Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.