CHICAGO | Mid-Continental Plaza | 538 FT / 178 M | 49 FLOORS | 1972 - Page 2

Alliance · #21 Posted **Oct 20, 2008, 5:49 PM**

I guess this is punishment for thinking the building was an eyesore before.

JMO_0121 · #22 Posted **Oct 20, 2008, 11:07 PM**

Funny thing is, its not going to be half and half, its going to be 8/49 or not even 1/4!! Im starting to have second thoughts about this! Not 15 floors but 8?

SolarWind · #23 Posted **Nov 1, 2008, 10:15 PM**

October 31, 2008

Nowhereman1280 · #24 Posted **Nov 1, 2008, 11:23 PM**

Wow, I'm actually kinda impressed by how not shitty the sections they've redone are turning out. Its too bad they aren't just doing the whole building which could have actually looked good...

CHI-TOWN FLAME · #25 Posted **Nov 20, 2008, 3:56 PM**

http://www.emporis.com/images/5/2003/06/197495.jpg
ITS VISIBLE IN THE SKYLINE FROM LAKE MICHIGAN
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._2560_ver2.jpg

george · #26 Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 2:48 AM**

I've never been a fan of this hulking monolith, but I think this renovation will help lighten up it's mass. Bring it on

.

SolarWind · #27 Posted **Nov 29, 2008, 7:48 AM**

November 26, 2008

harryc · #28 Posted **Nov 29, 2008, 1:36 PM**

SolarWind · #29 Posted **May 10, 2009, 6:33 AM**

April 22, 2009

April 23, 2009

CGII · #30 Posted **May 10, 2009, 9:48 AM**

Thankfully this came out quite well.

But it still isn't as good as it was originally.

george · #31 Posted **Jun 17, 2009, 6:33 PM**

5-17-09

Dac150 · #32 Posted **Jun 21, 2009, 1:11 AM**

As someone who is a real big 60’s and 70’s international box fan, this particular example of that architecture never made my A-list. The location in relation to the building, I’ve always found, is awkward at best, therefore takes away from the buildings character and automatically portrays it has an imposing eyesore.

With that said (and again, this is coming from someone who is tremendously against giving international boxes an exterior facelift) I’ve always felt that this building could use one, given its location. The location is simply too ‘nice’ for a building that should be buried in the skyline.

Getting to the point, I feel that this option the developers are taking is not the right one, or practical one at that. This is a textbook example of the developer worrying more about the wallet rather than the appearance of their property. Sadly for the city of Chicago this shameful attempt has backfired into something even worse.

Now obviously there is no going back on this one, so I would vouch for the entire façade to get a uniformed look, rather than this ‘mix and match’ concept they have going. That sentiment of course is in a perfect world.

george · #33 Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 6:02 PM**

6-24

JMO_0121 · #34 Posted **Jun 26, 2009, 5:12 PM**

Are they still going to complete the 15 floors or have they stopped?

stormkingfan · #35 Posted **Jun 27, 2009, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

October 14, 2008

Mmmmmm, I like that collection of older bldgs in front!

As for the topic at hand, I like the old facade better.

Pandemonious · #36 Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 12:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

6-24

This looks like total shit I think, and I have to see this building everyday, even up really close, unless I willfully look away...

Patrick · #37 Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 2:09 AM**

I think it looks kinda neat the way it is

But when it's done, well I don't know if I'll approve:

J_M_Tungsten · #38 Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 2:24 AM**

I thought only part of the building was supposed to be done like the top, not the whole thing

wrab · #39 Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 3:31 AM**

^ Yeah - only the top quarter or so gets the makeover. So not a total makeover. But thanks anyway Patrick for the PS - I was curious what that might look like.

J_M_Tungsten · #40 Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 5:19 AM**

I actually like the fully done version alot better than the partially done one