CHICAGO | One Bennett Park | 837 FT | 68 FLOORS

[BraveNewWorld]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

111 E Wacker
500 NLSD
AMLI River North
AMLI Lofts
Arkadia
West Loop Gateway @ Marianos
The Madison
RIC
Childrens Streeterville
New City tower

And that is just this cycle. You guys need to slowly get off your high horses.

What they, and everyone, need to do is show up at the meeting, and show their disapproval of the use of precast over limestone, it's absolutely ridiculous

As far as the design, it's really ok. I like some postmodern stuff, so it's alright with me.
_____

Are there any good examples of Precast ? I'd like to think that done right, this building could be pretty decent

[vandelay]

Chicago doesn't look back on its history? It's constantly in the thrall of Mies and Goldberg, which is historical architecture. Jeanne Gang is a legitimate talent, and of course a homegrown talent, so of course that's the latest "real" architect (for Chicago/the Midwest) to tout. Talk about provincialism though. There's good design and bad design, good quality and bad quality. Just because it's in a style or tradition you don't like doesn't make it bad or fake. If anything, anyone who follows development in Chicago should be thankful that Related thinks that their real estate market can support a Robert AM Stern tower of this size. There's a reason Stern has been successful in New York: good design costs money, and the real estate market in NYC will pay for good design. And that rule also applies to the Jeanne Gangs of the world.

As for the quality of pre-cast, this is concrete:


It's lasted pretty well.

[the urban politician]

Well, even if it's precast it will be an improvement over anything precast built in River North over the past 15 years

[Chicago Shawn]

^Vandalay,

This is also concrete:
Source

...but that doesn't mean we will get this level of detail and quality. I guarentee it won't be. There are plenty of examples arround here of recently built concrete exteriors not holding up well.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Aldermen have entirely too much power, but that's not my point. We used to do big things downtown without much fuss, because nobody had to live with this stuff in their backyard. Just a few days ago we all cheered the addition of several hundred residential units at Block 37, but those are several hundred new people who will be calling Brendan Reilly to bitch about how the neon signs along State are too bright. This is America - we have this expectation of control over our own neighborhoods and we legitimize our fears of change by citing lowered property values, often with no basis in reality.

I don't really see how you avoid this problem. Some cities are able to build bold new areas with dense mixed-use, parks, and transit on the ashes of former industrial districts, and there's nobody around to complain, but Chicago eliminated this option with the creation of PMDs.

Cut the number of Alderman by atleast 25 so they don't micromanage everything and put the power of planning and zoning back into the hands of proffessionals. Major upzoning of much of the city, especially downtown to allow greater flexability and density with as-of-right developments.

Problem solved. Notice how after major rezoings occurred in NYC durring the Bloomberg years that suppertalls are sprouting from small lots without any NIMBY roadblocks. Inner Houston is also completely transforming because the lack of formal zoning presents nearly zero legal ability for NIMBYs to challenge a development on sites without restrictive covenants. Its not difficult to do, if we as a city are willing to persue it, but we aren't.

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

To the other chicago mods:

Whoever made this thread, I think it was premature to add 800' to the title of this thread. This really does look closer to 700' upon closer examination.

Can it really be determined? Isn't it true that these renderings released prior to approval can drop in the building slightly out of scale so that it looks less imposing to the untrained eye? i.e. it could be 850 feet, but the render tries to fool a NIMBY into thinking in his/her head that it will be shorter than actual specs? Thought I've read forumers talk about this in the past...

[thewaterman11]

Originally Posted by vandelay

Chicago doesn't look back on its history? It's constantly in the thrall of Mies and Goldberg, which is historical architecture.

There's a difference between respecting the work that has been done and building new structures that mimic it. The last I checked, we aren't building more Miesian boxes and Goldberg-like concrete behemoths to pay "tribute" to it.

Talk about provincialism though.

No, just good taste.

There's good design and bad design, good quality and bad quality.

This design is banal at best, and Related's track record on quality is dubious in the Chicago region.

If anything, anyone who follows development in Chicago should be thankful that Related thinks that their real estate market can support a Robert AM Stern tower of this size.

An 1150 foot residential/hotel super tall was announced last week. 11 residential high-rises are U/C right now, another 5 have construction imminent. Something would have been built at this location regardless of the developer, and it's not like the downtown real estate market is in the doldrums.

It's not like the property on which this skyscraper sits is cheap, worthless land either. This wasn't a hard decision for Related; when you have property 100 feet away from Lake Michigan, and when you own the building blocking the views of said lake, it's a relative no brainer to build a taller skyscraper so as to obtain the view that will garner more money.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by vandelay

But from what some of you fanatics write you would think that Chicago is a land of blue blooded, old money aristocrats who live in Mies high rises, and this sort of tower is only suitable for that architectural and cultural backwater New York City. And that Robert Stern should hide in disgrace to that fly-by-night architectural school where he's dean, Yale.

Your post sounds less insightful and more axe-to-grind, and I think you really missed the mark. I don't see evidence of a slavish adherence to Modernism here but the exact opposite: insistence on the same progressive impulses that led to its ascendancy during the past century, which, in Chicago, drew upon a rich tradition of pragmatism and frankness.

And let's get a couple of things straight about Stern: He is not dean of the YSOA because of his architecture; he is dean despite his architecture. (He himself refers to his designs as "background buildings"—his words.) Stern is dean because he knows how to foster an intellectual, forward-thinking environment. I mean, duh, just look at the faculty. He would never in a million years impose upon his students a particular architectural style.

This also means that, contrary to what some people in this thread think, he has a deep appreciation of all architecture. (We're talking about the man who spearheaded the beautiful restoration of the Paul Rudolph masterpiece that houses the YSOA and who was a vocal opponent of the renovation of 2 Columbus Circle.)

I'm not sure how he reconciles his role as principal of RAMSA with his role as dean of the YSOA. Maybe it's a classic paradigm of needs of the body versus needs of the soul. (Remember, he does contemporary architecture, too. Comcast Center? I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he follows the money.) Maybe he doesn't see them in binary opposition at all. I don't know.

Personally, I think there's a place for what he does. He and others like him use already-developed architectural vocabularies to solve contemporary architectural needs. It's not like this is new; it's the story of architecture for two thousand years. I mean, a facade composed of a pediment, entablature, and columns was once upon a time used only for Ancient Greek temple construction. Civilization expanded, political philosophies flourished, Rome took over, government became more sophisticated and important, and that vocabulary was suddenly adapted to all the new civic spaces that began cropping up. This happened over and over and over. Sometimes it was clumsy and crude, especially when new technologies were developed as in the case of the Pantheon. Sometimes it was sublime like St. Peter's Basilica, when Michelangelo finally figured out how to put the dome and pediment and columns all together.

I do think the advent of Modernism eliminated the main, most important reason people constrained themselves to historical architectural vocabularies (basically reverence), but I don't think that means there aren't other reasons to continue to use them, and I don't think it's a problem unless the result is an incoherent mess. And, IMHO, RAMSA's work is usually far from an incoherent mess.*

Back to my original point: Vandelay, please stick to saving beached whales.

*For a true butcher, see Lucien Lagrange from whose stalled imagination falls dud (2550 Lincoln Park) after dud (Elysian).

[ardecila]

I already posted this, but you don't have to go far to see the quality of RAMSA's precast on a skyscraper. However, the choice of materials is not nearly as important as the detailing, the proportions, and the appearance of other systems like the windows. I'm sure RAMSA will not saddle us with the god-awful chunky white windowframes that LaGrange did on the Elysian, and it doesn't look like he will provide balconies (these often look crappy on historicist buildings).

30 Park Place

[denizen467]

^ What's with the random jagged-edged forms on those spandrels?

Can you guys say or explain that the various detailing shown above is actual quality as opposed to random musings?

[ardecila]

By the way, I seem to recall this forum expressing polite admiration for this building...


src

[denizen467]

^ But the location factors in there. Because it's usually-overlooked Edgewater, practically any beige precast monolith would probably be welcome there any day of the week.

[The North One]

This shit better be covered in nothing but limestone.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

By the way, I seem to recall this forum expressing polite admiration for this building...


src

That's a nice building I can see it from my place, too bad its a senior home.... Also Lincoln Park 2520 is a nice project as well.

[HomrQT]

I like it. Although I like 71 West Hubbard Street AMLI as well, so I assume my visual appreciations differ greatly from some of the more seasoned people in the field of architecture here. I think what's appealing to me are the setbacks that slightly echo some of the older, classier styles between the '20s and '40s.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Your post sounds less insightful and more axe-to-grind, and I think you really missed the mark. I don't see evidence of a slavish adherence to Modernism here but the exact opposite: insistence on the same progressive impulses that led to its ascendancy during the past century, which, in Chicago, drew upon a rich tradition of pragmatism and frankness.

And let's get a couple of things straight about Stern: He is not dean of the YSOA because of his architecture; he is dean despite his architecture. (He himself refers to his designs as "background buildings"—his words.) Stern is dean because he knows how to foster an intellectual, forward-thinking environment. I mean, duh, just look at the faculty. He would never in a million years impose upon his students a particular architectural style.

This also means that, contrary to what some people in this thread think, he has a deep appreciation of all architecture. (We're talking about the man who spearheaded the beautiful restoration of the Paul Rudolph masterpiece that houses the YSOA and who was a vocal opponent of the renovation of 2 Columbus Circle.)

I'm not sure how he reconciles his role as principal of RAMSA with his role as dean of the YSOA. Maybe it's a classic paradigm of needs of the body versus needs of the soul. (Remember, he does contemporary architecture, too. Comcast Center? I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he follows the money.) Maybe he doesn't see them in binary opposition at all. I don't know.

Personally, I think there's a place for what he does. He and others like him use already-developed architectural vocabularies to solve contemporary architectural needs. It's not like this is new; it's the story of architecture for two thousand years. I mean, a facade composed of a pediment, entablature, and columns was once upon a time used only for Ancient Greek temple construction. Civilization expanded, political philosophies flourished, Rome took over, government became more sophisticated and important, and that vocabulary was suddenly adapted to all the new civic spaces that began cropping up. This happened over and over and over. Sometimes it was clumsy and crude, especially when new technologies were developed as in the case of the Pantheon. Sometimes it was sublime like St. Peter's Basilica, when Michelangelo finally figured out how to put the dome and pediment and columns all together.

I do think the advent of Modernism eliminated the main, most important reason people constrained themselves to historical architectural vocabularies (basically reverence), but I don't think that means there aren't other reasons to continue to use them, and I don't think it's a problem unless the result is an incoherent mess. And, IMHO, RAMSA's work is usually far from an incoherent mess.*

Back to my original point: Vandelay, please stick to saving beached whales.

*For a true butcher, see Lucien Lagrange from whose stalled imagination falls dud (2550 Lincoln Park) after dud (Elysian).

Look, personally, I am a died-in-the-wool modernist, tending toward minimalism, but I respect well-done traditional work, and Stern usually can do it in exceedingly well. Look at the pics of 30 Park Place. That "jagged" edge detailing in the spandrel? When you assess it in place and step back from the project it turns out to be a remarkably effective technique for giving the project texture with a rather modern-inspired, obviously well-studied, precast relief...

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Your post sounds less insightful and more axe-to-grind, and I think you really missed the mark. I don't see evidence of a slavish adherence to Modernism here but the exact opposite: insistence on the same progressive impulses that led to its ascendancy during the past century, which, in Chicago, drew upon a rich tradition of pragmatism and frankness.

And let's get a couple of things straight about Stern: He is not dean of the YSOA because of his architecture; he is dean despite his architecture. (He himself refers to his designs as "background buildings"—his words.) Stern is dean because he knows how to foster an intellectual, forward-thinking environment. I mean, duh, just look at the faculty. He would never in a million years impose upon his students a particular architectural style.

This also means that, contrary to what some people in this thread think, he has a deep appreciation of all architecture. (We're talking about the man who spearheaded the beautiful restoration of the Paul Rudolph masterpiece that houses the YSOA and who was a vocal opponent of the renovation of 2 Columbus Circle.)

I'm not sure how he reconciles his role as principal of RAMSA with his role as dean of the YSOA. Maybe it's a classic paradigm of needs of the body versus needs of the soul. (Remember, he does contemporary architecture, too. Comcast Center? I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he follows the money.) Maybe he doesn't see them in binary opposition at all. I don't know.

Personally, I think there's a place for what he does. He and others like him use already-developed architectural vocabularies to solve contemporary architectural needs. It's not like this is new; it's the story of architecture for two thousand years. I mean, a facade composed of a pediment, entablature, and columns was once upon a time used only for Ancient Greek temple construction. Civilization expanded, political philosophies flourished, Rome took over, government became more sophisticated and important, and that vocabulary was suddenly adapted to all the new civic spaces that began cropping up. This happened over and over and over. Sometimes it was clumsy and crude, especially when new technologies were developed as in the case of the Pantheon. Sometimes it was sublime like St. Peter's Basilica, when Michelangelo finally figured out how to put the dome and pediment and columns all together.

I do think the advent of Modernism eliminated the main, most important reason people constrained themselves to historical architectural vocabularies (basically reverence), but I don't think that means there aren't other reasons to continue to use them, and I don't think it's a problem unless the result is an incoherent mess. And, IMHO, RAMSA's work is usually far from an incoherent mess.*

Back to my original point: Vandelay, please stick to saving beached whales.

*For a true butcher, see Lucien Lagrange from whose stalled imagination falls dud (2550 Lincoln Park) after dud (Elysian).

You should post more often like this. Great stuff, and I hate this building.

[Chi-Sky21]

Did they have this 2nd building planned from the start? Why then not have built 500 LSD on the spot where its podium is a little further south...seems like that would have allowed for somewhat better views for this tower.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Look, personally, I am a died-in-the-wool modernist, tending toward minimalism, but I respect well-done traditional work, and Stern usually can do it in exceedingly well. Look at the pics of 30 Park Place. That "jagged" edge detailing in the spandrel? When you assess it in place and step back from the project it turns out to be a remarkably effective technique for giving the project texture with a rather modern-inspired, obviously well-studied, precast relief...

Except this is not well down. Now that we have a higher quality image the failures of this design are even more apparent. The biggest problem is that offset glass square at the top setback on the East of the building. WTF is that? Then entire rest of the massing of this building is lined up in one continuous shaft until you get to the top where the momentum is suddenly decapitated and offset to the East by 3 or 4 window bays. No respectable Deco or Neoclassical architect would ever do something like that because it simply defies logic. RAMS probably did it for some programmatic reason and, being a hack, didn't notice how he blew up the entire vertically of this design with a 7 or 8 floor section at the top. There are other significant mazsing issues here, but I'm on my phone so it is too tiresome to get into now, but I just wanted to point out how horrendous the massing is since people are claiming Stern does this stuff "exceedingly well".

This is nowhere near the same level of NBC Tower which I think is a perfect example of what POMO can and should be. The massing of NBC Tower is nearly perfect except the stupid spire they tacked on top.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The biggest problem is that offset glass square at the top setback on the East of the building. WTF is that? Then entire rest of the massing of this building is lined up in one continuous shaft until you get to the top where the momentum is suddenly decapitated and offset to the East by 3 or 4 window bays. .

That part really bothered me also. Seems pretty pointless to just all of a sudden have it skewed to the east by 1 set of windows. Clearly added just to drive all of us with OCD nuts!

[Rizzo]

From the renderings I'm ok with this proposal. The massing at the base is a little clumsy, but if this thing gets clad in quality materials (not precast) with elegant details, I would consider it a great building. Unfortunately that has like a 5% chance here in chicago.