CHICAGO | Lincoln Park 2550 | 477 FT | 39 FLOORS | COM - Page 10

spyguy · #**181** Posted **May 25, 2011, 3:55 PM**

Nowhereman1280 · #**182** Posted **May 25, 2011, 5:24 PM**

Believe it or not, but from my count this building still has an additional 2-4 floors to grow from the top of the forms (not the core) before it's topped out. I counted and got 36 full floors and 37 or 38 to the core. That's not including the ridiculous 2 story mansard that I'm sure this will be topped with. This building is HUGE...

ametz · #**183** Posted **May 25, 2011, 6:37 PM**

This thing really is huge- I can see it from the blue line in Bucktown and it's almost like an optical illusion the way it hulks over the surrounding buildings.

denizen467 · #**184** Posted **Jun 12, 2011, 11:40 AM**

T/O is imminent - they are erecting the mansard floor/floors/penthouse now. You don't see "bent" columns like that every day.

i_am_hydrogen · #**185** Posted **Jun 17, 2011, 1:16 AM**

Taken on 6/14:

Chicagoguy · #**186** Posted **Jun 17, 2011, 1:35 AM**

Is it just me or does this seem quite a bit taller than what we originally thought it was suppose to be? For some reason I thought it would barely make the height of the 2 towers to the north of it and now it seems to have surpassed them by about 5 or 6 floors?

denizen467 · #**187** Posted **Jun 17, 2011, 10:38 AM**

I think it's a good thing that the slightly higher position on the skyline moves the focal point off of the Loewenberg to the north, the other tower just north of that, and the 70s-looking box to the south; those aren't necessarily all bad but the protruding mechanical penthouses grate on me. It's interesting -- I think it was FLW who said an architect's only recourse after a failure is to "plant vines," but in fact planting a taller tower that draws in the eye somewhere nearby can accomplish almost the same thing. I remember having this same reaction when The Columbian was built on Roosevelt almost next to Loewenberg's 1130 South Michigan. Neither The Columbian nor LP2520 are laudable works of art, but for me they do the trick of cloaking something I didn't care for and always worried would bug me forever.

ametz · #**188** Posted **Jun 17, 2011, 5:03 PM**

Great point. One of the reasons I was excited about the now defunct Waterview is because it would've served to deflect my gaze from 77 W. Wacker (United building).

george · #**189** Posted **Jun 19, 2011, 3:12 AM**

6-18

iphone pic @ dusk

photoLith · #**190** Posted **Jun 19, 2011, 5:19 PM**

It seems like this is about the only real modern tower built in this area along the park. It looks like most of the tallerish buildings along the park and north of downtown along the lakefront all date from the 50s-70s, and some 1920s towers thrown in for good measure.

denizen467 · #**191** Posted **Jun 19, 2011, 7:22 PM**

^ It would be interesting to see a development history of that part of the city - how, who, why, when. It must have been dramatic seeing all these "futuristic" towers sprouting up one after the other, up the lake all the way to Devon. I wonder if they were all regarded as great architecture then.

J_M_Tungsten · #**192** Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 12:10 AM**

Tonight

Rizzo · #**193** Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ It would be interesting to see a development history of that part of the city - how, who, why, when. It must have been dramatic seeing all these "futuristic" towers sprouting up one after the other, up the lake all the way to Devon. I wonder if they were all regarded as great architecture then.

I've thought about this before. My guess is they probably viewed these buildings the same way we view the boring glass boxes and beige podium towers that dotted our downtown in the 90's and 00's. Likewise, some probably found the JHC inspiring or controversial just like the Chicago Spire.

It's funny how I'm speaking as if this is ancient history. I'm sure there's plenty of folks around here who saw some of these buildings go up in their time.

colemonkee · #**194** Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 6:11 AM**

The three-color scheme looks like someone spilled different jars of baby food on the facade.

denizen467 · #**195** Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 6:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

I'm sure there's plenty of folks around here who saw some of these buildings go up in their time.

Seriously, I think an architecture student or anyone else passionate about buildings here over the decades should undertake to interview the architects and developers involved, and assemble photos etc., and maybe put together a book or something. It would not be a huge money making endeavor, but could be a great project or thesis or dissertation or something. Talk to the residents themselves as well, etc.

denizen467 · #**196** Posted **Jun 21, 2011, 6:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

looks like someone spilled different jars of baby food on the facade.

I think a lot of people here would like to use that description for other parts of the city too. Maybe insert "certified pre-owned" before "baby food", in some cases, if you get my drift.

george · #**197** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 1:02 PM**

6-29

colemonkee · #**198** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 6:27 PM**

Yikes. The backside of this tower is pretty bad.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**199** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 8:53 PM**

^ Just the backside? Seriously, this thing is going to look so weird when it's finished.

BnaBreaker · #**200** Posted **Jun 30, 2011, 9:21 PM**

This looks like a new "luxury western style" condo tower you'd see being built in some place like Dhaka or Calcutta.