HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive

    

740 North Rush in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 3:30 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 571
That is ugly...Looks like a closet storage rack. Reilly will probably approve it now
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 3:30 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,589
While height is always nice, it won't make a difference in this location. The design looks terrible and something out of the 90's (is this SBC?). And if the addresses are correct in Reilly's newsletter, this means they are not only demolishing the nice lowrises on Wabash, but the mid-block building on Superior as well as Giordano's (or is that part being kept)? Not acceptable. I hope this one dies quickly.

And by Reilly's definition, this is a way more "ambitious" (to use his words) program compared to the hotel he killed a year or two ago.
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 4:16 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
Can't knock the hustle
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
While height is always nice, it won't make a difference in this location. The design looks terrible and something out of the 90's (is this SBC?).
I'm not a fan of the design. Maybe we just need to see other renderings at certain agles to get a better idea, but right now, it's not stellar, but mediocre.
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 4:21 PM
ChiTownWonder's Avatar
ChiTownWonder ChiTownWonder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Orland Park
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I'm not a fan of the design. Maybe we just need to see other renderings at certain agles to get a better idea, but right now, it's not stellar, but mediocre.
I agree, the rendering is what is most ridiculous, you cant see the street level interaction, or a proper angle of the crown. All this rendering displays is the basic shaft of the tower..
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 5:03 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 853
Height = Good, Design = Sucks (based on the one rendering), ..also why destroy nice lowrise buildings when there are plenty of parking lots in the area or less then desirable lowrises to take down?
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 5:27 PM
Hayward's Avatar
Hayward Hayward is offline
North Center
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,686
Not sure, but maybe someone can take a closer look. Are they attempting to line the base with the old facades along superior or did they just forget to photoshop them out? Look closely and you'll see the side profile of one of the buildings.
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 5:59 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,138
I might be turning NIMBY as I age here, but if another out of town developer is just going to try to plop down a tower on a blank podium, collect their returns, and scram, then we have a problem. We might as well put this screwed up Aldermanic prerogative system to some sort of good use by extracting some good concessions here.

Now I know that the usual fuckface brigade will be out there whining about parking and congestion, but if they can be ignored, some sound design changes should be pursued. Any project that has 8 floors of blank podium simply must be declared unacceptable from the get go.
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 6:07 PM
Mikemak27's Avatar
Mikemak27 Mikemak27 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 223
Reilly has also perpetually blocked the redevelopment of the hardware store lot at Grand and Orleans. Apparently he didn't get his required campaign donation from the developer and instead pandered to the NiMBYS whose views would be blocked.

This building should be approved with minimal above ground parking, active uses for the podium like retail, offices, or condo units, and as few curb cuts as possible.
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 6:10 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Not sure, but maybe someone can take a closer look. Are they attempting to line the base with the old facades along superior or did they just forget to photoshop them out? Look closely and you'll see the side profile of one of the buildings.
No old facades somebody just f'd up using photoshop. If you look closely you can see somebody forgot to crop a vertical strip off on the bottom right side of the building.
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 7:39 PM
Rocket49 Rocket49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Liner units should be a basic requirement at this point.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "liner unit".
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 7:58 PM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I might be turning NIMBY as I age here, but if another out of town developer is just going to try to plop down a tower on a blank podium, collect their returns, and scram, then we have a problem. We might as well put this screwed up Aldermanic prerogative system to some sort of good use by extracting some good concessions here.

Now I know that the usual fuckface brigade will be out there whining about parking and congestion, but if they can be ignored, some sound design changes should be pursued. Any project that has 8 floors of blank podium simply must be declared unacceptable from the get go.
The previous design was far superior as it had no parking and preserved 1 structural bay of depth on the existing 740 N Rush building, so different than a standard facadectomy.

The auto-centric minded people who also complain about traffic are the ones demanding these projects have more parking, and thus the proposal comes back with a podium. As BVictor mentioned, Reilly's office usually sees these proposals first and often forces changes before they are "ready for community input".

I'm betting coming back with a parking component and arguing including it drove up the cost is why we have a larger design on the table now.
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 8:07 PM
ChickeNES's Avatar
ChickeNES ChickeNES is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 360
Are we sure that the podium is blank? To me it looks like there are large windows on it, but it's hard to tell due to the quality of that part of the rendering. Overall though I think I like it? Certainly better than all of the beige schlock surrounding it. I wish the Giordano's building could stay, but I can't say I really care all that much about the other lowrises. I'd say they should shift the tower to the west end of the lot, build the amenity deck on top of the Giordano's building and call it a day.
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 8:29 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket49 View Post
Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "liner unit".
He's referring to when the outside of a parking podium is lined with apartments or condos
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 8:37 PM
Rocket49 Rocket49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 105
^^^
Thanks. I was guessing that's what a liner unit is but wasn't sure.
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2017, 1:19 AM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,233
I'm going to reserve comment until I see street level renderings. But this doesn't look hopeful.
__________________
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2017, 3:59 PM
gebs gebs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 79
I almost wish they would hand out nametags at Monday's community meeting with everyone's SSP name on it. I bet a lot of us will be there.
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2017, 4:55 PM
Rooster slayer Rooster slayer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8
That crown is making the Waldorf crown almost look appealing....
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2017, 5:57 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
The previous design was far superior as it had no parking and preserved 1 structural bay of depth on the existing 740 N Rush building, so different than a standard facadectomy.

The auto-centric minded people who also complain about traffic are the ones demanding these projects have more parking, and thus the proposal comes back with a podium. As BVictor mentioned, Reilly's office usually sees these proposals first and often forces changes before they are "ready for community input".

I'm betting coming back with a parking component and arguing including it drove up the cost is why we have a larger design on the table now.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. The first SOM proposal (exactly how it was, not how it was but with a couple hundred ' extra, to all the weird overly height-obsessed forumers here) was so superior to this design.........in pretty much every way imaginable (and not just this design's ridiculous crown).....

I hope that you're right on the last part, Shawn - but that there's also sufficient blowback against the larger size and they then get the NIMBY's to accept the earlier proposal as-is!.....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2017, 6:37 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,013
this is some 80s corporate bullshit look. would rather have the rowhouses than this
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 2:45 AM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,719
Oh - and how could I forget to also post about this: TIMESHARES!

LOL!!!


Either a dead giveaway that this isn't a real proposal, or the developers are morons.....
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.