CHICAGO | General Developments

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

I'm really over this "let's put 20 kinds of cladding on the building, it will look cool" phase. You see many examples in Chicago, from recent visits I think there are even more in DC. They're going to be very dated very soon.

I feel like it's getting to the point that lots of materials and randomized patterns are actually becoming substitutes for any sort of principles of good design.

There is nothing about the proportions, scale, or composition of this building that is good. None of the pieces are decent on their own, and combined they are just horrible. Pure shit mascaraing as trendy. And even worse, this building absolutely towers over and overpowers everything near it with it's complete lack of human scale. Best case scenario, this thing gets a complete overhaul and new facade in 30 years.

[Busy Bee]

I'm really over this "let's put 20 kinds of cladding on the building, it will look cool" phase. You see many examples in Chicago, from recent visits I think there are even more in DC. They're going to be very dated very soon.

I feel like it's getting to the point that lots of materials and randomized patterns are actually becoming substitutes for any sort of principles of good design.

There is nothing about the proportions, scale, or composition of this building that is good. None of the pieces are decent on their own, and combined they are just horrible. Pure shit mascaraing as trendy. And even worse, this building absolutely towers over and overpowers everything near it with it's complete lack of human scale. Best case scenario, this thing gets a complete overhaul and new facade in 30 years.

I cannot emphasize my agreement more. Outside of much higher end residential and office architectural trends, it's been my opinion for years that this re-orientation towards modern design for urban multi-family and other similar dev's has provided an opportunity for developers to use what are essentially cheap materials and many architectural firms to go hog wild with less material cost restraints. The result of this "less is more? What's that?" movement is, in my humble opinion, a great many new buildings that are absolute dreck. I can't imagine them making it out of the 2020's without already looking passe and terrible much like much of the neo-trad 90's jumbo brick trash does.

I'm having trouble finding, outside of the density, anything positive to say about the above Addison development. It really makes you wonder what is going on inside these firms that this design makes it to construction. Depressing.

[marothisu]

Yeah this building looks pretty weird..too much going on

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by harryc

Aug 31

that is just flat out hideous, what the hell were they thinking!

[RedCorsair87]

It was really frustrating looking at this after I looked through the "Historical Chicago Thread" and saw all the great architecture this city used to have. Absolutely heartbreaking.

[Chisouthside]

Chicago is not alone at least, there's plenty of ugly monstrosities like that being built in the Bay and I was down in LA last week and alot of their new developments are also like that.

[Via Chicago]

that building is violence. easily the worst design of the past decade. id take the old block back in a heartbeat.

[Via Chicago]

your mixed use yuppie box isnt complete in 2018 if it isnt taking design cues a Wendys drivethrough (actually, the Wendys is less offensive than the Wrigleyville abomination)

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

I'm really over this "let's put 20 kinds of cladding on the building, it will look cool" phase.

Really seems to be a trend with projects that include movie theaters: Clark + Addison, New City, and that Portage Park Sears flyer that is floating around.
Definitely not a fan.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by RedCorsair87

I like the density here, but can someone explain what the design process was behind this monstrosity?

SCB doing SCB things.

[Rizzo]

This is the kind of thing that happens when too many people have input on a design.

In these scenarios, you got a developer that wants to save on cost so you get a really big box. A neighborhood that wants a reduced mass. An architect that attempts to answer both by slapping on different materials on that big box.

Any architects have a developer hand you their program? It’s often a bunch of crude boxes drawn in power point or paint over a google map. “I want this, and want it to cost this much. Make it to code and the style look trendy.”

The project in Wrigley is a bloated interpretation of a penthouse atop an industrial masonry base...way over exaggerated of course. In the 90’s and early 00’s you saw these large buildings broken up vetically with different materials and bump-outs. That became overplayed so buildings became stratified instead. I think some architects took note of glass and metal additions on top of older masonry buildings and thought “hey this looks cool, I’m going to try this on new construction.”

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

your mixed use yuppie box isnt complete in 2018 if it isnt taking design cues a Wendys drivethrough

Watch what you say about Wendys!

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

Chicago is not alone at least, there's plenty of ugly monstrosities like that being built in the Bay and I was down in LA last week and alot of their new developments are also like that.

I was in Seattle most of last year for a project and it seemed like nearly every new and new-ish building had at lease 3-5 finish types. I just figured it was a small city hacky local firms were doing the work.

Is there a reason for inflicting something like this on a building?

[Chisouthside]

Tbh I have no clue as im not too privy to design trends either. In the bay there's already alot of ugly office parks so I dont think there's as much of a pushback against ugly design.
I would imagine in the bay it might just be developers trying to add flair to cheap materials to offset the high land prices??

SF
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7729...7i13312!8i6656
Redwood City
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4866...7i16384!8i8192

Originally Posted by XIII

I was in Seattle most of last year for a project and it seemed like nearly every new and new-ish building had at lease 3-5 finish types. I just figured it was a small city hacky local firms were doing the work.

Is there a reason for inflicting something like this on a building?

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

I would imagine in the bay it might just be developers trying to add flair to cheap materials to offset the high land prices??

My intuition says that high land prices plus tight zoning constraints would encourage more expensive materials. If it’s hard to increase the square footage you try harder to increase the rent per square foot.

Personally, I feel like the style has developed out of a new taste for “redeveloped” properties that have a mix of materials, old and new. Consciously or not that might be bleeding over into the design of new construction. Kinda how industrial-chic became popular after loft conversions took off. Also, it’s particularly common with large, block-sized developments, so it might be [badly] serving the purpose of visually breaking it up.

But I’m not an architect, just my guess.

[BrinChi]

I think some previous comments have hinted at this, but isn't the mixing of materials and facade an attempt (albeit a miserable one) at making these massive block-size developments feel more granular and less imposing? They're not fooling anyone, but I always assumed that was the reason. This is definitely too much. And heaven forbid we actually... I don't know... build at a smaller scale? I guess that's pie-in-the-sky thinking in the age of corporatism and a shrinking middle class. Well at least most people in the area will be too drunk to notice or care about this building.

[SIGSEGV]

Yeah, I imagine it gives the impression that it's multiple buildings instead of one big one.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

I think some previous comments have hinted at this, but isn't the mixing of materials and facade an attempt (albeit a miserable one) at making these massive block-size developments feel more granular and less imposing? They're not fooling anyone, but I always assumed that was the reason. This is definitely too much. And heaven forbid we actually... I don't know... build at a smaller scale? I guess that's pie-in-the-sky thinking in the age of corporatism and a shrinking middle class. Well at least most people in the area will be too drunk to notice or care about this building.

No - most of the residents are not drunk - This is a stadium in a neighborhood, not a stadium's area.

[Busy Bee]

This is definitely too much. And heaven forbid we actually... I don't know... build at a smaller scale? I guess that's pie-in-the-sky thinking in the age of corporatism and a shrinking middle class.

Look I think the building's a dog, but what in the hell are you talking about?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by harryc

No - most of the residents are not drunk - This is a stadium in a neighborhood, not a stadium's area.

i lived in wrigelyville (3500 block of n. sheffield) from 2000-2005.

i think i was drunk for most of those 5 years.

but my memory is a bit hazy.