CHICAGO | General Developments

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

OOOO I like this one, Mertz/Centenial Forum Student Union is going to be rennovated and it looks SHARP. It has the same kind of feel as the new Art institute. Lots of vertical glass and open atriums.

Any more info on this? Are you talking about the whole thing, including the tower?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Loyola Update.

I am at a presentation about the future of Loyola's campus' right now, hopefully I'll be able to dictate anything of interest here as the presentation goes on.

Flanner Hall which is right along Sheridan will be reclad from Damen style Brutalism to red brick and glass like the new Quinlin center adjacent to it. Looks pretty sharp and modern.

Also, Halas Sports center will be re-clad from gross brutalism to red brick and glass as well, a little pomo in this one to match the adjacent gym. It will also be repurposed into a type of student union.

There are also plans to move all the sports facilities to an expansion of the current Gentile center sports

OOOO I like this one, Mertz/Centenial Forum Student Union is going to be rennovated and it looks SHARP. It has the same kind of feel as the new Art institute. Lots of vertical glass and open atriums.

Lots of talk of how Loyola has constantly abused building towards city streets and how they plan to rennovate buildings to make them face main streets, like building an enterance to Mertz facing Sheridan, instead of a gate and enterance to campus.

They plan to remove all parking lots from campus and replace with green space. New green space between Coffey Hall and the Chapel along there lake where there currently is a parking lot.

Plans to turn the Area bounded by the El, Sheridan road and Granville into 6 to 8 story residence halls. Have bought most of it plans to tear down all the gross 4+1's from the 60's and replace them by modern dorms. Eventually want to make streets more pederstian friendly by setting the buildings back and removing fences. Have the support of the Alderman.

Water Tower Campus.

School of Communications will open in January. (Meaning the Clare will be open).

There will be a Storefront Radio Station and perhaps TV studio at the corner of Wabash and Pearson in the Clare. Should be nice, will really bring that corner to life...


Honte should be pleased that there is lots of repurposing and rennovations compared to just tear downs, Damen is the only building planned to be torn down currently on campus (with the exception of the rancid 4+1's south of campus)...

Also, it sounds like Damen will be imploded, which sounds like it will be fun to watch at a minimum...

^ Doesn't look like any real increase in density, which is all that I really give a shit about these days

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Thanks for thinking of me, but I wish I could be excited... I think this sounds mostly like steps in the wrong direction. The new SCB, brick-and-glass buildings they have put up couldn't be more banal and pointless architecturally. Their efforts to retool everything toward some kind of 'consistency for the blind' will only make that campus less invigorating than it already is.

4+1's probably are fine to replace although with the extra-low quality of things being built these days, I honestly have to say that I prefer them to a lot of the new construction around town.

I don't know what you are saying when you say the brick SCB stuff that is boring? Are you talking about the residence halls? Because the Brick and glass Quinlin center is pretty sweet, not boring or low quality by any stretch of the imagination. And they don't all look the same either, they are just trying to take the really ugly buildings and make them look less shitty. Nearly all the designs look very different from each other except for the fact they are using similar colors of brick and glass.

You really think the Loyola buildings are that low quality? I mean come on, look at the new residence hall "Regis" is 10x's the quality of those POS 4+1s which are almost invariably built with the cheapest possible materials...


@ Spyguy: The render I saw only showed the reconstruction of the podium part of the building where the union, theater, and dining halls are. Though they do plan on gutting Mertz tower as well eventually, so I would imagine both will be recladed.

@ TUP: No real increase in density? Well the density of the classrooms is going to stay the same, but the stuff in the real "campus" part of Loyola shouldn't be higher density, it should remain "green" feeling since it is a campus. However, the area bounded by Sheridan, The El, and Granville is going to see a huge boost in density as 4 story apartment buildings are torn down and replaced by 6 or 7 story dorms which have wayyyy higher density than apartments, the typical room in the brand new Regis dorm is about half the size of a one bedroom unit in a 4+1, plus they are going to all have 2 people in each room and they will be taller. We are probably looking at a 50% to 100% increase in density for every 4+1 torn down for a dorm...

[the urban politician]

^ Well, replacing parking lots with green space is always good to see.

BTW, I may be one of the few people out there who doesn't mind Chicago's 4+1's

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I don't mind some of them, its just that the ones Loyola owns are particularly bad. The ones down by me, towards Berwin, are nicer and some are even being renovated and repaired and look quite nice...

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Plans to turn the Area bounded by the El, Sheridan road and Granville into 6 to 8 story residence halls. Have bought most of it plans to tear down all the gross 4+1's from the 60's and replace them by modern dorms. Eventually want to make streets more pederstian friendly by setting the buildings back and removing fences. Have the support of the Alderman.

There's nothing quite like a university for spear-heading clear-cutting wholesale destruction of existing urban fabric. Sigh. I guess Loyola got jealous of IIT, UIC, U of C, and NU/Streeterville and decided they needed to get in on the demolition action. Chicago is lucky to have the 4+1, since their density can never be replaced due to our ridiculous zoning ordinance and its minimum lot area per DU and off-street parking requirements.

Aside from the 4+1s, there are some magnificent vintage 1920s-era midrises and highrises (8-15 stories) in that corridor as well interspersed. Will they also be dynomited?

If they're all replaced by a wall of 6-8 story dorms then it might be a decent trade, but I'm skeptical that's the case until I see an actual plan with unit counts and net floor area ratio, and comparison to the current baseline. It's not like the setbacks along Kenmore and Winthrop are high to begin with - these are very ped-friendly streets already, and have bike lanes in the street ROW to boot. Loyola's apparent emphasis on "open space" is sending off warning bells that they want to turn the area into Hyde Park, meaning decimation of population density and an over-abundance of neighborhood-killing open space. So something smells fishy here already. Again, I hope this is a net increase in unit density and FAR but I'm skeptical 'til I see the actual plans.

Streetview example:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...46599861877173

I look at that, and the need for clear-cutting does not come immediately to mind. But the fix is already in, so anyone else with affection for it might as well enjoy it while it's still around. We should be so lucky to have more streets like Kenmore and Winthrop throughout the city- but apparently we've actually got a little too much urbanity.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Plans to turn the Area bounded by the El, Sheridan road and Granville into 6 to 8 story residence halls. Have bought most of it plans to tear down all the gross 4+1's from the 60's and replace them by modern dorms. Eventually want to make streets more pederstian friendly by setting the buildings back and removing fences. Have the support of the Alderman.

Loyola practically owns 6 city blocks south of 6400? Wow I sure missed that news.

While they're at all this raze-ing, maybe there's some way to improve the intrusion of the highway that is Sheridan Road through that stretch. Maybe it could bear northwest after Rosemont and go diagonally to hit 6400 just west of Kenmore. That way there is much more contiguous campus adjacent to the lake. Or what about supressing it below grade? So long as they're spending a lot of money on a long-term plan for this plat.

[DCCliff]

Viva, Nowhereman, TUP & Honte: I always am interested in and enjoy the thoughtfulness, intelligence, and - often - the information value of your posts. But I am surprised and scratching my head at the last few posts - Spring Break on SSP GONE WILD!!

I have rarely seen you all so negative (although most 4+1s do totally suck) based almost solely on speculation - - a LOT of speculation. Lighten up; give it a chance. Are we all so pissed off about the interuption of the skyscraper and urban density dream (economic downturn) that it has bent our brains?

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

There's nothing quite like a university for spear-heading clear-cutting wholesale destruction of existing urban fabric. Sigh. I guess Loyola got jealous of IIT, UIC, U of C, and NU/Streeterville and decided they needed to get in on the demolition action. Chicago is lucky to have the 4+1, since their density can never be replaced due to our ridiculous zoning ordinance and its minimum lot area per DU and off-street parking requirements.

Aside from the 4+1s, there are some magnificent vintage 1920s-era midrises and highrises (8-15 stories) in that corridor as well interspersed. Will they also be dynomited?

If they're all replaced by a wall of 6-8 story dorms then it might be a decent trade, but I'm skeptical that's the case until I see an actual plan with unit counts and net floor area ratio, and comparison to the current baseline. It's not like the setbacks along Kenmore and Winthrop are high to begin with - these are very ped-friendly streets already, and have bike lanes in the street ROW to boot. Loyola's apparent emphasis on "open space" is sending off warning bells that they want to turn the area into Hyde Park, meaning decimation of population density and an over-abundance of neighborhood-killing open space. So something smells fishy here already. Again, I hope this is a net increase in unit density and FAR but I'm skeptical 'til I see the actual plans.

Streetview example:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...46599861877173

I look at that, and the need for clear-cutting does not come immediately to mind. But the fix is already in, so anyone else with affection for it might as well enjoy it while it's still around. We should be so lucky to have more streets like Kenmore and Winthrop throughout the city- but apparently we've actually got a little too much urbanity.

I agree....I hope this is only speculative..and not fact

[honte]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I don't know what you are saying when you say the brick SCB stuff that is boring? Are you talking about the residence halls? Because the Brick and glass Quinlin center is pretty sweet, not boring or low quality by any stretch of the imagination. And they don't all look the same either, they are just trying to take the really ugly buildings and make them look less shitty. Nearly all the designs look very different from each other except for the fact they are using similar colors of brick and glass.

I would say these are competent buildings, meaning that they will function well and seem to have been built to an acceptable standard. Architecturally, they are beyond dull and have done nothing to visually energize that area - which I suppose shouldn't be a surprise given Loyola's general timidity. I'm not that familiar with the programmatic aspects of the buildings, but how do they contribute to campus life or education itself? Are they doing anything more than warehousing students and faculty?

Even the "matching brick and glass" approach is weak. Isn't there a better way to create visual harmony and identity without stymieing the campus from an artistic and visual sense? That is essentially the Arch 101 answer to an urban design problem. It has built-in limitations, and I suspect that there are other stylistic limitations being imposed beyond just these two choices (cf U of C, which until recently generally conforms to a Gothic and limestone [or raw concrete] aesthetic, but offers countless interpretations of this harmonizing motif). Is brick even an appropriate building material for the 21st century?

In general, I have been disappointed by the building efforts of Chicago's collegiate community and the architects that serve these institutions. For instance, is DePaul any better off as a campus due to all of its buildings of the last 10 years? Kamin seemed to like them, but I look at them as opportunities lost (with the exception of the Booth Hansen dorm that was built by third-party developer). Colleges and students are usually one of the most receptive types of institution to accept modern design - U of C and IIT might be good recent local examples of this, even UIC to some extent. Compare the Jahn dorm at IIT to the SCB buildings at Loyola, which had similar budgets. Naturally, I don't expect Loyola to have a budget on par with NW or U of C, but I would expect them to sense the potential in their campus and developments in general. I know a designer who was on the team for the building north of Sheridan that went up a while back, and from his impression as well, there was no drive at all to do something excellent.

I can give Loyola some credit for the new info commons although as we all know that building was sorely co-opted by traditionalists in the campus hierarchy. My biggest beef is with Northwestern, which has built one sub-par building after the next and isn't living up to the standards of its competition across the country at all. I hope their new music school is something deserving of its site.

In any case, I'll wait as always to see what Loyola is up to, but I have massive doubt that it will be satisfactory in the sense I have described above. Most of their new buildings I would count as a net loss due to loss of fine historic buildings south of Sheridan, funky urban character such as the old pancake house, lost density and probable diversity in the form of the tall building with the "innovative" gutter system and as VivaL postulates, and lost opportunities in development sites to make that campus truly sing.

Look at the campus development that went on in the 1960s - U of C, NW, UIC, even smaller institutions like DePaul, CCC, COD, and even McCormick Theological Seminary produced absolutely stellar buildings on a variety of budgets. Some people dislike these buildings for various reasons, but there was an obvious equating at the time of fine and progressive architecture to the attraction and retention of students, and potential added benefit in learning, which seems to be an afterthought today for most of Chicago's institutions - but not major institutions countrywide. In fact, many of the most interesting and successful new buildings built in the last decade in this country were on college campuses.

__________

For the record, I am not anti-4+1 either. Generally, my distaste for them comes from the frequent tackiness and often inadequate interior spaces. But the schlock of yesteryear certainly beats that of today - you can argue that the 4+1 has its own type of style and even that it was an "inspired" solution. They are far more visually distinct and better-designed than the repetitive, stock PoMo three flats that now plague LakeView, Edgewater, East Village, etc. Certainly, there are few other examples of that stream of Modernist thought in the area.

There is a 4+1 on Melrose that was revamped and I'd go so far as to even suggest that it is an interesting work of architecture now.

[Jibba]

I'll chime in here as a 4+1 fan as well. Besides the reasons stated above, I think they serve to really give that area a weird sense of place as a unique neighborhood within the city. It's really unfortunate how so much of the new infill going up serves to make a neighborhood's aesthetic slowly but surely morph into that of every other neighborhood getting loaded with the same crap. Bucktown/Wicker Park, for example, has now fully earned its title (given by some) as the new Lincoln Park, but not for the predominance of boutiques and baby strollers--single-family homes are taking over in huge numbers, and on their way they are taking out treasured neighborhood locales and vintage two-flats and cottages.

The lakefront is one of the only areas where Chicago's endlessly buildable topography suddenly has reason for increased interest from dwellers, and accordingly it's one place where demand can really drive up density. I really hope that Loyola's plans don't take too much of this aspect for granted.

On a side note, glad I'm not the only one on SSP at 3am....

[BVictor1]

Just a reminder:

Daniel Burnham's 1909 Plan of Chicago:

Centennial Symposium on Grant Park


Burnham's Vision: Grant Park's Role, Past, Present and Future...


Meeting Details:

When: Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 at 6:30pm

Where: Spertus Institute's Crown Family Great Hall - 9th Floor

610 S. Michigan Avenue




The Centennial of the 1909 Plan of Chicago is almost here and we have assembled a panel of experts to discuss Grant Park. This will be part of a series of discussions over the next year. The history over the last hundred years, the present and the future will all be discussed in a visual presentation.





The Grant Park Advisory Council and Grant Park Conservancy are proud to announce our distinguished panel for the evening:



Geoffrey Baer

Geoffrey Baer Tours Host and Producer at WTTW Channel 11



Geoffrey is an expert on all things in and around Chicago. From the El, the river, the lake and from the south and west suburbs to the very north and all in between, Geoffrey shows us a side of the city we have rarely seen before. He makes it fascinating. He is a graduate of Northwestern University and Miami University. His latest program: Chicago's Lakefront is coming in December 2008!



Gordon Gill, AIA

Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture



Gordon is a managing partner at Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture. He has designed award-winning architecture across the globe. His work emphasizes a holistic approach to design that works with natural surroundings- contributing to the sustainability of cities and augmenting the built landscape. Gordon?s work includes the design of the world?s first net Zero-Energy skyscraper, Pearl River Tower, and the first mixed-use positive energy building, the Masdar Headquarters. He was recently recognized for his Grant Park/Monroe Harbor Eco-Bridge which proposes the breakwater called for in Daniel Burnham's 1909 Plan, the last of its major components. This would be a grand civic space with a soft shoreline and a place to learn from and study Great Lakes ecology. These landmark projects exemplify Gordon?s philosophy that architecture must strike a balance with its global environmental context. Prior to founding Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP in 2006, Gordon was an Associate Partner at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP and a Director of Design for VOA Associates. Gordon has a Masters of Architecture from Harvard University and one from the University of Texas.

Web page: www.smithgill.com

Linda Keane, AIA



Linda is a National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Professor of Architecture and Environmental Design at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Linda is an architect and environmental designer. She combines an architectural practice with environmental design leadership developing eco literacy initiatives that use animation and the Internet to introduce design thinking to the design-denied public. During her tenure as Chair of the Department of Architecture, Interior Architecture and Designed Objects at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, she initiated new undergraduate and graduate architecture curricula. She continues to work on green initiatives along the Chicago- Milwaukee corridor understanding that environmental issues are in part issues in education. She directed the City of Chicago?s Green Roof Website, advised Metropolis 2020?s Metro Joe?s Regional Web Game, and, with a team of teachers, students, architects and designers, co-created www.NEXT.cc, an educational non profit art + design eco web community promoting environmental stewardship across the K-12 curriculum.

Web page: www.studio1032.com




John McCarron



John is a contributing columnist for the Chicago Tribune and an adjunct Professor at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism. John has covered all things urban throughout his long and recognized career having once covered the urban affairs beat for the Chicago Tribune. He also passes on his wealth of knowledge at Northwestern University, as well as through his numerous appearances on WTTW's Chicago Tonight including being a frequent Friday night guest on Channel 11?s The Week in Review.

He is also a former financial editor of The Tribune and former member of its editorial board. John continues to write a monthly column for the Tribune?s op-ed page. John was also a panel moderator on "Globalizing Cities - Chicago and the World" at UIC's 2006 Daley Urban Forum.





Web page:

http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/f...t.aspx?id=5785



Lawrence Okrent

Okrent Associates, Inc.



Larry is a Chicago-based planning and zoning consultant with over 35 years experience in Chicago and around the world specializing in land planning and zoning, aerial photography, mapping, and graphic design for real estate marketing materials. Some of his work in Chicago includes the Chicago 21 Plan (Central Area) and Dearborn Park. He began his career at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, where he was a member of the planning staff for 10 years. Larry has processed dozens of planned developments in Chicago, including the Museum of Contemporary Art, Michigan Avenue?s Park Tower, and the expansions of the Adler Planetarium, the Museum of Science and Industry, Shedd Aquarium and the Field Museum.

Larry also has an extensive image base of Chicago's past which he will be sharing with us.

He is a graduate of the University of Michigan and a recipient of a Master's degree from Northwestern University.



Web page: www.okrentassociates.com.



Robert O'Neill

Moderator

President, Grant Park Conservancy and Advisory Council

Web page: www.grantparkconservancy.com.





Mark Sexton

Krueck + Sexton Architects, Principal

Mark is the architect of the new Spertus Institute, the Chicago Children?s Museum and the Crown Fountain in Millennium Park among many other projects. The Spertus Institute was an interesting challenge. It contains over 700 pieces of glass shaped in over 500 unique ways, including parallelograms tilting in different directions. Mark also designed the Penguin Seabird House at the Lincoln Park Zoo and the Art Institute of Chicago?s Joseph Cornell Galleries, and the Herman Miller showroom, the Shure Technology Center and the renovation of Mies van der Rohe?s S.R. Crown Hall and 860-880 Lake Shore Drive cooperative. Mark lectures around the world and is a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects and, with Ronald Krueck, was named Chicagoan of the Year by the Chicago Tribune. Mark has a Bachelor of Architecture from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Web page: www.ksarch.com.


Dr. Carl Smith

Northwestern University

Carl is a Franklyn Bliss Snyder Professor of English & American Studies at Northwestern University. He is the author of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the Remaking of the American City, which was named Best Book in American Planning History by the Society for American City and Regional Planning History. In collaboration with The Art Institute of Chicago, he wrote the text and coordinated the preparation of the digital essay, The Plan of Chicago (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...es/10537.html),
He teaches American literature and cultural history and holds a joint appointment in the history department. Dr. Smith has a Ph.D. American Studies, Yale University.

Web page: www.history.northwestern.edu/faculty/smith.htm .

Dr. Howard Sulkin

Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies, President and CEO



Dr. Sulkin has a perfect view of Grant Park's progress at the newly-constructed Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies where he has served as President for over 20 years. He has been involved in activating the park as well as in preserving its history. As an institution on the park, directly influenced by Burnham's plan, Howard has a unique perspective on both its history and its future. Founded in 1924, Spertus Institute is a multi-purpose institution for Jewish studies, and awards graduate degrees, has a major continuing education program, and an extensive library, archives and museum. He also serves as a Trustee of the Institute. Prior to going to Spertus Institute, Dr. Sulkin was at DePaul University, where he was founding Dean of their School for New Learning, and then University Vice-President. Howard received his M.B.A., MA. and Ph.D. degrees from The University of Chicago, and a L.H.D. degree (honoris causa) from DePaul University, and he serves on several civic boards.

Web page: www.spertus.edu



We'd like to thank the panelists for the gift of both their time and invaluable expertise. We'd also like to thank the generous support of the Spertus Institute for hosting all of us in its magnificent and topic-appropriate space... affording all a view of Daniel Burnham?s and Edward Bennett's great work.



Also, coming in 2009 is the 50th anniversy of Queen Elizabeth II's visit to Chicago and the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This area, where she arrived, is known as Queen's Landing at Buckingham Fountain in Grant Park. It was the first time in history that a reigning British monarch had come to Chicago.

[cbotnyse]

^^ open to all? cost?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

There's nothing quite like a university for spear-heading clear-cutting wholesale destruction of existing urban fabric. Sigh. I guess Loyola got jealous of IIT, UIC, U of C, and NU/Streeterville and decided they needed to get in on the demolition action. Chicago is lucky to have the 4+1, since their density can never be replaced due to our ridiculous zoning ordinance and its minimum lot area per DU and off-street parking requirements.

This will not be a clear-cutting or wholesale destruction of the urban fabric. Loyola does not plan to raze all of the buildings, only some of the more dilapidated or hodgepodge 4+1's. If you want an example of Loyola's recent dedication to preservation then look at the new Jesuit Residence which took a pre-existing 4-flat and added a wing-ling expansion to the side of it without doing any demolition, many of the older buildings Loyola owns will be preserved or re-modeled a la Santa Clara Hall on the north side of campus. Loyola does not like the 4+1's because it literally has no use for the entire first floor of the building. What is a university going to do with a bunch of first floor parking spots when none of the residents of those buildings drive? Loyola will be replacing what are already dense 4+1's with even denser dorm buildings with no parking spaces.

Aside from the 4+1s, there are some magnificent vintage 1920s-era midrises and highrises (8-15 stories) in that corridor as well interspersed. Will they also be dynomited?

No Loyola does not even own any of those vintage mid and high rises. Most of them are either private owners who won't sell because they are cash cows (a la Campus Towers which is completely surrounded by Loyola but won't sell because they make a ton of money). The wonderful buildings down along Granville are all safe as well because they are largely beyond Loyola's sphere of influence and occupied by stable, quality uses, such as the Sovereign.

If they're all replaced by a wall of 6-8 story dorms then it might be a decent trade, but I'm skeptical that's the case until I see an actual plan with unit counts and net floor area ratio, and comparison to the current baseline

Its not going to be a wall, its going to be limited destruction of the most ghetto of the 4+1's. I garantee you a density increase, I've seen some of the plans and there is no way that a 4+1 is denser than these dorms, 7 solid floors of small dorm rooms each occupied by 2 people vs 4 stories of apartments with probably 1.5 occupants per room...

It's not like the setbacks along Kenmore and Winthrop are high to begin with - these are very ped-friendly streets already, and have bike lanes in the street ROW to boot. Loyola's apparent emphasis on "open space" is sending off warning bells that they want to turn the area into Hyde Park, meaning decimation of population density and an over-abundance of neighborhood-killing open space.

When Loyola says emphasis on Green Space, they mean within the campus area, as in north of Sheridan/Devon, East of the El and South of Loyola Ave. They don't plan to widen the setbacks along the streets, but to try and remove the fencing and walls that abut the sidewalks and widen the sidewalks some to account for the increased foot traffic for students. There are no plans to tear anything down and replace it with green space.

We should be so lucky to have more streets like Kenmore and Winthrop throughout the city- but apparently we've actually got a little too much urbanity.

Don't worry about the streets, Loyola is not going to radically alter their composition, they are just going to add larger and more dense dorms in some spots.

Originally Posted by denizen467

Loyola practically owns 6 city blocks south of 6400? Wow I sure missed that news.

No, they don't own it all, but they do own about 50% of what is in the area I mentioned. They have been buying rapidly at a rate of 2 or 3 properties a year.

My words are being misconstrued here, THERE WILL BE NO WHOLESALE DEMOLITION OF ANYTHING. 70+% of the buildings will not be touched. There is no oppurtunity to alter Sheridan because they are not modifying the street grid in any way.

Originally Posted by honte

I would say these are competent buildings, meaning that they will function well and seem to have been built to an acceptable standard. Architecturally, they are beyond dull and have done nothing to visually energize that area - which I suppose shouldn't be a surprise given Loyola's general timidity. I'm not that familiar with the programmatic aspects of the buildings, but how do they contribute to campus life or education itself? Are they doing anything more than warehousing students and faculty?

Yes I agree that the one dorm they built recently, Regis, is bland, but what else do you find bland?

This?

scb.com


scb.com

I don't find this building Bland or boring. The only three SCB buildings completed on Loyola's North Campus in the past 15 years are Regis dorm, The Information Commons, and The above Quinlan Center for the Sciences. And yes, I would say brick is an appropriate building material, it is in no way obsolete.

Compare the Jahn dorm at IIT to the SCB buildings at Loyola, which had similar budgets. Naturally, I don't expect Loyola to have a budget on par with NW or U of C, but I would expect them to sense the potential in their campus and developments in general. I know a designer who was on the team for the building north of Sheridan that went up a while back, and from his impression as well, there was no drive at all to do something excellent.

Which SCB buildings at Loyola? There is only one SCB dorm completed since the early 1990's when everything Loyola was building was a pile of shit.

In any case, I'll wait as always to see what Loyola is up to, but I have massive doubt that it will be satisfactory in the sense I have described above. Most of their new buildings I would count as a net loss due to loss of fine historic buildings south of Sheridan, funky urban character such as the old pancake house, lost density and probable diversity in the form of the tall building with the "innovative" gutter system and as VivaL postulates, and lost opportunities in development sites to make that campus truly sing.

Again, there is almost no chance of any historic buildings being destroyed here. The only ones they are going to touch are the 4+1's which really just can't be efficiantly modified for Loyola's purposes of housing car-less students.

Are you really going to lament the loss of that rancid old pancake house? I mean it had a gigantic parking lot in front of it. How can you complain that a tiny building like that was razed for the construction of 8 solid stories of TOD? If those are the buildings you think are part of Loyola's campus they are not. Those buildings in the Loyola Station development area are not part of campus in any way other than the fact that Loyola seems to think it is a private developer and takes advantage of its Tax Exempt status to make huge profits developing that it uses to support the expansion of its educational facilities.

Look at the campus development that went on in the 1960s - U of C, NW, UIC, even smaller institutions like DePaul, CCC, COD, and even McCormick Theological Seminary produced absolutely stellar buildings on a variety of budgets. Some people dislike these buildings for various reasons, but there was an obvious equating at the time of fine and progressive architecture to the attraction and retention of students, and potential added benefit in learning, which seems to be an afterthought today for most of Chicago's institutions - but not major institutions countrywide. In fact, many of the most interesting and successful new buildings built in the last decade in this country were on college campuses.

For the record, I am not anti-4+1 either. Generally, my distaste for them comes from the frequent tackiness and often inadequate interior spaces. But the schlock of yesteryear certainly beats that of today - you can argue that the 4+1 has its own type of style and even that it was an "inspired" solution. They are far more visually distinct and better-designed than the repetitive, stock PoMo three flats that now plague LakeView, Edgewater, East Village, etc. Certainly, there are few other examples of that stream of Modernist thought in the area.

There is a 4+1 on Melrose that was revamped and I'd go so far as to even suggest that it is an interesting work of architecture now.

I have the exact same feelings as you on 4+1's. I often find them tacky, especially when they have those gross walls made of fake boulders at street level or around the lobby. If you want to see some good rennovations of them, check out the ones just north of Balmoral along Kenmore. They have been rennovated and they look really sharp now and even have little balconies along the backside in the alley that have a sharp almost streamline modern look to them with wide rounded parallel railings.


PS Sorry for the length of this post, definitely the most epic forum post ever...

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

^^ open to all? cost?

yes

free

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

yes

free

I like that price. I might head over there. anybody else going?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

I like that price. I might head over there. anybody else going?

I'll certainly be there.

Perfect time to ask about the Eco-Bridge

[ChiPsy]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Sorry for the length of this post, definitely the most epic forum post ever...

I fully appreciate the length of your post, NWM -- and I fully agree with it. This is very good news about what heretofore has been an off-putting, disappointing, life-deadening campus. I couldn't believe how bad it was when I first saw it: I naively assumed that since it was in Chicago, it would be architecturally appealing. It finally will be, once these changes (coupled with the ones already underway) are made.

Good. News.

[Steely Dan]

i'm planning on going to the GPAC burnham presentation as well.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I don't find this building Bland or boring. The only three SCB buildings completed on Loyola's North Campus in the past 15 years are Regis dorm, The Information Commons, and The above Quinlan Center for the Sciences.

Yeah, that's the project my friend was involved in. Like I said, it's competent. It does just enough to make the public think it's not boring... but beneath the minor decorative elements, it's a very basic building in the artistic, functional / performing, and aesthetic senses of the word.

My friends and I have developed a rating scale on architecture. It works like this: The scale ranges from -10 to 10. Anything negative is simply a "Building" and does not qualify as architecture at all. Anything positive is "Architecture" with a capital A, but obviously there is still great variety in that category. I would give the building in your photos a +2 - meaning, Loyola didn't get robbed for their money, but I wouldn't want a crop of those on my campus.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

And yes, I would say brick is an appropriate building material, it is in no way obsolete.

Most of the world's foremost thinkers on architecture disagree with you here. If you haven't noticed, 99% of the brick being used today is not even employed as true brick. It's just a decorative screen - and poor-performing, cumbersome, laborious, unattractive one at that.