CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by ChiHi

I'm with you. I'd rather see it split up among several developers. These planned communities typically hire one architect and all the building are essentially the same. Save for some minor detail changes. These things just turn out to be cookie cutter and mundane feeling instead of a more organically developed area. LSE is somewhat of an exception but most others are pretty sterile feeling to me.

I'm really struggling to think of an example of what you are describing. Maybe you are thinking about a big plot of townhomes? This isn't that.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i dont get the love for LSE. it poorly integrates itself into the rest of the urban fabric to the west, and its confusing to navigate. its a skyscraper subdivision, but i guess thats what people like about it?

Poorly integrates itself? Blame the Illinois Center on that one... They can't do much with all the offices creating a wall between them and the rest of the Loop

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Sigh... no thanks.

I'm tired of these "Master developers". Nothing anybody ever cared about in Chicago was ever built by them (perhaps LSE as an exception). It will just be a soulless superblock that nobody will ever walk around in.

Am having trouble understanding how exactly this will be executed. The DNAInfo article indicates the land is being sold, but then includes this quote:

David Reifman, commissioner of the city's Department of Planning and Development, said the site will be sold in sections, rather than in one big package.

"We want to be in a position where we can continue to steward this along," Reifman said.

From that quote I got the impression that this may not proceed like a planned community. Given the amount of land involved, I would hope this site would be more urban and diverse.

Regardless, my concern is a possible rush to complete this (Is it really 10 years to completion as the articles indicate?) which results in a sub-optimal use of the land that lacks vision. 77 acres (including the yards) is larger than even the Related site.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by ChiHi

I'm with you. I'd rather see it split up among several developers. These planned communities typically hire one architect and all the building are essentially the same. Save for some minor detail changes. These things just turn out to be cookie cutter and mundane feeling instead of a more organically developed area. LSE is somewhat of an exception but most others are pretty sterile feeling to me.

The only one you could argue that used the same architect for the entire project was the Central Station plan, which doesn't look like the same building over and over again. If you want to see what played out architecture looks like in a master plan go to China.

[i_am_hydrogen]

SOM's original master plan for LSE.

[ardecila]

^ it's worth noting that the SOM master plan won awards and pretty much dictated what got built. Obviously LSE looks nothing like the Adrian Smith wet dream/reheated World Financial Center shown in those renderings, and office space proved to be unworkable here (too far from Metra terminals).

But the broad strokes - upper and lower ring roads (in a terraced instead of stacked arrangement) a big central park, a series of low rise buildings to keep the towers spread out and preserve light, etc, are all things that made it into the final product.

As for the Michael Reese site, I would look to Mission Bay in SF as a pretty good approximation of what SOM is planning. Biotech/lab space mixed with residential in a mid rise neighborhood near the water...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

The only one you could argue that used the same architect for the entire project was the Central Station plan, which doesn't look like the same building over and over again. If you want to see what played out architecture looks like in a master plan go to China.

Tons of those in some of the suburban districts there. Have to admit though, my girlfriend's parents live in one in a suburban district of Shanghai and although it looks played out from a distance, it's actually very nice at the ground level as the entire space between all buildings was landscaped with ponds and what not and still many restaurants, bars, and shops on the outer areas of the development. Not even LSE is like that in regards to business - it's dead compared to what it should be.

[denizen467]

^^^ Interesting that when drawing up master plans, all the towers have humanistic massing with setbacks and terraces with gardens and sculpted crowns, but when it later comes to designing individual towers (whether within the master plan site or for entirely unrelated projects) the same firms usually end up designing monolith boxes. So are the master plan filler designs the true expression of the architects' visions of an ideal city, and the later individual towers are just the economically hyper rational results of client demands? Or are the master plans knowingly b.s. crafted to satisfy city authorities, who are invariably in love with art deco, apparently? For example, if you look at almost all of SOM's towers in the last couple decades, as we know well, they're designing almost nothing that looks like anything in the LSE plan sketch.

[KWILLSKYLINE]

Is it just me or does that one where Aqua is now look strikingly similar to 150 riverside. Without the bottom of course.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE

Is it just me or does that one where Aqua is now look strikingly similar to 150 riverside. Without the bottom of course.

Gonna have to go ahead and say it might just be you. What about the two do you find similar?

[10023]

Master plans can work, but Chicago doesn't do them well.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by 10023

Master plans can work, but Chicago doesn't do them well.

You are fake news

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by 10023

Master plans can work, but Chicago doesn't do them well.

If you're referring to the masterplan for UIC, you may be correct. If you're referring to the LSE master plan, you are dead wrong. Things can and have improved, that's why blanket statements like yours are unwarranted.

The winning master plan render that was released a few days ago is still just a placeholder, and considering that SOM is spearheading the design, I'm hopeful you'll reconsider your statement when the final design is released.

[the urban politician]

Sorry, delete

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE

Is it just me or does that one where Aqua is now look strikingly similar to 150 riverside. Without the bottom of course.

Definately you... The looked like taller versions of NBC Tower.

[KWILLSKYLINE]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Gonna have to go ahead and say it might just be you. What about the two do you find similar?

I guess it's the setbacks. I'm not sure, just a random opinion. Whats great about the timeline of that picture is that sun-times is in there. Plus mention the rivernorth/streeterville development since then. Its a cool picture.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

For example, if you look at almost all of SOM's towers in the last couple decades, as we know well, they're designing almost nothing that looks like anything in the LSE plan sketch.

Not true at all. The LSE Master Plan was created around 2000 by Adrian Smith & company at SOM. Up to that point, Adrian Smith designed numerous buildings in that PoMo style, including NBC Tower, AT&T Center, Rowes Wharf in Boston, and Canary Wharf in London.

It's only after 2000 that SOM's style started trending in a more futuristic direction.

Honestly, the only reason we got a series of banal buildings at LSE is because Loewenberg took over all design duties himself initially. Even he ultimately saw the light of good design after 340 OTP won awards and brought him good press, which led to Aqua, Coast, and Wanda Vista, as well as some kind of semi-formal alliance with BKL.

[harryc]

June 3




Looks like it is topped out (climbing forms are coming down)

[J_M_Tungsten]

^too bad. I know height doesn't make things better, but another 20 floors would have been cool. Not terrible overall though.

[harryc]

June 3

Shot from Indiana - rising above the crowd.