HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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



Park Michigan in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 5:46 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 605
Edit: Don't ask.

Last edited by Loopy; Jun 29, 2006 at 12:13 AM.
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 6:01 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy
It was a residence hotel, a flophouse, if you will. There is nothing inside to preserve except a bunch of 6X10 sleeping chambers.
Fair enough. I haven't seen the inside, so I can't comment on that.

Don't get me wrong. I think this is nearly a perfect proposal as-is. What concerns me, however, is the co-opting of the landmark cause as a veil for NIMBYism, and also the facadectomy treatment as the "ideal" solution to development vs. preservation issues.

In this case, the lot is huge, the developer is clearly ready to build tall, and there doesn't seem to be too much to gain from keeping only the facade. So, keeping the whole building doesn't seem too difficult. The risks to this trend, obviously, are that 1) we end up with a bunch of Disneyland facade landmarks that are only skin-deep, with no real soul or occupyable space (this is certainly happening quite frequently already), and 2) that the precedent is set when a true "3-D Landmark" (e.g. NY Life) cannot be saved because it would be "discriminatory."
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 6:14 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,969
Speaking of preservation, does that section of Michigan Avenue currently look like this 1907 photo?



Not really, huh. Tall(er) buildings overtook what was once an area full of lowrise buildings and mansions. But we still love the streetwall, don't we?

Times are changing, and from the looks of it, there doesn't seem to be much worth preserving except for the Michigan Avenue facing facade.

Just saying...

Edit:



Adding a new building will dramatically change the skyline but I don't think it will take any more away from the streetwall than the stuff above and buildings like Smurfit-Stone, the Heritage, the addition to the Hilton building, Park 1000, Spertus, etc. and even going further up, the glassy addition to the Hard Rock Hotel.

Last edited by spyguy; Jun 28, 2006 at 6:32 PM.
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 6:15 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
Fair enough. I haven't seen the inside, so I can't comment on that.

Don't get me wrong. I think this is nearly a perfect proposal as-is. What concerns me, however, is the co-opting of the landmark cause as a veil for NIMBYism, and also the facadectomy treatment as the "ideal" solution to development vs. preservation issues.

In this case, the lot is huge, the developer is clearly ready to build tall, and there doesn't seem to be too much to gain from keeping only the facade. So, keeping the whole building doesn't seem too difficult. The risks to this trend, obviously, are that 1) we end up with a bunch of Disneyland facade landmarks that are only skin-deep, with no real soul or occupyable space (this is certainly happening quite frequently already), and 2) that the precedent is set when a true "3-D Landmark" (e.g. NY Life) cannot be saved because it would be "discriminatory."
We are in total agreement on facadectomies. There are very few successful examples.

But that's democracy for you. If you can't muster the fortitude to tear something down to build something better, the solution is rarely to preserve the structure in question. What happens is the "committee" decides to try to have it both ways. Voila, Facadectomy!
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 6:27 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 605
Nice find Spyguy.. Here is what it looks like now:

YWCA in the center flanked by Crane Plumbing on the left and Johnson Publishing on the right.

I will shut up now.

     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 7:16 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 5,910
Be careful what you say at these neighborhood meetings. . . you could be doing more harm than good. . . take it from me. . . I'm the biggest a$$hole on the forums here in Chicago and I can assure you that the developers will have a sobering rebuttle to the South Loop NIMBYs complaints. . . I'd try not to say anything unless I lived in that ward. . . and since Natarus is my alderman there's nothing for me to complain about
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 7:45 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago
Be careful what you say at these neighborhood meetings. . . you could be doing more harm than good. . . take it from me. . . I'm the biggest a$$hole on the forums here in Chicago and I can assure you that the developers will have a sobering rebuttle to the South Loop NIMBYs complaints. . . I'd try not to say anything unless I lived in that ward. . . and since Natarus is my alderman there's nothing for me to complain about
Was anyone here present at the similar meeting that took place for Skybridge, way back in the '90s? That was awesome.

For those who weren't, the developer, Moran, and Ralph Johnson were there... there was a scale model of Halsted Street, with a blank hole where Skybridge is now. The developer came in with this giant block - polystyrene, I think it was - and shoved it down in the hole. "This is what we could build with the current zoning." Johnson brings out this beautiful model of Skybridge. "This is what we'd like to give you."

I hope Renaissant is equally wise.
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 8:29 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 5,910
^Exactly. . . it's far more in their interest that it get built. . . not ours
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 1:06 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
Fair enough. I haven't seen the inside, so I can't comment on that.

Don't get me wrong. I think this is nearly a perfect proposal as-is. What concerns me, however, is the co-opting of the landmark cause as a veil for NIMBYism, and also the facadectomy treatment as the "ideal" solution to development vs. preservation issues.

In this case, the lot is huge, the developer is clearly ready to build tall, and there doesn't seem to be too much to gain from keeping only the facade. So, keeping the whole building doesn't seem too difficult. The risks to this trend, obviously, are that 1) we end up with a bunch of Disneyland facade landmarks that are only skin-deep, with no real soul or occupyable space (this is certainly happening quite frequently already), and 2) that the precedent is set when a true "3-D Landmark" (e.g. NY Life) cannot be saved because it would be "discriminatory."

This is what I've found out from a source of mine about what will be done with the YWCA Building on Michigan...


"There would be active uses the entire width and height of the façade of the
YWCA. The main entrance to the project uses the center entry of the façade,
and the entire second floor along the façade is the upper lobby. Back on the
ground to the right of the lobby entrance would be the restaurant to the
left the spa. The Spa also takes the 3rd floor of the façade. The 4th floor
and above of the facade are residential units. Stepping back from the façade
above the cornice line are 2 more levels of units. These would not be
apparent along Michigan Ave. because of their step back nature. Only the
Façade will be kept and restored. The structure behind is in terrible
disrepair. The first floor would be dropped to the level of Michigan Ave. to
activate the sidewalk with access from the 3 uses - lobby, restaurant and
spa. Sidewalk dining is proposed. The original structure has the first floor
above the sidewalk level but the façade lends itself to the drop in first
floor level."
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 1:22 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1
The structure behind is in terrible disrepair.
I thought that was the case.

Thanks for the info.
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 1:29 AM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1
Only the Façade will be kept and restored. The structure behind is in terrible disrepair.
This is a good example of the rare case of a justified facadectomy. Often they are done when the whole building merits saving. But this building just doesn't have anything of value between its walls.
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 2:55 AM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,482
Here's a diagram I made of 830 Michigan as soon as I saw the rendering yesterday. Maybe it'll provide some insight on how this might look:





Even though it seems like a really typical, breadbox blue glass residential high rise, I really love it. It's massed very well, includes preservation, will leave a great profile on the skyline and is just beautiful in how it emphasizes the verticality.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.

Last edited by CGII; Jun 29, 2006 at 3:04 AM.
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 4:24 AM
SimbyHeart SimbyHeart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 85
lOOK'S AWSOME, BUT MORE BLUE! HOW ABOUT SOME BLACK,SILVER,METALLIC COLORS.
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 5:30 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII
Here's a diagram I made of 830 Michigan as soon as I saw the rendering yesterday. Maybe it'll provide some insight on how this might look:





Even though it seems like a really typical, breadbox blue glass residential high rise, I really love it. It's massed very well, includes preservation, will leave a great profile on the skyline and is just beautiful in how it emphasizes the verticality.
Thanks for the model, just one notable correction. The building that will be preserved on Michigan, the color of the brick is actually red. The blue color is in fact paint.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 1:22 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 744
Tower tension
Will ‘tall and slender’ high-rise at 830 S. Michigan frame Grant Park, or overwhelm Boul Mich?

By BILL MAYEROFF, Contributing Writer


Rendering courtesy of Renaissant Development
"Tall and thin" is the development mantra for the proposed 80-story building at 830 S. Michigan.

SOUTH LOOP
Plans for an 80-story high-rise condominium building at 830 S. Michigan Ave., described by its backers as "tall and slender," will be unveiled Thursday night at a community meeting at Jones College Prep. Some South Loop residents, though, worry that the building will overwhelm its Boul Mich neighbors in the Michigan Avenue Landmark District.

Bob O’Neill, president of the Grant Park Advisory Council, supports the project, and said this week that the design will frame Grant Park.

"When you’re in the park, the beautiful skyline ends at Congress," O’Neill said. "It also balances out the Aon Center [at 200 E. Randolph]."

Though the building would be nearly twice the size of others in the area, O’Neill believes it will promote development in the area.

"I think it’s really in the public’s best interest," he said. "This particular building will set a precedent for development in the south Grant Park area." O’Neill thinks the proposed high-rise will lead to more buildings of that size in the area.

The building, according to Warren Barr of the Renaissant Development Group, will be 80 stories with nearly 35,000 square feet of retail space—including a 9,000-square-foot restaurant, a grocery store, and a spa—as well as 376 residential units.

"We’re building 376 units, which is exactly what the zoning allows," said Barr. Barr said the tall, thin design will block less light than shorter and wider designs.

"The [Chicago Department of Planning and Development] pushed us to go with a taller, slender building," Barr said.

But not everyone is as excited about a new skyscraper in the South Loop as O’Neill and Barr. Dennis McClendon, a member of South Loop Neighbors, believes the building will not fit in with its surroundings.

"I don’t think it’s going to fit in at all," McClendon said. McClendon says the building is taller than what is currently allowed in that spot by the Michigan Avenue Landmark District, which would limit the building to 425 feet.

"This proposal is almost double the height that is to be allowable in that spot," McClendon said. A spokesperson for the Commission on Chicago Landmarks could not be reached for comment.

Paulette Boyd, president of South Loop Neighbors, is also skeptical about how the building will work in that spot.

"It certainly would provide a huge shadow," she said. "We’re looking at something that’s double anything in that area south of Congress." Both she and McClendon are afraid a building of that size will cast shadows across Grant Park.

Boyd has not seen any drawings of the proposed high-rise, but she would prefer to see a development that stays within the limits imposed by the Michigan Avenue Landmark District.

"I just kind of have to wait and see what [the developers’] plans are," Boyd said. "And nothing this tall has ever been proposed."

But O’Neill isn’t worried about shadows. Like Barr, he believes the proposed design will actually allow in more light than a shorter, wider building.

"By being thinner and taller, it lets more light in," O’Neill said. "I think this really is a win-win-win situation."

In addition to allowing more light, O’Neill said the proposed high-rise will take up a smaller plot of land than a shorter, wider building, which allows more green space around it.

"The lot that is there right now is hideous," O’Neill said.

Jeff Key, president of the Greater South Loop Association, also supports the project, and agrees with O’Neill’s assertion that the building will frame the park.

"There’s something lopsided about Grant Park," Key said. "Grant Park was originally planned to be surrounded by tall buildings."

Key added that he thinks that some residents react too quickly when they hear a tall building is being proposed.

"I think people have this knee-jerk reaction to a tall building if it’s in the South Loop," he said. Key added that a tall and thin building will be more attractive and allow more light than something short and wide.

The project lies in the 2nd Ward; Alderman Madeline Haithcock did not return calls for comment.

Area residents will get to see drawings of the proposed high-rise tonight at 6:30 p.m. at Jones College Prep, 606 S. State St.

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...80&TM=83155.09
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 1:49 PM
trvlr70 trvlr70 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 2,111
I like the part about it balancing out Aon. But, I think a taller OMP would have been a better choice.
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 1:51 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 605
Well it looks like South Loop Neighbors has completed their transition into a full blown NIMBY organization. Greater South Loop Association supports it. Grant Park Advisory Council supports it. It seems that they want to make the whole of the South Loop as quaint and charming as Printers Row.

From: Chicago Journal June 29, 2006

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main....880&TM=34185.01

Tower tension

Will ‘tall and slender’ high-rise at 830 S. Michigan frame Grant Park, or overwhelm Boul Mich?

By BILL MAYEROFF, Contributing Writer

SOUTH LOOP
Plans for an 80-story high-rise condominium building at 830 S. Michigan Ave., described by its backers as "tall and slender," will be unveiled Thursday night at a community meeting at Jones College Prep. Some South Loop residents, though, worry that the building will overwhelm its Boul Mich neighbors in the Michigan Avenue Landmark District.

Bob O’Neill, president of the Grant Park Advisory Council, supports the project, and said this week that the design will frame Grant Park.

"When you’re in the park, the beautiful skyline ends at Congress," O’Neill said. "It also balances out the Aon Center [at 200 E. Randolph]."

Though the building would be nearly twice the size of others in the area, O’Neill believes it will promote development in the area.

"I think it’s really in the public’s best interest," he said. "This particular building will set a precedent for development in the south Grant Park area." O’Neill thinks the proposed high-rise will lead to more buildings of that size in the area.

The building, according to Warren Barr of the Renaissant Development Group, will be 80 stories with nearly 35,000 square feet of retail space—including a 9,000-square-foot restaurant, a grocery store, and a spa—as well as 376 residential units.

"We’re building 376 units, which is exactly what the zoning allows," said Barr. Barr said the tall, thin design will block less light than shorter and wider designs.

"The [Chicago Department of Planning and Development] pushed us to go with a taller, slender building," Barr said.

But not everyone is as excited about a new skyscraper in the South Loop as O’Neill and Barr. Dennis McClendon, a member of South Loop Neighbors, believes the building will not fit in with its surroundings.

"I don’t think it’s going to fit in at all," McClendon said. McClendon says the building is taller than what is currently allowed in that spot by the Michigan Avenue Landmark District, which would limit the building to 425 feet.

"This proposal is almost double the height that is to be allowable in that spot," McClendon said. A spokesperson for the Commission on Chicago Landmarks could not be reached for comment.

Paulette Boyd, president of South Loop Neighbors, is also skeptical about how the building will work in that spot.

"It certainly would provide a huge shadow," she said. "We’re looking at something that’s double anything in that area south of Congress." Both she and McClendon are afraid a building of that size will cast shadows across Grant Park.

Boyd has not seen any drawings of the proposed high-rise, but she would prefer to see a development that stays within the limits imposed by the Michigan Avenue Landmark District.

"I just kind of have to wait and see what [the developers’] plans are," Boyd said. "And nothing this tall has ever been proposed."

But O’Neill isn’t worried about shadows. Like Barr, he believes the proposed design will actually allow in more light than a shorter, wider building.

"By being thinner and taller, it lets more light in," O’Neill said. "I think this really is a win-win-win situation."

In addition to allowing more light, O’Neill said the proposed high-rise will take up a smaller plot of land than a shorter, wider building, which allows more green space around it.

"The lot that is there right now is hideous," O’Neill said.

Jeff Key, president of the Greater South Loop Association, also supports the project, and agrees with O’Neill’s assertion that the building will frame the park.

"There’s something lopsided about Grant Park," Key said. "Grant Park was originally planned to be surrounded by tall buildings."

Key added that he thinks that some residents react too quickly when they hear a tall building is being proposed.

"I think people have this knee-jerk reaction to a tall building if it’s in the South Loop," he said. Key added that a tall and thin building will be more attractive and allow more light than something short and wide.

The project lies in the 2nd Ward; Alderman Madeline Haithcock did not return calls for comment.

Area residents will get to see drawings of the proposed high-rise tonight at 6:30 p.m. at Jones College Prep, 606 S. State St.

Last edited by Loopy; Jun 29, 2006 at 2:08 PM.
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 2:40 PM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,589
^South Loop Nieghbors have been a full blown NIMBY organization for quite some time. Greater South Loop Association and the South Loop Planning board are the voices of reason which have balanced the scale in favor of previous developements in the area. South Loop Neighbors completly opposed the Lannar Project and Burnham Pointe on Polk Street because Peter Ziv is one of SLN's board members, who by the way uses homeless people to picket and show an 'opposition mass' to new development (or so I am told). SLN suffers from a major case of the shut the door behind them mentality.
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 4:02 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,969
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...ck=1&cset=true

`Vancouver-ization' moving along South Michigan Avenue

By Blair Kamin

Tribune architecture critic
Published June 29, 2006

The "Vancouver-ization" of Chicago continues, but not without questions from preservationists about how it will affect the city's famed cliff of historic buildings along Michigan Avenue.

Vancouver is known for its tall and thin residential towers, a building type that recently has found favor at City Hall. The idea, a departure from short and squat high-rises, is to create more elegant profiles and block less sunlight. It sounds simple enough, but rare is the development proposal that doesn't provoke controversy.

Questions about the latest example of the trend will be aired at a public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Thursday at Jones College Prep, 606 S. State St. It's a proposal for an 80-story condominium tower at 830 S. Michigan Ave., developed by Oak Brook-based Renaissant Development Group and designed by the Chicago architectural firm of Pappageorge/Haymes Ltd.

The tower would rise behind the current site of an old, seven-story YWCA that is part of the Historic Michigan Boulevard District, a row of buildings protected by official city landmark status that runs from Randolph Street on the north to 11th Street on the south.

Designed by John Van Osdel Ii, the nephew of pioneering Chicago architect John Mills Van Osdel and completed in 1895, the now-vacant YWCA originally served as a residential hotel that provided inexpensive lodging for traveling and self-supporting working women.

Even so, as a city report on the Michigan Avenue district points out, it offered a high-quality design, with an eclectic facade of pressed-brick, stone and terra cotta, that masked its "charitable, non-profit identity."

Triangular bays on its upper floors provided residents with unobstructed views of Lake Michigan -- the very quality that is drawing developers to remake the South Michigan area today with new high-rises.

According to James Carroll, chief financial officer for Renaissant, the facade of the YWCA will be restored, but the rest of the building will be torn down and replaced. Preservationists typically oppose such treatments, terming them a "facade-echtomy" because they save only the skin of the building.

New floors housing condominiums and mechanical equipment will be built atop the reconstructed building, said Robert Braziunas, a senior project manager for Pappageorge/Haymes. The reconstructed building also will house a spa and restaurant.

The slim condominium tower will be clad in a skin of glass and aluminum. Concrete exterior walls will "most likely not" be used, Carroll said.

Jim Peters, director of preservation planning for the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, a non-profit advocacy group, expressed concern about the proposed terraces, which would have horizontal proportions like the neighboring Johnson Publishing Co. building at 820 S. Michigan Ave.

The terraces "look kind of clumsy," he said, noting that most buildings in the Michigan Avenue district are composed of vertical forms and widely spaced windows that are "punched" into their masonry facades.

Peters also questioned whether there was anything in the building worth preserving, saying that it is one of the oldest YWCA's in the country and one of the oldest buildings in the Michigan Avenue district.

But Braziunas said the terraced look of the new floors would prevent passersby from being able to see them, at least from directly across the street. The terraces would be visible from Grant Park and Lake Shore Drive, he said. Yet he added that they are designed with an eye toward lightness and mixing in with the tower's modern design.

"The key is to keep it light and make it seem like it's not a heavy object behind the facade," he said. "That's in the spirit of the tower itself."
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2006, 4:09 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
born again cyclist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Old Style City
Posts: 14,781
^ boy, there sure seems to be a lot of build-up up to this meeting tonight...... more build-up than usual anyway.

unfortunately, i get the privelege of working late at the office tonight, so i'm gonna miss out on all the fun. i'll be anxiously awaiting reports of how the meeting went.
     
     
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 10:23 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.