CHICAGO | General Developments

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Look closer, the 'truth' is they are NOT symmetrical... if they were, the perpendicular members, for example, would run continuously from the outer arches... (without the offset)

Actually it would, because they are not perpendicular members.
The arches are made of rectangular tube whose cross section is aligned with the span and not the skew.

Because of this, the highest point on each side of each arch beam, with respect to the skew, are offset from each other.
That is, the high points, although directly across the cross section of the beam, are not in a straight line with the high point of the adjacent arches.

That jog would be roughly equal to the width of the arch beam * TAN(skew angle) The skew angle is approx 45deg so that jog it essentially the width of the beam. Just as it shows in the picture.

Count the cable attachments.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

You know, for a shitty faux-early 20th century design, these aren't that bad. But wasn't this potentially a cool looking tower?

In any event. Not bad, considering other (horrible) row house design in the area.

yeah not bad, but the detailing is pretty bland

i mean for a development thats supposed to be top of the line, it looks pretty pedestrian

just to highlight the one posted above, it dosent come close

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It's like a fetal version of AMLI RiNo.

[lu9]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Actually it would, because they are not perpendicular members.
The arches are made of rectangular tube whose cross section is aligned with the span and not the skew.

Because of this, the highest point on each side of each arch beam, with respect to the skew, are offset from each other.
That is, the high points, although directly across the cross section of the beam, are not in a straight line with the high point of the adjacent arches.

That jog would be roughly equal to the width of the arch beam * TAN(skew angle) The skew angle is approx 45deg so that jog it essentially the width of the beam. Just as it shows in the picture.

Count the cable attachments.

And here is why I love this message board. ty all.

[killaviews]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

yeah not bad, but the detailing is pretty bland

i mean for a development thats supposed to be top of the line, it looks pretty pedestrian

just to highlight the one posted above, it dosent come close

The townhouses are based on restored townhouses across the street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8979...EeWIHR9cog!2e0

[Via Chicago]

gotcha

still not a fan of that "box" stacked on top of the second floor. just make it 3 floors and continue the design on up (yeah yeah, i know theres probably some roof deck theyre going for up there)

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Actually it would, because they are not perpendicular members.
The arches are made of rectangular tube whose cross section is aligned with the span and not the skew.

Because of this, the highest point on each side of each arch beam, with respect to the skew, are offset from each other.
That is, the high points, although directly across the cross section of the beam, are not in a straight line with the high point of the adjacent arches.

That jog would be roughly equal to the width of the arch beam * TAN(skew angle) The skew angle is approx 45deg so that jog it essentially the width of the beam. Just as it shows in the picture.

Count the cable attachments.

In case you are still not convinced:

[ardecila]

Yeah, woof on that bridge truss. I really, really liked the parabolic arches although they were somewhat controversial... now this detail just kills it. They should have just used more of those horizontal members with moment connections to avoid those seriously weird diagonals.

Pritzker is seriously considering the use of limestone on those townhouses... and he/she is one of the few people who care enough about authenticity to actually push hard for real stone. In the end it may just be too expensive, but I don't think the decision's been made yet. What gets me is the detailing around the front porch... more of the same dumbed-down junk you see on nouveau traditional rowhouses all over the North Side. A slab front door? WTF?

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah, woof on that bridge truss. I really, really liked the parabolic arches although they were somewhat controversial... now this detail just kills it. They should have just used more of those horizontal members with moment connections to avoid those seriously weird diagonals.

The diagonals are pretty straight as well, but because it is now a compound angle at the central arch,
the junction is displaced up and down as well as fore and aft.

This is a shot from underneath. the short straight ones are the diagonal members. The long angled one with the zig-zag is the main spar.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Pritzker is seriously considering the use of limestone on those townhouses... and he/she is one of the few people who care enough about authenticity to actually push hard for real stone. In the end it may just be too expensive, but I don't think the decision's been made yet. What gets me is the detailing around the front porch... more of the same dumbed-down junk you see on nouveau traditional rowhouses all over the North Side. A slab front door? WTF?

Except for the goiter on the roof (if it is set back enough to shade it from the street view it could be OK),
they got a lot of things right. Ratios, sizes of the masonry openings, height of the cornice band, all spot on.
Some one down there actually read Ascher Benjamin.

However, it looks like they have protruding stone casing all around the windows.
This is something we never did in Chicago until the advent of Terra Cotta

This is the sort of fake historic accent that drives me crazy.

Also, I would think that the cornice on the 2nd floor should be at least as elaborate as the one on the goiter,
and its architrave band should be a cyma reversa or at least rebated. A band of protruding brick looks kind of cheap

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

You know, for a shitty faux-early 20th century design, these aren't that bad. But wasn't this potentially a cool looking tower?

In any event. Not bad, considering other (horrible) row house design in the area.

Tom, I'd have to agree with you on the assessment of this project. WHile I'd much rather have the taller more dense tower that was proposed several years ago, in retrospect, this design isn't too bad for what it is. I had an opportunity to speak on this project at plan commission last month and gave them credit for their effort. When it comes to post-modernism this is way better than what one expects. My only criticism at plan commission was that they should use different color brick to separate the units and perhaps having different course patterns. Paint the doors a different color perhaps. If someone goes home drunk they won't know which unit is theirs. That comment got a chuckle from the developers and audience.

BTW, these will be rental.

[Mr Downtown]

^What about these rowhouses is postmodern?

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

When it comes to post-modernism this is way better than what one expects.

That is probably because these are in no way, shape, or form, Post Modern.

[Rizzo]

Seriously? It screams postmodern. The simplification of ornamental details and geometric shapes. Look at the cornice and window surrounds! The embellishment with the horizontal stripes of lighter stone look arbitrary and unnecessary to the facade composition. If we discount materiality how is this any different from the articulation found on the Lagrange and Stern buildings people lament?

And for the record, I have no objection to recreating a century old look, I just can't stand the execution in the design. Seriously just copy the exact look of the surrounding 19th century buildings. That's what I'll ask my architect to do.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yeah they are crap, the "goiter" just ruins the whole design. If they had continued to the bay windows the whole way up it would be different. If they were just two stories without the goiter it would be different. This looks like what LaGrange would have built next to LP 2025 had Mansueto not saved us from it with his mega mansion. With that awkward upper floor even real materials can't save this design. It looks like they didn't even try to do anything with that top floor, like they designed the first two floors and were like "oh shit we need another floor, slap this huge box up there."

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

The diagonals are pretty straight as well, but because it is now a compound angle at the central arch,
the junction is displaced up and down as well as fore and aft.

This is a shot from underneath. the short straight ones are the diagonal members. The long angled one with the zig-zag is the main spar.

OK. Don't want to continuously argue whether the bracing is symmetrical or not (even by your own description, it is not), the point remains that it appears to be detailed to maximize $$ savings... for example, a much more elegant solution would have featured full welds rather than all of the clumsy mechanical fastening...

[lu9]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

In case you are still not convinced:

Couple of things.

1). This is a great shot. You successfully picked up three current projects. The 606 bridge, the townhomes on Winnebago ("The Row") and the Northwestern Immediate Care clinic. Additionally, this is the first shot I've seen which comes anywhere close to the rendering we've seen.



2). Despite your explanation I can't shake the feeling that the supports look clumsy.

[rlw777]

1k fulton

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Seriously? It screams postmodern.

This isn't quite postmodern architecture. This is more of a cheap copy of the early 20th century, quasi-italianate row house designs. It's lazy, but not exactly postmodern.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by lu9

2). Despite your explanation I can't shake the feeling that the supports look clumsy.

I agree with you.
But because the skew and multiple planes of reference, I suspect it is a problem with no good solutions.

The simplest, doubling the cross bracing like this:



Still looks like this from the point of George's photo:

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Speaking of the former X/O site on 18th and Prairie, some work happening on the roof, and scaffolding going up. Demolition imminent.
Today

What's going there: