degree and circumstance, not just of type.

If there has to be a garage, and if the programmatic and site requirements are such as to have its face street-side, then their solution is good because it is elegant (for what it is) and honest so far as it's not some tarted-up simulacrum.

This is a perfect response. I could not agree more. Well said.

Originally Posted by JK47

Be that as it may the result is not, as you say, elegant. Elegance, denotes a graceful or stylish appearance or an ingenious solution. Which would, in this context, be a result which satisfies not only expresses the underlying form of the structure but also has a result that, in this case, yields a pleasing pedestrian experience.

What you describe, while it may satisfy one aspect of the above, is not an elegant solution based on the commonly accepted meaning of the word "elegant."

What, no credit to your source? And if you're leading your argument with a quote from the dictionary (something I haven't done since third grade, but maybe that's just me), at least don't cherry-pick:

"(of a scientific theory or solution to a problem) pleasingly ingenious and simple" (emphasis mine)

Simplicity is a big part of Jibba's argument, and I don't think anyone here would contend that the building in question doesn't check that box. As for "pleasing": you're talking about it in absolute terms when it should be confined to the parameters of the problem, something Jibba very clearly articulated above.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Jibba

If there has to be a garage, and if the programmatic and site requirements are such as to have its face street-side, then their solution is good because it is elegant (for what it is) and honest so far as it's not some tarted-up simulacrum.

Partly the issue I have is with the idea of "site requirements." I don't know of a rule that said the developer had to construct a rectangular tower and slap a garage on the back. They had a corner to work with and be creative. They chose not to.

[sloop.chi]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Tribune also included an updated mockup of all the new South Loop high rises



That sure is going to be one hell of a wall if all of these get built. Watch out 59th Street, Michigan Ave is going to give you a run for your money

What is the drawing of the building along Wabash before Roosevelt?

[wierdaaron]

I think that's meant to be 1000 S State

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by gallo

Just returned from a meeting where a developer is proposing the demo of two vintage buildings at 450-454 W Belmont and replacing it with an 18 story tower including 90 units. Base has lobby and three levels of parking. Love the density, hate the loss of historic streetscape. New building nothing special...Architect is Antunovich.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

there are lots of houses in chicago that are set back from the street, i dont think that means they need to be demolished tho. things in rough shape can be restored.
with what youre describing (giant garage door fronting the sidewalk) i dont see how thats an improvement over something existing and rather handsome.

I don't get it either. Is there a compelling reason to add density there? It is reasonably close to a train station, I suppose. But if it is just a case where a developer grabs a couple handsome, old-Chicago buildings that need work in order to construct a nothing-special building that could appear in any city, then it isn't a win (especially if we are replacing more affordable units with less affordable ones).
Am also of the view that there is a finite amount of demand for housing in a given area whereas there is an over-abundance of land. If this isn't built, the supply of units can be made up elsewhere.