HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9881  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2010, 6:56 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by J



_M_Tungsten;4793048]Anyone have a recent construction shot of this one?
Yup!

04/21/10
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9882  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2010, 8:18 PM
killaviews's Avatar
killaviews killaviews is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
YoChicago has an excellent example of everything that is wrong with the realtionship between the public and architecture in Chicago: http://yochicago.com/talks-continue-...roposal/14909/
I wish the date on this read April 1st because this seems like a joke. I can't believe they actually like the revised building better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9883  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2010, 9:06 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 Busy Bee View Post
YoChicago has an excellent example of everything that is wrong with the realtionship between the public and architecture in Chicago: http://yochicago.com/talks-continue-...roposal/14909/
Man. What a bummer. I made sure to leave a comment saying so...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9884  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2010, 10:48 PM
BWChicago's Avatar
BWChicago BWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
Man. What a bummer. I made sure to leave a comment saying so...
They both suck. The first one looks cheap and clunky. The second looks like a pile of (carefully-arranged) cinder blocks. Neither of them fit the neighborhood at all.

I'm all about modern design, but infill should be FRESH -fitting its surroundings in: Footprint, Roof shape, Envelope, Skin, Holes (window and door arrangements)

That gives you a lot of leeway in style while making it an integral part of the overall pattern.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9885  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2010, 11:29 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
YoChicago has an excellent example of everything that is wrong with the realtionship between the public and architecture in Chicago: http://yochicago.com/talks-continue-...roposal/14909/
Unfortunately, the site is currently zoned as a Planned Development, so the " neighborhood" maintains this senseless veto over what should be an as-of-right development. If the parcels involved were simply returned to their original C1-3 zoning I'm pretty sure the developer could build this as of right -- he could build up to 65 feet in height based on the lot frontage, and depending how deep the development goes from Howard, the site would probably allow for the proposed 60 dwelling units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9886  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 5:38 AM
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 BWChicago View Post
They both suck. The first one looks cheap and clunky. The second looks like a pile of (carefully-arranged) cinder blocks. Neither of them fit the neighborhood at all.

I'm all about modern design, but infill should be FRESH -fitting its surroundings in: Footprint, Roof shape, Envelope, Skin, Holes (window and door arrangements)

That gives you a lot of leeway in style while making it an integral part of the overall pattern.
The first design looks neither "cheap" nor "clunky." I'm baffled someone could even arrive at that assessment. What, specifically, do you find objectionable?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9887  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 2:17 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 5,201
Its a poor rendering. I think that me be some of the reason for that opinion.
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener. <><><><><><>IMPEACHMENT NOW!

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9888  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 3:55 PM
BWChicago's Avatar
BWChicago BWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 480
Just because it's modern and glassy doesn't mean it's good. The crummy render has nothing to do with it, I'd say the same thing looking at an elevation. I don't see any scale, I don't see any proportion, I see two randomly sized blocks with an arbitrary facade treatment. The apartment section looks completely tacked-on, there's no vertical or horizontal expression.

The second one's lousy too, but if it were done in limestone and not cinderblock it would at least be decent. FitzGerald Associates isn't a bad firm, I think the client is the problem.

Here's an alternate elevation: http://rogerspark.com/images/news_ar...levations1.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9889  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 4:32 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,495
^^^ How is there not "any scale" in this project? The side of it that fronts other, older buildings is only two stories, I would say that is "scale" in relating to the existing street wall. Same goes with having the large mass on the corner. I thought we all agreed that having bigger buildings holding corners was an excellent streetscape aesthetic.

I really don't like Joe Moore, I think he is holding Rogers Park back...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9890  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 4:58 PM
BWChicago's Avatar
BWChicago BWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 480
I meant internal scale, how the facade elements relate to each other. The street level appearance is fine. And I agree, Joe Moore is useless.

Last edited by BWChicago; Apr 27, 2010 at 5:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9891  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 5:13 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,495
^^^ I dunno, I think there are some pretty well scaled elements to this design. For example, the front facade is a long rectangle scored diagonally by an externally visible staircase. I think that is a pretty well scaled element especially considering how it is the commercial section and visibly different than the residential section. What elements do you think are not well scaled?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9892  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 6:57 PM
BWChicago's Avatar
BWChicago BWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 480
I don't have a problem with the base except that it doesn't have anything in common with its surroundings. Scale-wise, I don't see that the proportions of the windows and opaque panels in the residential section have anything to do with the building as a whole, they look like an arbitrary jumble. The whole effect of the building looks like a chopped-off high rise (which may well be the case judging from the "Mid-rise Scheme" notation). It's also interesting to note that this proposal was done two years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9893  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 7:41 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
^ It appears you're having a hard time providing a consistent critique. First you say the "blocks" are "randomly sized" but then admit they're "fine" after Nowhereman notes that they respond to the context of two-story buildings to the east and a four story building to the west across the street.

Okay, so we've established that the massing makes sense.

Then you say it's actually the "internal scale" you have a problem with. But, again, Nowhereman notes that the two-story base is transparent, befitting its commercial/public nature, and the four-story residential mass is more opaque, which makes sense because it is private/residential. He also notes the two components are linked by a diagonal stairwell that scores the facade of the base.

So the "internal scale" makes sense, too.

But then you say you, no no, you don't have a problem with the base, just the way it relates to its surroundings. Hmm... this sounds curiously similar to the criticism that led to the massive design change of the new iteration. Again, let us remind you that the height of the two "blocks" are, in fact, very responsive to the neighboring structures.

As far as the "proportions of the windows" go, their vertical breadth is determined by the height of each story and their width is mostly determined by production/stability/whatever accounts for window spans in any other glass-sheathed high-rise. I mean, duh. The slight variations and random placement of the different colors are clearly an attempt to create visual interest, a familiar conceit of contemporary design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9894  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 8:07 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,218
University of Chicago Projects:

Library expansion


Site work where the Preforming Arts Tower will be built. The house in the background was Loredo Taft's studio was.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9895  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 9:15 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
^ It's like A Hyde Park Renaissance...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9896  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 9:40 PM
BWChicago's Avatar
BWChicago BWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 480
Go figure, when I clarify what I'm saying, and concede some points, it makes it sound inconsistent. "Duh."

The building is clearly seperated into two distinct, stacked units in the first proposal, which bear little visual relationship to each other. They don't share proportions - clunky - there's no continuous elements between the two. The second proposal addressed this better with its vertical line. It masses the building as two side-by-side vertical masses, which makes more sense; the disconnection makes it look lopsided. Perhaps if the setback was from the front facade instead of the left side it would look better. If the first proposal had some division going down the facade to the street, it would work better. Since it's a theater, the floor heights are going to be taller on the base and shorter above. So clearly, no, it's not literally randomly sized. The staircase is a nice architectural touch that doesn't really make sense for what the building is - I don't see residents choosing that highly-public staircase to get to their residences. That's an element that works well in a public building. It would make me assume that those are offices above, not apartments.

Sure, it has similar roof heights to surrounding buildings. I never complained about the envelope. Nowhereman was responding to a different kind of scale than what I was referencing. Yeah, it meets one aspect of its context, that doesn't make the rest of it fit. I wouldn't have a problem with the base if that's all it was - it wouldn't fit in all that well, but it would have enough merit that I wouldn't complain. But that top chunk just clashes with the base.

I'm OBVIOUSLY complaining about the random width of the windows and not the vertical. There's no rhythm, there's no pattern, there's no relationship to the width of the windows at the base. It's an arbitrary treatment that looks cheap. Visual interest and different colors is fine, but there's generally some pattern to it. Sure, it's a familiar element of contemporary design, but is it well-executed here?

No, it's not completely awful, it's not a gas station, it doesn't have a parking lot out front, it meets the corner - I would think these things go without saying. It does fit in Footprint, Roof shape and Envelope. It's the articulation and the solid to void relationship that are problematic. The second proposal addresses these issues. While the second proposal is still not a very good building, it's at least less objectionable - the main problem is in the finish materials. I am curious how the first proposal would have worked structurally, since it's not evident from the rendering - cantilevered off a core?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9897  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 10:17 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
^ It's like A Hyde Park Renaissance...
Yeah, the tower is actually in my neighborhood though, Woodlawn.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9898  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 10:51 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
University of Chicago Projects:
I believe the garden has been cleared, but is the new CTS building under construction now too?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9899  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 1:22 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWChicago View Post
The whole effect of the building looks like a chopped-off high rise
The building is pretty clearly horizontally oriented, how could it possibly look like a "chopped off high rise"? If anything the new design looks like a chopped off version of one of the K-turd towers downtown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWChicago View Post
The building is clearly seperated into two distinct, stacked units in the first proposal, which bear little visual relationship to each other. They don't share proportions - clunky - there's no continuous elements between the two.
What is wrong with it being two separate stacked masses? Countless modern masterpieces consist of separate, but liked stacked masses. Heck just look at Frank Lloyd Wright's work, all he does is stack horizontally oriented masses on top of each other. His biggest childhood influence was building blocks which are quite literally stacking masses.

Also, of course they don't share proportions, they serve two different purposes. If they had the same proportions then what you would have is a box.

Quote:
Perhaps if the setback was from the front facade instead of the left side it would look better. If the first proposal had some division going down the facade to the street, it would work better. Since it's a theater, the floor heights are going to be taller on the base and shorter above. So clearly, no, it's not literally randomly sized. The staircase is a nice architectural touch that doesn't really make sense for what the building is - I don't see residents choosing that highly-public staircase to get to their residences. That's an element that works well in a public building. It would make me assume that those are offices above, not apartments.
It would be awful if this building were set back off the corner. Part of the problem with new developments in Chicago is that they present weak corners and never belly up to the lot lines. If this were set back it would be nothing more than one of those nasty purple brick ye olde 6 flat's in Wrigleyville with retail in the bottom and then a 15 foot setback with balconies from the street.

What are you talking about with the staircase? You just said "its a theater" and then were like "but staircases like that only belong in public buildings". Isn't a theater a public space? I would assume that the staircase is meant to serve the theater and whatever is on the second and third floors, not the apartments.

The more I discuss this design with you the more I like it. The more I look at it the more I think this is a truly awesome design and am mad it was shot down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9900  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 8:37 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,731
http://www.lakeeffectnews.com/2010/0...ight-for-park/

West Edgewater Residents Fight For Park
By LORRAINE SWANSON


...The French-owned Dexia Bank, which owns the former medical center in U.S. bankruptcy court proceedings, has approached O’Connor with schematics for a planned development to replace the existing medical buildings on the property. Plans call for a residential and commercial development, including 342 rental units, town homes, a parking complex and ground-floor retail. Dexia has yet to submit any formal plans to the city.

...Dexia is in the process of lining up architects and planners to redevelop the parcels. The bank also plans to go before the Chicago Plan Commission to gain commissioners’ approval for a planned development and apply for demolition permits. By doing all the front work Dexia hopes to make the property more enticing to prospective buyers, particularly in a down economy.
---

Surely there must be a way to use the John Wayne Gacy connection to stop this park idea.
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 5:33 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.