CHICAGO | General Developments

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

In parts of Chicago, the aftermath of King’s assassination still reverberate
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/ch...enetta-howell/

The King riots never got to Austin. It was still a predominately white neighborhood at that time.
Along Madison, the bulk of the damage was in the two Garfields, (and it ended around Pulaski), with a pocket in the Near West Side, west of Oakley. The street clearing was actually worse in North Lawndale along Roosevelt, and it didn't get past Independence Blvd.

[LanvinHomme]

Not sure if this has been posted before but Illinois Tech has new construction:




source: my photos

Another shoe box addtition to the campus except this one is white unlike most of the other buildings which are yellow brick with black metal steel and Crown Hall which is black and white windows.

[harryc]

April 17

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by harryc

April 18

What's going on here? I always thought that place would be an awesome brewery or something like that.

[harryc]

April 17





An old sign - not that old - but these things age fast in this neighborhood.

[KWillChicago]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

What's going on here? I always thought that place would be an awesome brewery or something like that.

Thats a great idea! A brewery, distillery or a concert hall would be sweet. Not sure what its actually used for though.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

Thats a great idea! A brewery, distillery or a concert hall would be sweet. Not sure what its actually used for though.

It's supposed to be a distillery actually. Blind Pig Distillery

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...story,amp.html

[SolarWind]

April 19, 2018

[SolarWind]

April 19, 2018

[SolarWind]

April 19, 2018

[SolarWind]

April 19, 2018

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

April 19, 2018

this looks clumsy and cheap all around. the transition to that cornice (if you want to call it that) is awful. too bad they didnt just renovate the prior existing building which at least had some character.

literally all they had to do was look to either of those buildings on the left for how to do it competently

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

this looks clumsy and cheap all around. the transition to that cornice (if you want to call it that) is awful. too bad they didnt just renovate the prior existing building which at least had some character.

literally all they had to do was look to either of those buildings on the left for how to do it competently

Yes, exactly.

The rationale behind the design of most, if not all, historical masonry was to allude to the form of classical structural elements (which of course also had decorative flourishes). In the case of facing materials, which they were even doing a century ago with terra cotta and non-load-bearing brick, the goal was to have a successful illusion of that same form.

With this project, the tops of the piers are capped, but then there's inexplicably more building above. So they black out this remaining portion, visually suppressing it to retain the lower section's allusion to the past, but then they add a cornice to it, contradicting the very thing they were aiming for by changing its color. So now this part of the facade, too, is supposed to be taking part in the illusion, yet its color indicates otherwise.

The end result is piers that terminate in a black void, a void that then is supposed to be the facade's culminating element, given the decorative treatment at the top. It's completely (and needlessly) incoherent.

[Via Chicago]

i mean i dont even see a financial cost reason for doing what they did. if they were going to botch it this badly it would have looked better if they simply hadnt added a cornice at all. but clearly the architect/developer has SOME awareness of what a cornice is, but clearly no knowledge of how and why it should relate to the structure? i just dont understand how something this obviously in-congruent even comes to exist. you could show this to a 10 year old and they could pick out the blatant visual flaws. how does one graduate with an architecture degree and still come to design something that looks like this? unless this was something the developer demanded, but i can see no logical explanation for why. again, ignorance isnt an excuse given the neighborhood and its historical riches. this isnt complicated stuff.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i mean i dont even see a financial cost reason for doing what they did. if they were going to botch it this badly it would have looked better if they simply hadnt added a cornice at all. but clearly the architect/developer has SOME awareness of what a cornice is, but clearly no knowledge of how and why it should relate to the structure? i just dont understand how something this obviously in-congruent even comes to exist. you could show this to a 10 year old and they could pick out the blatant visual flaws. how does one graduate with an architecture degree and still come to design something that looks like this? unless this was something the developer demanded, but i can see no logical explanation for why. again, ignorance isnt an excuse given the neighborhood and its historical riches. this isnt complicated stuff.

They were hitting a punchlist for new construction in a landmark district. particularly. A, C and D.

a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape,
and scale of the features associated with the property or district.
c. The design respects the general historic and
architectural characteristics associated with the property or
district in general character, color, and texture.
d. The materials are compatible with the existing
structures in the district in general character, color, and texture.

If this were in one of my districts, I'd have busted their chops.
I would at least expect the pilasters to be run up to the cornice.

[ardecila]

I kinda like it!

The dark-colored cornice provides the illusion of depth and height, if you glanced at it quickly you would assume there is a fourth floor with a setback. Kind of a Disney’s Main Street kind of trick. Extending the piers higher would ruin the illusion.

[Via Chicago]

i dont assume a 4th floor at all when i see something like that, since one can easily see the average window height and the available space (or lack thereof) left at the top. more than anything, it looks like a sort of weird aftermarket pop-top that exists only to hide presumed mechanical or HVAC on the roof

again, that center warehouse building on the prior page executes exactly what they "seem" to be going for here, but with a million times more grace and dignity...and it was built as a damn warehouse in a grimy meatpacking district! you would think a developer with supposed 21st century post-industrial sophistication could at least competently COPY a historic building and its inherent design principles for a pseudo historic looking structure (we're not even asking for an original idea here!)

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

They were hitting a punchlist for new construction in a landmark district. particularly. A, C and D.

a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape,
and scale of the features associated with the property or district.
c. The design respects the general historic and
architectural characteristics associated with the property or
district in general character, color, and texture.
d. The materials are compatible with the existing
structures in the district in general character, color, and texture.

If this were in one of my districts, I'd have busted their chops.
I would at least expect the pilasters to be run up to the cornice.

The limestone coping at the very top makes me cringe. At least if they were going to do this weird cornice, they’d do something muted.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

Would have liked to see a nicer sidewalk out front, some upgrade like granite or something. Anything but regular old concrete. But that can be said or nearly every project in this town. Something I admire many other parts of the world for more than the U.S., where better materials for public infrastructure like sidewalks and curbs are of much higher quality than the plague of concrete you see in the U.S. and an expected contribution to the public realm. Just higher standards it seems. But hey, we'll get a good five years before it starts to crack.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i mean i dont even see a financial cost reason for doing what they did. if they were going to botch it this badly it would have looked better if they simply hadnt added a cornice at all. but clearly the architect/developer has SOME awareness of what a cornice is, but clearly no knowledge of how and why it should relate to the structure? i just dont understand how something this obviously in-congruent even comes to exist. you could show this to a 10 year old and they could pick out the blatant visual flaws. how does one graduate with an architecture degree and still come to design something that looks like this? unless this was something the developer demanded, but i can see no logical explanation for why. again, ignorance isnt an excuse given the neighborhood and its historical riches. this isnt complicated stuff.

I did a google image search for "1133 W randolph chicago" and it turned up several iterations of renderings for this location. It looks like the original plan was for that gray area below the cornice to include signage as the first renderings have the words "Fresh Brew" and "Randolph Market" written over the gray in white. I assume the pilasters weren't extended in those iterations because they would interrupt the signage. Though the final rendering doesn't include any of that I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't finish the pilasters in anticipation of some tacked on signage at some later date.