I think that part will be incorporated or rather, or rather the new building will be made to fit in as an extention of the older facility. I was not told as to whether the other four designs will be presented alongside the winning entry when the winner is announced but will let everyone know once I find out.

Best of luck for State Street.:tup:

It seems to be going in the right direction.

My concern is Block 37 though.

Check out the last renders on the Block 37 thread only if you are not hungery.

Also posted in the 'Over 12 Stories' Thread:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-b...ticle_id=27593
Letters to the editor

Development keeps city dynamic, competitive
Aldermanic elections and run-offs create anti-development rhetoric.

One would think that real estate development in a once run-down, gritty, rust-belt Midwestern city is bad. With little urban-planning research, the anti-development bandwagon seems one to join.

We see the many virtues of developing a city still losing population to suburbs and warmer climates — competition for residents and economic investment is fierce. Chicago must remain competitive.

Being anti-development appears virtuous: Not enough parking, congestion, gentrification and density are the buzzwords. Digging deeper, what is really happening? Residents with a piece of the pie don't want others to impinge. This is hypocritical and not in the interests of us all. Chicago must grow. It was gutted by mass exodus and lack of egress into the city from the 1950s to the 1980s. We lost time and hundreds of thousands of people and economic development.

While our counterparts like St. Louis and Detroit struggle to stay relevant in this global marketplace, Chicago marches dynamically forward. Who would have dreamed it? We are competing with warm-weather, expanding cities like Orlando, Las Vegas and Miami.

Don't reflexively hate development. Make certain it is designed well and that architects and developers create landmarks of tomorrow in a city world famous for architecture and revivals. With anti-development rhetoric, design is rarely mentioned. The cause should be world-class design with green architecture.

Bob O'Neill
President
Grant Park Conservancy
Chicago

^ Sorry man, but a lot of you guys are starting to sound more idealistic than even I am. In modern times, new retail will come in the form of lifestyle centers, so just get used to it.

As long as the parking is tucked away where it should be, then I don't see the big deal. If it is economically successful, that's all that matters anyhow.

I posted a rendering of the entire project in the second-to-last page of the previous version (v4 I believe) of the 'EVERYTHING OVER 12 STORIES" thread. Unfortunately since it switched rather quickly to v5, I have a hunch that most of you never got to see it. The parking will be in a separate 5-story garage facing one of the east-west running streets. But it doesn't seem to be a big deal, since most of the focus of activity will be on the more important north-south running streets, as well as the interior courtyard. (compare it to Manhattan--Retail faces the avenues, with garages facing the streets--similar concept that I actually think Chicago should stick to)

This is some of the most depressing news I've read in a long time. It's one of my all-time favorite buildings. It did not "ruin the Skyline." It is not a "Berlin Wall," as Daley has said.

Even if you hate the building, what an unbearable waste of resources. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that structure. Since when was McCormick Place contracting in size? :whip:

Nomarandlee posted this over in the Chicago Olympics thread...

_________________

Don't hate me for saying this, Honte, but I wouldn't cry over the loss if the area was transformed into more greenspace.

McCormick East is just too imposing to be that close to the lakeshore.

Ironically, there would be less chance of the city losing the Olympic Games if the building was replaced by a lakeshore stadium.

^ I don't hate you. ;)

But consider the cost of tearing it down, vs the cost of creating a beautiful lakefront bridge from Northerly Island to the South Lakefront, or even the cost of creating a new parkland island a la the Burnham Plan in front of McCormick Place. Add to that the cost of whatever building they build to make up for the lost floor area of the existing building (there certainly will be demand for all of this space by 2009).

The linking of the south and north lakefronts can still be accomplished, as can more greenspace, while keeping the building.

Similarly, with the Olympics taking the staging area to the south of McCormick for the Village (and this is supposed to be built regardless of the Olympic Vote), and with landmark districts north and west, the only real place left to expand McCormick is over the Stevenson, as we've discussed here before. This seems unlikely. So, I think it would be foolish for McCormick Place to give up any existing land.

wow, i never thought that anyone would want to get rid of McCormick East. I'm with you honte in saying they should not tear it down. Hopefully we'll get the olympics and everyone forgets that they even mentioned tearing that dark beast down. I think it would be a shame to lose it.

I don't think it is a bad building at all. But, I'm not crazy about the location. It doesn't take advantage of it's lakefront location. When riding your bike along the lake, it is imposing, out of scale, and not attractive.

The city should just build large gardens on top of all the McCormick Place buildings.

http://www.wrdenvironmental.com/images/McCormick2.jpg

It's a win win situation. Either Chicago gets the Olympics or McCormick East is gone. I'd be happy either way.

How about building an indoor skiing range like the one in Dubai

That's a great idea, but there is no reason for that type of structure to be on the lakeshore. Build it west of the Loop in an impoverished area.

McCormick Place East is easily the most beautiful of all of the buildings in the complex. The North Building by SOM is interesting because of the way the roof is suspended by cables from masts. But the south building and the west building are pretty uninspiring. Too much pre-cast concrete.

I mentioned this before once and it was said the the roof trusses could not handle even a minor load.:shrug:

I remember when I was young I thought the East building was kinda of futuristic looking and imposing. I still appreciate it and don't really get the amount of hate some have for it. In jest I ask is anyone really too fat to walk from the south lake front to the north around it? There are more important ways I think we could make the lakefront greener then tearing it down.

I opened up a thread a few weeks about the building in SSC thought it didn't get much of a response. I suggseted retrofitting it into an indoor arena that could host winter mega-concerts, NCAA Final Fours, or even a Super Bowl. You could even transfer some of the temporary seating stands used at some o of the Olympic venues and make them permanent inside. I am not really sure if the dimensions warrant it but if they do why not?

Have I missed any news on the ICE-MERC bidding war for the CBOT? I haven't heard much about it.

Yes that's right, lets displace a few blocks of poor people so that rich people can go skiing in the middle of the summer...

^^Or just maybe all the people skiing in the area will benefit those poor folks economically through increased real estate prices or from bringing new businesses to the area!

The picture is facing southwest. The street running across the bottom is Clybourn.

Eastman Street is extended eastward past Halsted and then onto the small fragment of Ogden remaining there (visible at the left edge). Blackhawk is extended into the traffic circle at the center of the development and then out onto Clybourn.

Even the little buildings built on the south side of the new Eastman Street look convincingly urban. I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with this development.

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/5...ymodel1qt6.jpg