CHICAGO | OneEleven - 111 West Wacker | 630 FT | 59 FLOORS | COM

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Lol, everyone loves commenting on my mood I guess.

I am angry, I saw this on my phone this weekend and have been stewing about it since Saturday.

This is not an aping of Hovey, it is an aping of Optima Streeterville. The coloration, the cut-like inset balconies. It just rips off the style of that building. All it needs is some black glass and it would be indistinguishable.

This design is not cohesive. The massing makes absolutely no sense and the balcony gimmick comes off as a cheap attempt at masking this fact. This is V/E'd piece of shit and I hope it fails and puts Related out of business (doubtful I know). It would make MUCH more sense if it were extended in height as Busy Bee showed. If they stretched it even another 100' or 150' it would instantly look a lot less clumsy and the balconies would start to make sense, but as proposed it looks like crap.

I would not have been fine with this regardless of how beautiful/awesome the previous design was. This is a step backwards and far far worse than the original design. This is hackjob chode of a vertical turd if I've ever seen one. It's shit like this that gives Modernism a bad name and makes people lump Mies in with your 70's econobox. In the future people will lump Optima Streeterville in with this log and probably end up tearing down Optima or something while allowing this monsturd to blight the riverfront.

Edit: This is a pile of shit because they could have just finished the original design 2/3rds of the way and cut it off at floor 60 or so and it would have looked 100X better than this. This just cuts off abruptly even though its more than clear that the design is supposed to set back several times. Completing it with some semblance of a crown is the only think that makes sense besides doing a radical re-shaping of the massing a la the cantilever design.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

i don't mind this. it's clearly not as cool as the cantilever design, but i'll be happy if they just do anything at all with that freaking concrete stump at this point.

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I want to see where the recesses and the visual lines that they draw go on the two sides that we can't see. Will those sides see just dead ends of these curves, or will they continue to jut across the curtain-glass backdrop?

[takascar]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I am angry, I saw this on my phone this weekend and have been stewing about it since Saturday.

No offense or anything, but you know Related doesn't owe us or anyone else anything at all. This is their building, their money, their risk.

Sometimes folks around here sound like developers should be listening to them when this is not true. It always amuses me when folks sound like they are the zoning board with authority to veto a project.

Anyways, does anyone have any idea / info / guess about when construction will resume?

Any more info on the status of the financing?

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Looks like they've decided to drop the density on it and just finish it structurally as planned and cut it off before it gets too high.

In all fairness, according to the video they are still talking about 500 units, which is pretty dense for a building in this area (excluding Marina City)

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by takascar

No offense or anything, but you know Related doesn't owe us or anyone else anything at all. This is their building, their money, their risk.

Sometimes folks around here sound like developers should be listening to them when this is not true. It always amuses me when folks sound like they are the zoning board with authority to veto a project.

Well actually they do owe us something. Property rights are not unlimited and we, the public, does have to deal with what ever crap they decide to slop together for pretty much all eternity. So no, we should and do have a say in what gets built as citizens of the city.

Also, I'm calling them pussies because they are. They should grow some balls and take a bigger risk, but they won't because they are Related, purveyor of fine soulless glass boxes.

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

This is hackjob chode of a vertical turd if I've ever seen one.

Have you ever considered a job as an architecture critic NWH, the words role off your tongue in astounding ways... I'm just kidding. I love your zeal; keep doing what you are doing. I tend to really like those glassy postmodern types and I wish we had one built here (the never built Park Michigan also comes to mind, though I preferred the detailing of this one).

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

It would make MUCH more sense if it were extended in height as Busy Bee showed. If they stretched it even another 100' or 150' it would instantly look a lot less clumsy and the balconies would start to make sense, but as proposed it looks like crap.

...

Edit: This is a pile of shit because they could have just finished the original design 2/3rds of the way and cut it off at floor 60 or so and it would have looked 100X better than this. This just cuts off abruptly even though its more than clear that the design is supposed to set back several times. Completing it with some semblance of a crown is the only think that makes sense besides doing a radical re-shaping of the massing a la the cantilever design.

I do prefer the original design, cut to 650' or so over this design. I prefer raising this one even 100 - 200' higher (though busy Bee showed it over the United Building, which I doubted would ever happen). Either way, this is what Related chose to do. In the same way as NIMBY groups, it isn't our place to stand in the way of their investment - it only encourages others (ie NIMBYs) to do the same (I obviously didn't think that you were going to go picket the construction site or something). We can all malign the design, as we often do with many buildings, but when it comes down to it, any new building is good, especially if it covers a concrete hulk.

Originally Posted by untitledreality

In all fairness, according to the video they are still talking about 500 units, which is pretty dense for a building in this area (excluding Marina City)

I'm going to guess this will be "luxury rentals" in the same way many others going up right now (habitat tower, AMLI river north, 500 N LSD Optima Old Orchard) with small 1, 2, 3 bdrm apts as opposed to the palatial stuff that was to go into the old waterview. I'm going to guess this has more density that that would have (if we include only homes and not the hotel rooms). Does anyone remember how many homes were to go into the waterview?

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Well actually they do owe us something. Property rights are not unlimited and we, the public, does have to deal with what ever crap they decide to slop together for pretty much all eternity. So no, we should and do have a say in what gets built as citizens of the city.

Also, I'm calling them pussies because they are. They should grow some balls and take a bigger risk, but they won't because they are Related, purveyor of fine soulless glass boxes. Everything they are slapping up in NYC is a forced, amorphous glass blob or a soulless glass box and apparently they are spreading that philosophy to Chicago after the stunning success that was 340 OTP.

THis has become a really long post and I'm sorry. One more:

NWM, your first paragraph is actually making the exact same argument as any NIMBY group would. You should start a NIMBY-group. They often talk about how they will be the ones who will have to see their property values decline or how the building is not contextual at all (though sometimes they misunderstand contextualism). Regardless, the only thing that happens when builders are stuck to deal with NIMBY groups is that it takes more time and cost and is usually shorter. Often times the boom is missed. If this building misses the apartment boomlet because some NIMBYs said that it wasn't bold enough for the location, will you be happy? I think that their should be strict zoning regarding the pedestrian friendliness, height, width, etc. and the developer should be allowed to build whatever (structurally sound) building they want. Nothing good comes of NIMBY action. The amazing final product of trump (10 years of Mayor and "community" meddling) is the exception to the rule because Trump wanted to build it so badly (he probably won't make money). Related most certainly will walk away from the deal if it becomes too difficult to do; they don't have the egos of Trump.

As for your second paragraph.Most developers are pussies. And it sucks. But I prefer a "lifeless glass box" to much of the other buildings being developed (AMLI river north esp.). There are times that risk has been shown to have paid off, especially with Aqua here in Chicago and some RAMSA buildings in New York (Superior ink and 15 central park west) but many other starchitect buildings, even in New York, are floundering (even if they sold out at the peak). Good design costs money, and if it isn't worth it, a firm wont go through with it. I think that, in chicago, we are seeing more and more that good design is not worth the cost. We can make it a public good, raise taxes and begin offering breaks to developers who use designs that a panel deems to be sound, but that would just turn into an excuse for developer handouts.

[GregBear24]

This site at clark and wacker deserves something wonderful. The original design was just that. The cantilevered design, as I opined in a previous post, was far from impressive or aesthetically pleasing to me. I was hoping for something more restrained than that, yet modern and soaring. This, however, is even more irritating than the overly audacious cantilever proposal. This design adds absolutely no value to the river canyon, and serves as a reminder that Daniel Burnham quotes have carried little weight in this city for quite some time. This design- in the context of its location- is a complete eyesore. In no way does it relate to anything around it, and it underserves the nearly unanimous desire amongst architecture enthusiasts for an impressive, sleek, modern and fairly tall design at this property.

Yes, developers have the right to do whatever they want with the land they own as long as it does not exist as a literal, physical or functional detriment to the community. They have every right to build this shitty design... and I have every right to hate it. I was not a fan of the previous cantilever design, but at least it would bring SOMETHING to the table in the form of discussion and relative intrigue. This POS offers nothing of value, except it's worse than nothing due to the fact it's on such a high profile site that's visible from a number of iconic vantage points. I would not mind seeing this site remain vacant for another 5 years if it meant the original design returned at a height 200' shorter than the original proposal- no doubt about it.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

NWM, your first paragraph is actually making the exact same argument as any NIMBY group would. You should start a NIMBY-group. They often talk about how they will be the ones who will have to see their property values decline or how the building is not contextual at all (though sometimes they misunderstand contextualism). Regardless, the only thing that happens when builders are stuck to deal with NIMBY groups is that it takes more time and cost and is usually shorter. Often times the boom is missed. If this building misses the apartment boomlet because some NIMBYs said that it wasn't bold enough for the location, will you be happy? I think that their should be strict zoning regarding the pedestrian friendliness, height, width, etc. and the developer should be allowed to build whatever (structurally sound) building they want. Nothing good comes of NIMBY action. The amazing final product of trump (10 years of Mayor and "community" meddling) is the exception to the rule because Trump wanted to build it so badly (he probably won't make money). Related most certainly will walk away from the deal if it becomes too difficult to do; they don't have the egos of Trump.

It's actually not the same argument. NIMBY's take this argument, which is fundamental to our entire concept of government, and contort it in an attempt to achieve some ill conceived goal. The hallmark of the NIMBY is that they don't want anything built in their backyard. They are anti development for any number of stupid reasons from views to being afraid density causes crime, so they take the concept of the public good and try to go BANANAs on all development. They don't want developers to have property rights or to exercise their rights.

What I am advocating is for good design and good stewardship of public spaces such as the River in conjunction with development. I am pro development. I want them to build it and I want them to do it in my backyard. However, I have some basic requirements I expect them to meet such as not building an ugly POS and not committing crimes against urbanity by adding 23.5 curb cuts all around their property. There is a difference between advocating for good development and advocating against any and all development.

[ChiPhi]

Potato, potato (I guess that doesn't work when you write it down). And saying that you are right, thus your use of the government is justified is pretty much the definition of a straw man argument. NIMBYs do usually want less density, but they also want a beautiful city. However they have a different theory on how to achieve that. Urban theory is called that because it is only a theory. And architecture is only a style. Who are you to tell developers that Lagrange can't be hired if people keep buying his stuff. People like what he does for the city, and, as you said, this is a place where the public should have a say on what sort of building gets built. Or do you mean only people like you should get a say. This seems awfully similar to Socrates' idea of a Philosopher King - "only those who think like me are truly fit to rule."

[takascar]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Well actually they do owe us something. Property rights are not unlimited and we, the public, does have to deal with what ever crap they decide to slop together for pretty much all eternity. So no, we should and do have a say in what gets built as citizens of the city.

Also, I'm calling them pussies because they are. They should grow some balls and take a bigger risk, but they won't because they are Related, purveyor of fine soulless glass boxes. Everything they are slapping up in NYC is a forced, amorphous glass blob or a soulless glass box and apparently they are spreading that philosophy to Chicago after the stunning success that was 340 OTP.

They aren't in the business of making nice-looking buildings, but in maximizing number of units/floor and making a profit. Again, if I were going to invest money in such a building, I would be asking how much I could make off of it, not how pretty it was.

[Steely Dan]

*posts edited/deleted to avert city vs. city stupidity*

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

Potato, potato (I guess that doesn't work when you write it down). And saying that you are right, thus your use of the government is justified is pretty much the definition of a straw man argument. NIMBYs do usually want less density, but they also want a beautiful city. However they have a different theory on how to achieve that. Urban theory is called that because it is only a theory. And architecture is only a style. Who are you to tell developers that Lagrange can't be hired if people keep buying his stuff. People like what he does for the city, and, as you said, this is a place where the public should have a say on what sort of building gets built. Or do you mean only people like you should get a say. This seems awfully similar to Socrates' idea of a Philosopher King - "only those who think like me are truly fit to rule."

No it's not straw man (do you even know what that means?). You are basically trying to take the word "NIMBY" and apply it to any citizens who have any concerns about a building. No shit I would fall into that category since I obviously have concerns about this building. But that's not at all what NIMBY means. NIMBY does not stand for "Not In My BackYard Unless You Make the Following Reasonable Changes". It stands for "Not In My BackYard". It only applies to people who oppose a project simply because they don't want anything built near them or for other irrational reasons that are not based in fact. So no, the guy who says "this proposal is ugly, let's ask that the podium be reduced" does not fall into the NIMBY category. Only the people who say "BUILD TOWNHOMES INSTEAD OF SKYSCRAPERS" are NIMBY's because they have an irrational desire to see as little development occur as possible. They are typically in opposition to good urban planning because they advocate little to no density in places that are optimal for density. Meanwhile a concerned citizen might say "This building has too many curb cuts and ruins the cityscape with an ugly garage" which are legitimate criticisms of a building not based in an irrational fear of density.

For example:

WLCO = NIMBY
SOAR = Concerned citizens with valid critiques of proposals.

Originally Posted by takascar

They aren't in the business of making nice-looking buildings, but in maximizing number of units/floor and making a profit. Again, if I were going to invest money in such a building, I would be asking how much I could make off of it, not how pretty it was.

OK, so if a developer want's to build a smog factory on this site then we have no right to control what they do? That's bullshit. There is a long tradition of the city getting some say in what gets built because it affects everyone. Same applies to piss poor design that ruins the cityscape.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by takascar

No offense or anything, but you know Related doesn't owe us or anyone else anything at all. This is their building, their money, their risk.

Sometimes folks around here sound like developers should be listening to them when this is not true. It always amuses me when folks sound like they are the zoning board with authority to veto a project.

Anyways, does anyone have any idea / info / guess about when construction will resume?

Any more info on the status of the financing?

This is an open forum to discuss opinions and provide information and updates on projects. The only restriction here is that posts be thoughtful and respectful. As architecture and urban enthusiasts, members here enjoy what each of us has to say, even if we disagree with it. We don't expect anyone in the profession to acknowledge what is said or even be aware of what is being discussed. If this venue for open opinions is not your cup tea, there's always CurbedChicago which provides updates and photos without all the chatter.

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

No it's not straw man (do you even know what that means?). You are basically trying to take the word "NIMBY" and apply it to any citizens who have any concerns about a building. No shit I would fall into that category since I obviously have concerns about this building. But that's not at all what NIMBY means. NIMBY does not stand for "Not In My BackYard Unless You Make the Following Reasonable Changes". It stands for "Not In My BackYard". It only applies to people who oppose a project simply because they don't want anything built near them or for other irrational reasons that are not based in fact. So no, the guy who says "this proposal is ugly, let's ask that the podium be reduced" does not fall into the NIMBY category. Only the people who say "BUILD TOWNHOMES INSTEAD OF SKYSCRAPERS" are NIMBY's because they have an irrational desire to see as little development occur as possible. They are typically in opposition to good urban planning because they advocate little to no density in places that are optimal for density. Meanwhile a concerned citizen might say "This building has too many curb cuts and ruins the cityscape with an ugly garage" which are legitimate criticisms of a building not based in an irrational fear of density.

For example:

WLCO = NIMBY
SOAR = Concerned citizens with valid critiques of proposals.

I don't have the time to address this point-by-point. I would apply the term NIMBY to any group that tries to change something being built in their back yard. And I can understand NIMBY outrage over something like a "smog factory" but this is not a smog factory. It is a bland, but okay building that will add more than it will detract. If builders know that it is hard to build in Chicago, especially given that this city is less profitable than SF or LA or NY (especially NY), builders will simply not build, especially the national ones. But if building is easy here (as it was under Daley), with minimal input from "the community of concerned citizens" then we can get more towers.

And, yes, I do know what a straw-man argument. Ironically, you follow that question by saying that those NIMBYs who disagree (as opposed to those who agree) with you have, "an irrational desire to see as little development occur as possible," which I would call a straw-man argument. They are most likely not irrational, but (at best) uninformed and more likely they have valid reasons for wanting less development (they dislike noise, want to easily find parking, like the small-neighborhood feel that will be lost to towers). This may by self interest (and so may be our goals, hoping to see our brand of dense urbanism - though there are green benefits), but self interest, of course, is not the same as irrationality. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

Again, don't let this mean that I don't think that we can't sit here and say that "this tower sucks," but I think that we should try to keep the path to development as smooth as possible.

[BorisMolotov]

but (at best) uninformed and more likely they have invalid reasons for wanting less development (they dislike noise, want to easily find parking, like the small-neighborhood feel that will be lost to towers

This is the definition of a NIMBY. Period.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by orulz

Call me boring, conservative, unsophisticated, whatever, I far prefer this to the slapdash look of the cantilevered design since it actually looks like a single building. I am not opposed to the idea of a cantilever; I am opposed to a building that completely changes style at such an awkward height. The ratio of the base's height beneath the cantilever to the tower height above it was just off somehow - the proportions were just not aesthetically pleasing at all.

I agree 100% this new design is awesome I literally do not understand all the fuss...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Patrick

I literally do not understand all the fuss...

because this:




is far more avant-garde and daring than this:





this forum has a decided bent towards architecture that pushes the limits as opposed to architecture that plays it safe. if you have different aesthetic sensibilities than those that predominate on this forum, that's perfectly fine, but that is in fact what "all the fuss" is about.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

because this:

...

is far more avant-garde and daring than this:

Boy, seeing those two side by side really makes me want to punch someone at Related in the dick.

[Patrick]

I do prefer the top portion of the old design, I agree it's more avant-garde, but the rest of it was just awkward architecture. I feel the new design will fit in better with it's surroundings, but it should be much taller (like what Busy Bee posted).

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

this forum has a decided bent towards architecture that pushes the limits as opposed to architecture that plays it safe. if you have different aesthetic sensibilities than those that predominate on this forum, that's perfectly fine, but that is in fact what "all the fuss" is about.

Literally, Lol. Just because I prefer the new more conservative design does not mean I prefer boring architecture.