HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:23 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
I don't outright hate the towers/plaza on the parking structure parcel but jesus christ on the towers sprouting from the head house.
Yeah, they're not doing the head house any favors by trying to blend the addition in with the same color cladding. They should go with a black cladding like Adjmi's Gateway tower if this is the design.

I don't really like the office towers at all – just feels like an anonymous block of Franklin or Wacker.

But I really like that they're incorporating a significant amount of residential/hotel, despite the shortcomings of the designs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:30 PM
MayorOfChicago's Avatar
MayorOfChicago MayorOfChicago is offline
You had me at herro...
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 2,159
If ANYTHING, I wish they would tie an underground walkway from Union straight into the Clinton blue line mezz level.
__________________
So I was out biking with Jesus last week...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:33 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,657
this is hot garbage.

the insult to injury is NEITHER the great hall, nor the other proposals are attractive in the least. actually, i think im most mad about the half assed attempt at the head house even more. this is actually going to detract from its beauty rather than enhance it in any way. and it looks so obviously tacked on as an afterthought.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:49 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,043
"A high-rise above Union Station is an excellent idea"

Expectation:


Reality:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:51 PM
Jim in Chicago Jim in Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post


In its current state (which I'm sure could change drastically over time), I say this is junk. Not only are they throwing a suburban office tower-looking addition on top of Union Station, but the new towers also look pretty lacking.
Worse than junk, this is completely disrespectful to the existing building. How could this ever have happened!!

I have no problem with the program, the execution is my issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:57 PM
KWILLSKYLINE's Avatar
KWILLSKYLINE KWILLSKYLINE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
I hope everyone involved with this project are reading these comments and head back to the drawing tables. The more I look at these pictures the more pissed off I get. What a terrible waste of prime land with the parking structure replacement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 2:59 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 815
What a joke....This is the best design they could come up with??? Taking value engineering to a whole new level. Compared to some of the other stuff going up in Chicago and especially in NYC this is about as aesthetically pleasing as a dog turd
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 3:03 PM
Jim in Chicago Jim in Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE View Post
I hope everyone involved with this project are reading these comments and head back to the drawing tables. The more I look at these pictures the more pissed off I get. What a terrible waste of prime land with the parking structure replacement.
This is the commercial version of the bungalows you see all over town where they sliced the roof of a brink bungalow and plopped a completely non-compatible stucco box on top to make a second story.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 3:10 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE View Post
I hope everyone involved with this project are reading these comments and head back to the drawing tables. The more I look at these pictures the more pissed off I get. What a terrible waste of prime land with the parking structure replacement.
They don't give a crap what anybody thinks other than the Feds and the mayor. Pick the winner and design based 100% on price and what they will pay without obviously even looking at the design concepts(or the people who choose have zero taste).

We are really on a roll in Chicago with bad designs compared to NYC wich is becoming much more innovative. Then you leave the USA and you see even more innovation. Wanda and a few others are great, but in general Chicago deserves better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 3:24 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1 Tommy View Post
They don't give a crap what anybody thinks other than the Feds and the mayor. Pick the winner and design based 100% on price and what they will pay without obviously even looking at the design concepts(or the people who choose have zero taste).

We are really on a roll in Chicago with bad designs compared to NYC wich is becoming much more innovative. Then you leave the USA and you see even more innovation. Wanda and a few others are great, but in general Chicago deserves better.
I think we should calm down a tad bit. First, Riverside development has delivered what most consider an excellent addition at 150 N Riverside. Their proposal at 100 N Wacker has also been lauded by most on here. Both deliver excellent public spaces and innovative or at least interesting designs. What we're seeing here is a first attempt.

There are legitimate criticisms of this proposal, but that's all it is for now, a proposal. The city just dumped millions into a transit center that this proposal seems all too happy to pretend doesn't exist. I assume that the city will push back on that decision. Who knows, maybe Riverside Development and Goettsch Partners will respond to limits to development space imposed by the city and Amtrak by going taller. Dropping that much money on a development only pays off if you can bring the rentable space to the market, after all.

This is a $1 Billion proposal over 3 years that probably will go through several iterations before it becomes reality. To me, it's just like Wolf Point. What we see at first is not what we'll get. Hopefully, it will be much better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 3:33 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller View Post
This is a $1 Billion proposal over 3 years that probably will go through several iterations before it becomes reality. To me, it's just like Wolf Point. What we see at first is not what we'll get.
This isn't something that gives me much comfort.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 3:42 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Forest Park / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post


In its current state (which I'm sure could change drastically over time), I say this is junk. Not only are they throwing a suburban office tower-looking addition on top of Union Station, but the new towers also look pretty lacking.
What the fuck are these bastards trying to do to Union Station!?!?
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. 9 Dekalb Ave - Brooklyn, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 3:48 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,254
They didn't even bother to organize the facade and windows to have any sort of logical relationship with the station below. Unbelievable.

Fuck it, it doesn't bother me all that much what is proposed on the lot next door. No supertall, a little dull, whatever. But the addition to the station. Just NO. Give a job like this to Norman Foster...
__________________
Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:06 PM
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,648
It's so cool to see Oklahoma City getting a makeover
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:26 PM
UrbanLibertine UrbanLibertine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller View Post
I think we should calm down a tad bit. First, Riverside development has delivered what most consider an excellent addition at 150 N Riverside. Their proposal at 100 N Wacker has also been lauded by most on here. Both deliver excellent public spaces and innovative or at least interesting designs. What we're seeing here is a first attempt.

There are legitimate criticisms of this proposal, but that's all it is for now, a proposal. The city just dumped millions into a transit center that this proposal seems all too happy to pretend doesn't exist. I assume that the city will push back on that decision. Who knows, maybe Riverside Development and Goettsch Partners will respond to limits to development space imposed by the city and Amtrak by going taller. Dropping that much money on a development only pays off if you can bring the rentable space to the market, after all.

This is a $1 Billion proposal over 3 years that probably will go through several iterations before it becomes reality. To me, it's just like Wolf Point. What we see at first is not what we'll get. Hopefully, it will be much better.
This!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:40 PM
Mister Uptempo's Avatar
Mister Uptempo Mister Uptempo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine View Post
This!
The Transit Center stays right where it is. Looks like they are decking over it. Just disappointed that they were considering expanding the Transit Center, to get more buses (like Van Galder) off the streets entirely when picking up/dropping off passengers, and that seems to have been dropped.


src - dnainfo.com


src - amtrak.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:40 PM
Ned.B Ned.B is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 509
I would like to point out that this was not a design competition, but rather a developer proposal, and each developer came to the table with their own architect. The elements shown in the renderings here are purely massing studies to determine a developer pro-forma, and the developer was selected based upon their offer price and their ability to work with the complex train operations going on below these 3 sites. The large portion of design has yet to be done, and everything shown here is subject to change. I can say with confidence that no more than a few weeks of design work has gone into what is presented here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:46 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,806
What we see with Parcel 2 has some interesting features, the rising terraces are cool in the renderings. But are likely to be empty and sterile in reality. Maybe I'm wrong.

But the headhouse towers are just going to be River North beige schlock. "They're high enough up that no one can tell", the developer will say.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 5:48 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
"A high-rise above Union Station is an excellent idea"
Expectation:
Even in 2017 that still looks great, but no one will ever build that way again. I don't think anyone could build that if they tried.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 6:10 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjp View Post
so are they just tearing down the new transit center / bus terminal they built on Jackson across from Union Station?
Looks like they are adding to it in the design by building a solid structure for it, but yeah, they are basically scrapping it
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:30 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.