CHICAGO | Roosevelt University Dorm | 469 FT / 143M | 32 FLOORS | COM

[J_M_Tungsten]

YAAAYYYY, Andys videos make this official now!!!

[andydie]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

YAAAYYYY, Andys videos make this official now!!!

thanx J_M_

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Hayward

That's a common wall. There will be no fenestration or major finished treatments because there is supposed to be a building there eventually.

The model in Roosevelt's lobby shows windows on that wall. It's just a simple scored-concrete wall with a basic grid pattern of punched openings.

[eaguir3]

cool stuff andydie..always enjoy your videos.

[george]

8-27

[harryc]

Case is done w the foundation - now to start on the sheet pilings


Industrial size vibrator




Sumps ? - why 3 so close together ?

[Mr Downtown]

I'd like to hear opinions about how large a lighted sign (if any) Roosevelt should be allowed to have on top. Does it carry forward the tradition of signs atop buildings facing Grant Park, or is it a bush-league addition to a building whose architecture should speak for itself?

[denizen467]

^ I would hope the relevant limiting factor would be self-restraint, reflecting the dignity of an aspiring educational institution, rather than mandatory restraint from a governmental edict. Something tasteful, such as simply the school's name, would be okay, but a logo, particularly if multicolored or busy, probably should be avoided. Names have a timelessness to them; logos get dated at best or look like tacky advertisements at worst. In Lincoln Park, the buildings with the DePaul logo emblazoned prominently (a lousy logo IMHO) just feel cheapened to me.

[ardecila]

If signage is a must, then I'd like to see the word "COLUMBIA" "ROOSEVELT" written vertically on the east facade using a ceramic frit on the glass. It would be low-visibility but if you were looking at the building, you'd notice it. You could outline it at night with white neon fixtures behind the glass.... it would be very Koolhaas.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Names have a timelessness to them; logos get dated at best or look like tacky advertisements at worst.

Not entirely. Roosevelt's signage on the exterior of the Auditorium Building no longer matches their current visual identity.

My suggestion is a giant flame atop of the tower to represent their goal of enlightening the human spirit. Perhaps we can borrow Daley's 2016 cauldron. Hopefully that's feasible.

Originally Posted by ardecila

If signage is a must, then I'd like to see the word "COLUMBIA" written vertically on the east facade using a ceramic frit on the glass. It would be low-visibility but if you were looking at the building, you'd notice it. You could outline it at night with white neon fixtures behind the glass.... it would be very Koolhaas.

Columbia? Although the use of graphics on their Wabash building is outstanding...

[Nowhereman1280]

I wouldn't mind them putting signage up top. My only problem is that their current logo and text treatment sucks and wouldn't match the style of this building at all. If they want to put a sign up, it should be the name only since that logo is bush league. I would also say the limiting factor should be what looks the most proportional to the design and the most natural. For example, the sign on Loyola's Baumhart Hall is very well done. Its just big enough for people to notice and go "oh that's Loyola" but not big enough to detract from the design or be obnoxious.

I generally like signs on buildings just because it helps the average person associate a building or place with a name. For example, I would never be able to tell people to meet me in Chase Plaza downtown if it didn't say "CHASE" in huge letters on top of the building. It would just be another big building to everyone without the sign. I guess what I am saying is not everyone memorizes skylines like we do and signs help them to know what landmark buildings are called.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Names have a timelessness to them; logos get dated at best or look like tacky advertisements at worst.

Originally Posted by spyguy

Not entirely. Roosevelt's signage on the exterior of the Auditorium Building no longer matches their current visual identity.

I'm not sure what is on the Auditorium Building, but it sounds like that may be a typeface issue. What I meant about names having timelessness would apply with a very neutral or generic typeface. In other words, one that is congruent with the building's design vocabulary -- since the building design will be immutable over time, the name in an appropriate typeface also will not seem as dated over time. So, roman style lettering on Beaux-Arts structures endures forever; on the new Roosevelt tower maybe, say, a helvetica (or fill in the blank) family typeface would look fine even as the school's visual identity morphed over time.

[Mr Downtown]

I'm not asking what typeface the sign should be in!

Regulators don't get to decide things like that. The question is whether a rooftop sign should be permitted as a matter of principle.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Like I said I'm all for a sign if its reasonable proportional to the design of the building. Should they be allowed to make the top 100 feet of the building a giant sign? No, but should they be allowed to put "roosevelt university" in 15-20 foot letters offset to the west on the building? Of course...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Columbia? Although the use of graphics on their Wabash building is outstanding...

Oops... I meant Roosevelt. Blame it on the beer...

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I'm not asking what typeface the sign should be in!

Regulators don't get to decide things like that. The question is whether a rooftop sign should be permitted as a matter of principle.

No, your question actually was "how large a lighted sign" should be permitted. And of course the answer is: It depends. On whether it's neon. On whether it's flashing. On whether it includes logos or graphics. On whether it is a video screen that displays changing images. On a variety of things. Guess what: a broad discussion ensued. Regulators do get to decide some of those things.

But more broadly, who said we are talking about regulators? Were you not asking about aesthetic opinions? If the restrictions you have in mind are ones with legal force, then why are you asking in the first place, since ordinances already exist and presumably aren't going to be changed just for this building? And if they are going to be changed for this building, then what is wrong with going into a broader discussion about aesthetics? That is where the typeface discussion creeps in.

In case you haven't noticed, city hall here exerts substantial -- basically extralegal -- influence on aesthetics. And probably even more so with cultural, educational, or nonprofit institutions, because those are always so intertwined with politics and the local social order.

If you want a narrower discussion, could you specify the parameters first. Not everybody is familiar with the underlying signage ordinances etc. that you may be taking as obvious.

[harryc]

have you hugged your equipment today ?

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by harryc

have you hugged your equipment today ?

Harry - do you think of the captions after viewing the photos - or does the caption pop into your mind and then you frame the photo? Always so clever, always appreciated!


The more I look at that yellow contraption the more I think it was something left over from Transformers filming...

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by harryc

have you hugged your equipment today ?

I hug it everyday lol

[george]

Nice set, harry^

9-17