HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #18301  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 6:11 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.
Agree. I really like the design that Hirsch came up with for 311 N Sangamon. Squared primary divisions in the facade, a nice rhythm to the fenestration, and just enough brick for material richness and texture and to tie it in with the neighborhood. And the design incorporates brick in a way that's honest about its place in the structure, as a purely decorative element. There is a slew of new construction in Fulton that has vast swaths of brick for "walls" and "piers" and the falseness of its application is readily apparent (and displeasing). 800 Fulton is actually one of the main offenders, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18302  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 6:28 PM
Toasty Joe Toasty Joe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wicker Park, Chicago, IL
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
800 Fulton is actually one of the main offenders, IMO.
Yeah, but if it had kept the lighter brick and invested in it being real - it'd have been 10x better and more unique to the neighborhood.

And agreed with everything else, I'm really looking forward to seeing 906 W Randolph rise: https://chicagoyimby.com/2020/12/app...countdown.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18303  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 10:17 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.

Precisely this.

Fultonization is a thing - and it's bad. At the same time, as Briguy and Steely point out, it's important to maintain a relative sense of perspective. River Northification is worse, because it's a combination of not only crap design (albeit a different sort of bad from standard crap Fulton design), but crap massing, crap urban design, crap pedestrian experience, garages on steroids, etc etc etc.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18304  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 10:23 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toasty Joe View Post
I'm really looking forward to seeing 906 W Randolph rise: https://chicagoyimby.com/2020/12/app...countdown.html


As am I - this may sound strange, but I like to see the rare square or nearly square floorplate residential tower, just in terms of tower massing variety in the skyline.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18305  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 12:21 AM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
As am I - this may sound strange, but I like to see the rare square or nearly square floorplate residential tower, just in terms of tower massing variety in the skyline.
I hope it gets axed. It's very cheesy and already looks dated (and hasn't been built yet).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18306  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 3:12 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 5,321
I think by some definitions this qualifies as a high rise. There is a zoning application up to tear down the existing 2 story brick building at 1229 W Randolph (& Willard Ct) and build a 7 story, 120 foot tall building in place with ground floor retail/commercial and office above. The developer is Thor Equities (NYC). Previous plans were to renovate the building and put something like a rooftop there. It looks like they're going a bit bolder now. This site is basically across the street from Alhambra Palace. The scanned in zoning app is black and white but it appears that the facade would be dark gray brick.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8841...7i16384!8i8192
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18307  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 3:43 AM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
The complaint about "fultonization" is not about mixed use development paralleling transit etc. The complaint is about the lazy over use of a particular faux-historic design language that actually takes away from historic preservation efforts. Developers can still follow a good development pattern and have more variety and creativity in the building designs. I don't mind a few buildings using this design language particularly when it's clear the development (like 800 w Fulton) is clearly not pretending to be some modified historic building. We have enough faux-historic red brick warehouses with glassy hats. I think more variety would make for a more interesting experience one that creates some contrast and draws attention to the actual historic buildings in the neighborhood.
I'm a rabid fan of historic preservation, and I'm quite enjoying some of the "faux historic" stuff they are putting up. How exactly do these buildings hurt historic preservation? To me they galvanize historic preservation and they show that these styles are often preferred to soulless modern boxes.
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. 9 Dekalb Ave - Brooklyn, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18308  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 5:30 AM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
I'm a rabid fan of historic preservation, and I'm quite enjoying some of the "faux historic" stuff they are putting up. How exactly do these buildings hurt historic preservation? To me they galvanize historic preservation and they show that these styles are often preferred to soulless modern boxes.
I'm not advocating for a bunch of soulless architecture. I just think that imitations diminish the authenticity and value of the original. I think it's much better to have contrast that highlights and draws attention to the authentic. I think this benefits preservation efforts because it's common sense that people are much less likely to get rid of something that is obviously unique than something that without more scrutiny appears to be ubiquitous.

This same sort of thinking is the reason why the design guidelines for new construction in the Michigan Avenue Historic District ask for contemporary designs that do not replicate historic designs.

Quote:
replacing non-contributing buildings of the current streetwall. The composition of historic and contemporary architecture can be dynamic, resulting in a richer visual environment, adding new life to the streetscape.

New construction must understand the relationship of its location and deal sensitively with the district’s historic resources when designing infill buildings. The Commission encourages sound contemporary design that respects the district’s existing architectural and historic qualities, but does not necessarily replicate historic designs.
from Guidelines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18309  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 5:46 PM
rgarri4's Avatar
rgarri4 rgarri4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 698
917 Fulton rendering in Crains

__________________
Renderings, Animations, VR
Youtube
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18310  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 6:15 PM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 491
Can someone please explain why they chose to add the glass and metal portion for the top two floors instead of two additional brick and glass floors? It doesn't look bad, but I think it would look more coherent with all brick. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18311  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 6:21 PM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 263
They're trying to make it look like they preserved an old warehouse and added a two-story modern addition on top. I'm sure it fools the average viewer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18312  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 7:27 PM
rgarri4's Avatar
rgarri4 rgarri4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 698
Yep. That along with the fact that outdoor amenities/ private outdoor amenities is a huge selling point in current office design, and will continue to be post corvid. The setback cutout is one way of providing that.
__________________
Renderings, Animations, VR
Youtube
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18313  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 7:31 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 5,321
As I pointed out in the previous post, plans include renovating the current 6 story building on the same block. These new buildings will be about the same height for the brick portion and have a similar architectural style. They are basically creating an imposing structure that will take up 3/4 of an entire block and from the street level be a similar style.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18314  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 8:11 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi View Post
They're trying to make it look like they preserved an old warehouse and added a two-story modern addition on top. I'm sure it fools the average viewer.


It's just so dumb.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18315  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 8:16 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
I'm not advocating for a bunch of soulless architecture. I just think that imitations diminish the authenticity and value of the original. I think it's much better to have contrast that highlights and draws attention to the authentic. I think this benefits preservation efforts because it's common sense that people are much less likely to get rid of something that is obviously unique than something that without more scrutiny appears to be ubiquitous.

This same sort of thinking is the reason why the design guidelines for new construction in the Michigan Avenue Historic District ask for contemporary designs that do not replicate historic designs.

from Guidelines


Exactly. This faux imitations - or at least the vast majority of them - actually undermine authentic historic structures and districts - and the overall goals of preservation. It's always been such simple, intuitive concept to understand for me, and I admit I often struggle to get why it's so difficult for many people.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18316  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2021, 8:23 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
I hope it gets axed. It's very cheesy and already looks dated (and hasn't been built yet).

I'll tell you what - I find those rounded corners of the windows absolutely grating. Those definitely need to go. That is super cheesy.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18317  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 3:44 AM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
As I pointed out in the previous post, plans include renovating the current 6 story building on the same block. These new buildings will be about the same height for the brick portion and have a similar architectural style. They are basically creating an imposing structure that will take up 3/4 of an entire block and from the street level be a similar style.
I see that now - didn't realize before that a portion of the brick structure is original. Makes the addition less contrived. I actually like the aesthetic of going modern when adding to historic structures, it just deserves an eye-roll when they do it on an entirely brand new building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18318  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 9:04 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
I'll tell you what - I find those rounded corners of the windows absolutely grating. Those definitely need to go. That is super cheesy.
They're the hokiest aspect of the design. And I don't anticipate the materials to depart from the other Adjmi/Related project, Landmark. And the 'metal' of that building looks like plastic (and may very well be, or at best be a composite material with enough polymer in the mix to read as plastic).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18319  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 1:52 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
They're the hokiest aspect of the design. And I don't anticipate the materials to depart from the other Adjmi/Related project, Landmark. And the 'metal' of that building looks like plastic (and may very well be, or at best be a composite material with enough polymer in the mix to read as plastic).
It's not exposed steel framing, but it's likely a powder coated aluminum sheet that is formed or extruded into those wide-flange profiles to imitate steel. It won't be plastic. We've seen plenty of other West Loop buildings do similar, or that new building at LaSalle/Illinois.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18320  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 6:05 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
It's not exposed steel framing, but it's likely a powder coated aluminum sheet that is formed or extruded into those wide-flange profiles to imitate steel. It won't be plastic. We've seen plenty of other West Loop buildings do similar, or that new building at LaSalle/Illinois.
Yeah, I think it needs to be kept to smaller profiles to get a pass. If that Related building turns out close to the rendering, it's going to be a lot of that material (and the artificiality will be easy to read).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.