HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2013, 4:12 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjp View Post
Even if a bunch of chains do go up in the development, they'd probably be more useful to the neighborhood's residents than the bars they're replacing. What I don't like, though, is the amount of parking included...400 stalls, and only 120 apartments!
yeah, it's across the street from a baseball stadium.

also, this is a BAR centric neighborhood. bars ARE the function of this stretch of Clark.

i just really don't understand how people in the neighborhood allowed this. so many neighborhood groups shoot down some really GREAT developments (i'm looking at you South Loop), yet this is met with open arms. i just don't fucking get it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2013, 4:25 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
given the choice, I'd take the 7-11 and the parking lots... all is better, left alone.
and i simply disagree. surface parking lots are the worst phenomenon in the known universe.

they must all be developed!
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2013, 4:29 PM
joeg1985 joeg1985 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
...I'm in Wrigleyville nearly every weekend... and yeah, I'm not concerned about losing the buildings; my issue is with losing the feel of the street. this development will sterilize this stretch of Clark. It could be design by Rem Koolhaas and be amazing; I don't care. It's the uniform, massive development that I have issue with... Mullen's shitty green and yellow awning, the IO, the EAT sign, Goose Island, the cozy stretch of one/two story brick facades... that's what this development destroys.

You guys all seem blinded by the fact that this is a huge development. But fuck development at the cost of urban character. Don't forget, also, that the grey stone three flat with the Starbucks will be destroyed too! It just enrages me that, in a city with a long history of senseless destruction of our urban fabric, that you guys are all welcoming more of the same pattern.

I feel like this development could be done better, with attention paid to what is already there. Here's a crazy idea: why not leave all the pre-existing buildings the fuck alone and build up in the vacant lots, instead... but I guess such logic is an foreign concept to these simply profit minded developers...
Well this is a much better explanation for what you don't like. And I agree with you that the loss of individual building fronts is a shame. That doesn't mean however that all that signage can't be returned to the new development. The architect could definitely do better breaking up the frontage to make it appear as if it were multiple buildings.

Do you think that is would be better if they simply put a 19 storey building on the empty lots and left the rest alone? Or would that be unreasonable and also destroy the nature of the street? I'm honestly curious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2013, 6:07 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeg1985 View Post

Do you think that is would be better if they simply put a 19 storey building on the empty lots and left the rest alone? Or would that be unreasonable and also destroy the nature of the street? I'm honestly curious.
Yep. That's exactly what I think. Take the sq footage of this development and reprogram it onto the 7-11 lot. That's my opinion. Clearly, however, I'm outnumbered on this forum as others seem to value bigger buildings over urban character.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2013, 6:26 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeg1985 View Post
Well this is a much better explanation for what you don't like. And I agree with you that the loss of individual building fronts is a shame. That doesn't mean however that all that signage can't be returned to the new development. The architect could definitely do better breaking up the frontage to make it appear as if it were multiple buildings.
I think the problem though (and I agree with Tom) is that when you're trying to mimic multiple facades, its easy to see through that for what it is: something dishonest and fake. Chicago is great because it is a collection of designs from different periods and each reflects a certain history from its time. You enter one shop or restaurant and its a completely different experience from the one next door to it; not just in appearance but even the little things like how hard you have to pull on the door to enter, the feel of the hardware, the scent of the room, the way the floor creaks. When you slap up a bland massive development like this, those experiences are lost. Everything becomes uniform, and uniform is boring and bland. Im much more in favor of thoughtfully done small projects than these "all or nothing" blocklong demolitions.

And yea, if the design were better it might be easier to swallow, but its not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2013, 6:35 PM
tjp tjp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 428
Building on the empty lots would definitely be preferable .Obviously, the owners are willing to sell. But honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this development failed to attract financing - the developer doesn't seem to have a notable background (correct me if I'm wrong), and it may be difficult to market high-end apartments in the center of Wrigleyville.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2013, 7:29 PM
joeg1985 joeg1985 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Yep. That's exactly what I think. Take the sq footage of this development and reprogram it onto the 7-11 lot. That's my opinion. Clearly, however, I'm outnumbered on this forum as others seem to value bigger buildings over urban character.
I don't know that you are outnumbered on that preference here. Your original comment simply stated that you hated this suburban style development. If you had laid it all out to begin with and suggested a single highrise on the corner of Adison and Shefield then maybe the conversation would have been different.

I'm not opposed to a highrise there. I also would love it if the developer could at the very least include several of the facades of the existing structures in their design. And maybe break it up into several taller structures that tear down only a few of the single story buildings and still fill in all the surface lots.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2013, 2:41 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Yep. That's exactly what I think. Take the sq footage of this development and reprogram it onto the 7-11 lot. That's my opinion. Clearly, however, I'm outnumbered on this forum as others seem to value bigger buildings over urban character.
I'm with ya'. One thing living on the East Coast for the past 6 years has made me aware of is that I don't miss some of the more myopic development trends in Chicago. Manhattan, Brooklyn and surrounding places do a fairly great job of taking the old (and ugly) and infusing these places with character while also adding a very exciting mix of fresh and contemporary architecture to the urban fabric.

Also, scale matters. It's the primary reason why I avoid midtown Manhattan like the plague (unless I'm teaching) but absolutely adore most of the human-scaled neighborhoods at the tip of the island.

I'm at a loss as to why Chicago keeps on missing on these great opportunities. At least the lakefront hasn't been tapped for development (for the sake of more $$$).
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2013, 5:24 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1 View Post
I'm with ya'. One thing living on the East Coast for the past 6 years has made me aware of is that I don't miss some of the more myopic development trends in Chicago. Manhattan, Brooklyn and surrounding places do a fairly great job of taking the old (and ugly) and infusing these places with character while also adding a very exciting mix of fresh and contemporary architecture to the urban fabric.

Also, scale matters. It's the primary reason why I avoid midtown Manhattan like the plague (unless I'm teaching) but absolutely adore most of the human-scaled neighborhoods at the tip of the island.

I'm at a loss as to why Chicago keeps on missing on these great opportunities. At least the lakefront hasn't been tapped for development (for the sake of more $$$).
^ What you observed has nothing to do with how 'enlightened' certain cities are and how 'myopic' Chicago is. It has to do with lot sizes, land values, and zoning.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2013, 8:08 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
Addison Park on Clark?

Apologies if discussed already (haven't been following as the ballpark itself doesn't interest me - although adjacent new developments certainly do), but is that Addison Park on Clark proposal completely dead? That was a nice project I thought, and would be a success if the developers were able to get it off the ground. Last I heard I believe was from Rossi at M&R (not the controlling developer) in the media making a statment that seemed not too optimistic-sounding about the controlling developer being able to work out some issues and be able to get it off the ground......How nice would it be to have Addison Park on Clark and the hotel/office project across from the ballpark both added to the neighborhood??
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2013, 11:57 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1 View Post
I'm with ya'. One thing living on the East Coast for the past 6 years has made me aware of is that I don't miss some of the more myopic development trends in Chicago. Manhattan, Brooklyn and surrounding places do a fairly great job of taking the old (and ugly) and infusing these places with character while also adding a very exciting mix of fresh and contemporary architecture to the urban fabric.
I'm curious which places outside of New York and which developments specifically within New York you're referring to. Having recently returned to Chicago after living on the East Coast for five years, I didn't notice any such trends.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 1:40 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
I think the problem though (and I agree with Tom) is that when you're trying to mimic multiple facades, its easy to see through that for what it is: something dishonest and fake. Chicago is great because it is a collection of designs from different periods and each reflects a certain history from its time. You enter one shop or restaurant and its a completely different experience from the one next door to it; not just in appearance but even the little things like how hard you have to pull on the door to enter, the feel of the hardware, the scent of the room, the way the floor creaks. When you slap up a bland massive development like this, those experiences are lost. Everything becomes uniform, and uniform is boring and bland. Im much more in favor of thoughtfully done small projects than these "all or nothing" blocklong demolitions.

And yea, if the design were better it might be easier to swallow, but its not.
Very well said. My thoughts exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Apologies if discussed already (haven't been following as the ballpark itself doesn't interest me - although adjacent new developments certainly do), but is that Addison Park on Clark proposal completely dead?
The last 20-30 posts in this thread have been discussing this very project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 1:30 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
^ Wow was that an ill-timed post. Still wondering how 'real' it is.......It is a definite improvement over what's there now.


Saw a Notre Dame architecture professor coming out against the jumbotron. If a Notre Dame architecture professor is against, then I'm definitely for it, and vice versa. Simple as that....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 3:24 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
That's quite a swipe at Philip Bess, who has done a great deal to encourage Americans to appreciate ballparks in cities, as opposed to baseball stadiums in parking lots. The article in question. Which of his arguments do you disagree with?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 5:57 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
^ Hardly.

More of just a philosophical, almost visceral disdain for that school's architecture department and everything it stands for or that has come out of it. Pure tastelessness/backward-looking schlockfest. I mean, for all that's holy, they are affiliated with the Driehaus 'Prize' for architecture! What's the polar opposite of vanguard?

Interesting bringing up the appreciation though of ballparks in cities. Good thing yes, but we've also had to put up with the tremendously junky designs that have come with the vast majority of new parks put up since the movement began. There are definitely signs this may finally be changing, and appreciation of design may be coming back to the sport (but of course we're at a decidedly slower rate of new park construction than we were when the nostalgic schlocksupercycle was coming online)......
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Apr 27, 2013 at 12:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2013, 4:20 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
^So it sounds like traditional architecture is just fine with you when it's done properly. Perhaps we need more programs like Notre Dame's, not fewer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2013, 3:09 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,543
^ Not at all - not for new construction, never. Where'd you get that from? Better ballpark design of late as in Miami and 1 or 2 others.....not whatever it was you were thinking.....

We don't just 'need' fewer Norte Dame-like architecture programs, we rather need none. Architectural history coursework one would think would be sufficient to prepare for future generations of important restoration/renovation work.....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Apr 27, 2013 at 7:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2013, 5:54 AM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ What you observed has nothing to do with how 'enlightened' certain cities are and how 'myopic' Chicago is. It has to do with lot sizes, land values, and zoning.
Excuses. Chicago has been able to create amazing work and urban tapestries in the past despite zoning, lot sizes or land value. Chicago is mired in a similar slump that NYC was mired in for decades. NYC happens to be fully realizing its design/architectural potential at long last.

But if you want to stick to this idea that Chicago is handicapped by _________, okay.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc

Last edited by alex1; Apr 28, 2013 at 6:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2013, 6:18 AM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
I'm curious which places outside of New York and which developments specifically within New York you're referring to. Having recently returned to Chicago after living on the East Coast for five years, I didn't notice any such trends.
NYC: The High Line (and surrounding area), the closing down of a stretch of Broadway and the 911 Memorial are three powerful statements. Anyone who's spent time in Manhattan or Brooklyn is very much in touch with any trend you may envision. From the micro/human-scaled shops, restaurants and boutiques (which is what makes interesting cities IMO) to the larger scaled projects like HL23, Sperone Westwater Gallery in the Bowery, Barclay's Center, The New Museum, 41 Cooper Sq., 40 Bond...not to mention the critical mass of young and exciting new architecture firms setting up shop in Brooklyn.

New England: What exactly do you want me to say about it? It does an amazing job at preserving itself. Adaptive reuse is king. Scale matters.

But anyhow, this thread isn't really about these things, right? My overall point is that Wrigley's development plans are weak and myopic. Some of you may agree with me on this issue while others may think this development is an improvement. Some of you may even misconstrue the statement that "I don't miss some of Chicago's more myopic development plans" with me saying "Chicago is myopic". Whatever.

Where you live?
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2013, 3:25 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
^You seem to be comparing grand civic undertakings (some, like the 9-11 Memorial, national in scope) to a market-responsive private redevelopment project. The program for this project is simple: make a profit for the owners without undue risk or delay. To imply that there's a civic imperative to demand cutting-edge design—or to think there's even a mechanism for doing so—is simply ignorant.
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 > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.