CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[10023]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm assuming you realize many of Burnham's buildings are landmarked, yes? I get what you're trying to say, but the phrasing is a little awkward.

This isn't a bad building, but it's not exceptional and has no important historic events attached to it. Plenty of US cities have old industrial buildings just like this. Burnham's buildings don't constitute a body of unique, irreplaceable work like Sullivan or Wright. His significance mainly concerns city planning and the refinements his firm made to skyscraper design (Reliance Building, etc).

I know. I’m merely saying that there could be an argument for preserving any of his work just based on who he was.

Chicago (and American cities in general) should be better about adaptive re-use. That project in Lincoln Park that adds a glass “shell” to an old baptist church is a great example. If nothing else it creates a much, more more interesting and pleasant streetscape, instead of parking podium hell as in River North or Streeterville.

[marothisu]

^ The developer (or is it previous developer?) for the church redevelopment actually wanted to tear it down for some sort of mid or high rise I believe but the neighborhood rallied against it. So what we're seeing here is luckily something more unique and not just tearing down a church for some suburban low rise. Thank god..the renderings for this look pretty cool. I'll actually take it over a mediocre high rise.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by 10023

I know. I’m merely saying that there could be an argument for preserving any of his work just based on who he was.

Chicago (and American cities in general) should be better about adaptive re-use. That project in Lincoln Park that adds a glass “shell” to an old baptist church is a great example. If nothing else it creates a much, more more interesting and pleasant streetscape, instead of parking podium hell as in River North or Streeterville.

What happened to River North is honestly criminal. Nearly all of the historic row houses and most of the warehouses have been lost, replaced by beige towers a top 5+ story parking podiums. I'm very pleased that developers and residents seem to have a present interest in preserving the character of the West Loop. We've lost a few gems and we're bound to lose a few more, but the fact that so many are rehabbed makes the nerd in me ecstatic.

[the urban politician]

if Chicago had had a prewar high rise residential boom prior to 1940 like New York did, we wouldn’t be in this predicament.

The fact is, places like River North, Streeterville, and now even the West Loop weren’t densely built up enough for Chicago’s modern needs as a global service city.

So we face the bitter truth that many beautiful classic buildings will have to come down to accommodate the growth. And stuff we build today, unless really well designed, will never look as nice as stuff built back then.

It’s only now that Chicago is becoming a full-fledged highrise city with 24-7 qualities, walk everywhere, etc. But New York was already at this point 100 years ago. I often wonder how different Chicago would be if it had undergone this transformation a century ago.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

if Chicago had had a prewar high rise residential boom prior to 1940 like New York did, we wouldn’t be in this predicament.

The fact is, places like River North, Streeterville, and now even the West Loop weren’t densely built up enough for Chicago’s modern needs as a global service city.

So we face the bitter truth that many beautiful classic buildings will have to come down to accommodate the growth. And stuff we build today, unless really well designed, will never look as nice as stuff built back then.

It’s only now that Chicago is becoming a full-fledged highrise city with 24-7 qualities, walk everywhere, etc. But New York was already at this point 100 years ago. I often wonder how different Chicago would be if it had undergone this transformation a century ago.

Additions like the one O'Neil Construction is working on at 168 N Michigan are/were possible, although not always feasible. There are a couple of towers in the central area that kept their historic bases and built modern towers atop. I think tasteful 10-15 story glassy additions would have looked great. Certainly better than most the 40+ story beige and glass towers that replaced them. Original warehouse floors would have made for great office space, especially in today's market where people prefer more open floor plans and demand greater flexibility in their space. Would have also brought about a truly mixed use neighborhood with "medium" levels of height and density sooner. Only now are we starting to get that in the West Loop. Lake and city views sell well though...

If Chicago's history remained mostly identical to what has happened in our branch of reality, a Chicago that boomed 30 years earlier (crossing 500k or so almost immediately after the Civil War) would be an interesting place. Would have certainly clipped New York.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by marothisu

^ The developer (or is it previous developer?) for the church redevelopment actually wanted to tear it down for some sort of mid or high rise I believe but the neighborhood rallied against it. So what we're seeing here is luckily something more unique and not just tearing down a church for some suburban low rise. Thank god..the renderings for this look pretty cool. I'll actually take it over a mediocre high rise.

Since I was involved with the earlier effort on the church site... it wasn't the neighborhood broadly, but purely the condo owners in the adjacent tower worried about lost views. They had some delusional notion that someone would come build a giant mansion on the site (in the shadow of their parking garage, and right next to the wafting garbage from the loading dock!)

The alderman wouldn't even let it get to a public community meeting where other neighborhood residents could weigh in. Our scheme was actually pretty nice, Booth Hansen was signed on as architect. Would have been a pretty elegant sliver tower around 12 stories, similar style to 30 West Oak. Hardly mediocre!

I agree the Giordano proposal is an elegant solution, given the constraints, but it seems like a very expensive building (and location!) for what is essentially just practice space. Maybe they can rely on donations from wealthy patrons to finance construction? I'm also really happy the church was able to find a buyer, they were a struggling Black congregation with good leadership that really needed some money to find a new, better home closer to the South or West Side. The preservation of the old facade is a nice touch. Assuming this gets built, all's well that ends well.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The fact is, places like River North, Streeterville, and now even the West Loop weren’t densely built up enough for Chicago’s modern needs as a global service city. So we face the bitter truth that many beautiful classic buildings will have to come down to accommodate the growth.

Most of the old buildings in River North came down in the Urban Renewal movement of the 60s - 80s well before the recent high rise growth. It was not because of land pressure. It was more that the public in those days had little appetite for keeping/rehabbing decaying pre-war architecture in the age of Modernism. It was also a way to level unwanted low income areas.

Look at River North in early 1991 (and this looks full compared to just north of this shot) -


marinacity.org

[the urban politician]

^ Right, but much of that demo would never have happened if River North were chock full of apartment highrises and hotels built in the 1910's and 20's. The demo occurred because there were a bunch of 3-4 story warehouses that were beyond a useful role and probably worth less than a surface parking lot.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Right, but much of that demo would never have happened if River North were chock full of apartment highrises and hotels built in the 1910's and 20's. The demo occurred because there were a bunch of 3-4 story warehouses that were beyond a useful role and probably worth less than a surface parking lot.

Yes, that's true. Rehabbing a two story building wasn't as cost effective as having a surface lot with everyone now driving back then. If the city were more built up in its central core it likely wouldn't have happened on such a wide scale. Sad

[harryc]

Nov 17

[harryc]

Nov 17

[ChiHi]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm assuming you realize many of Burnham's buildings are landmarked, yes? I get what you're trying to say, but the phrasing is a little awkward.

This isn't a bad building, but it's not exceptional and has no important historic events attached to it. Plenty of US cities have old industrial buildings just like this. Burnham's buildings don't constitute a body of unique, irreplaceable work like Sullivan or Wright. His significance mainly concerns city planning and the refinements his firm made to skyscraper design (Reliance Building, etc).

My point doesn't even revolve around highly acclaimed buildings. It just seems that any building with any sort of character no longer has a place in Chicago. Chicago (city or developers) just has a very short sighted view when it comes to development. They quickly and without thought wipe out a 80-90 year old building to put up some crappy, sterile, design of the moment econo box.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by ChiHi

My point doesn't even revolve around highly acclaimed buildings. It just seems that any building with any sort of character no longer has a place in Chicago. Chicago (city or developers) just has a very short sighted view when it comes to development. They quickly and without thought wipe out a 80-90 year old building to put up some crappy, sterile, design of the moment econo box.

Like the Thompson center?

I found a really cool vmineo video I don't know how to embed on the Thompson Center. If you got the time its worth the look regardless of how you feel about it.

https://www.citylab.com/design/2017/...saving/545387/

Is This Red, White, and Blue Elephant Worth Saving?

Benjamin Schneider Nov 13, 2017

Illinois politicians agree that Chicago’s Thompson Center should be replaced. Architects and preservationists beg to differ, and a new documentary presents their case.
...













maybe there is a better thread for this topic. feel free to move if needed

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by bnk

Like the Thompson center?

I found a really cool vmineo video I don't know how to embed on the Thompson Center. If you got the time its worth the look regardless of how you feel about it.

https://www.citylab.com/design/2017/...saving/545387/

Is This Red, White, and Blue Elephant Worth Saving?

Benjamin Schneider Nov 13, 2017

Illinois politicians agree that Chicago’s Thompson Center should be replaced. Architects and preservationists beg to differ, and a new documentary presents their case.
...













maybe there is a better thread for this topic. feel free to move if needed

Personally, I have nothing at all against the Thompson Center. Is it a bit dated? Sure. That being said, it's still very interesting architecturally and seems to be structurally sound. I also like the openness granted by the massive atrium in the building!

Not sure what people's issue with it really are, honestly.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[KWillChicago]

Anyone got any ears on Northwestern and a possible start to te tower portion? Is it years off and waiting on financing or can we hope for them to just get settled into the base portion and then start up?

[Fvn]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

Anyone got any ears on Northwestern and a possible start to te tower portion? Is it years off and waiting on financing or can we hope for them to just get settled into the base portion and then start up?

Hopefully not as long as it took them to get to the second phase of the Bluecross tower (took em 10 years I think)

[Ricochet48]

Originally Posted by ChiHi

Chicago (city or developers) just has a very short sighted view when it comes to development. They quickly and without thought wipe out a 80-90 year old building to put up some crappy, sterile, design of the moment econo box.

It's more so the investors that want a quick reliable return on their investments. To get high LEED certifications your plans are often quite limited.
Moreover, the 'safe' move is to make a high amenity building in River North, charge $2000/mo for 625sqft and call it a day. If the market changes too drastically you can always convert to condos (like Grand Plaza did for the smaller tower).

[harryc]

Nov 20

[harryc]

Nov 20





with 1101 S State

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by harryc

Homewood Hilton - 1101 S Wabash
Nov 20

I'm betting OBP finishes before this hotel. Anyone wanna place higher bets?