CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction

[denizen467]

From the BKL site page linked to above:

This glass tower designed by Brininstool, Kerwin and Lynch in the tradition of Chicago modernism rises 49-stories to overlook Lakeshore East Park, the Chicago River and Lake Michigan. In addition to 499 residential units, the mixed-use tower contains 18,000 square feet of retail space and 18,000 square feet of amenities. With all parking located below Wacker Drive, the tower meets the street gracefully, enhancing the pedestrian experience at street level.

The facade is a composition of light and translucency. On the east and west facades, clear, translucent and fritted glass combine with aluminum to form a curtain wall. Continuous, inset balconies on the north and south elevations provide views of the city skyline and Millennium Park.

The amenity floor and the amenity deck enhance the experience of interior and exterior living throughout the seasons. An exterior lap pool and landscaped terrace are complemented by a fitness center, saunas, whirlpools, and game and media rooms.

It's written as though they have rights to the land under Upper Wacker, but presumably they meant "all parking located below the level of Wacker Drive".

[denizen467]

About this talk of Arqui, it's nigh on a half-decade since that render came out. With the South, California, and Dubai getting the worst of the real estate slam, you could almost see Arquitectonica (with offices skewed to those regions) dwindling to a shadow of itself. FWIW the website top page still says Copyright 2010. Perhaps they are busy in China and Latin America, but if the design partner in charge of 375 E Wacker were to have left the firm, it seems likely that it could get substantially redesigned. Also, because of the changes in residential real estate economics (think of just the drastic changes in materials prices and labor costs), a rethink by Magellan of who they finally use doesn't seem unlikely. At a minimum, the intervening years would certainly offer a lot of opportunity to a flood of other architects to pitch their alternative proposals, and reduced fees, to Magellan.

[ardecila]

Yeah, but I'm not sure where the 18,000 sf of retail is. If it's at pedway level, that's far from ideal.

Magellan keeps the site plan on their website fairly up-to-date. Looking at it, you can clearly make out the footprint of this new BKL tower, and just west of it is another footprint that is unmistakeably the Arquitectonica design.

You're correct that the recession probably cut into their business, but IIRC they've continued to get work, and they just built a new building in The Grove. Great article about that, including an unsavory client named "Mr. Blow". You know, Miami in the 80s...

I recently applied for a job with them, so they're not dead yet.

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by denizen467

About this talk of Arqui, it's nigh on a half-decade since that render came out. With the South, California, and Dubai getting the worst of the real estate slam, you could almost see Arquitectonica (with offices skewed to those regions) dwindling to a shadow of itself. FWIW the website top page still says Copyright 2010. Perhaps they are busy in China and Latin America, but if the design partner in charge of 375 E Wacker were to have left the firm, it seems likely that it could get substantially redesigned. Also, because of the changes in residential real estate economics (think of just the drastic changes in materials prices and labor costs), a rethink by Magellan of who they finally use doesn't seem unlikely. At a minimum, the intervening years would certainly offer a lot of opportunity to a flood of other architects to pitch their alternative proposals, and reduced fees, to Magellan.

I think the one thing that confuses me most on this forum is the idea of proposals being open to offer, and focusing on the different possibilities, planning, etc. Who are you speaking to from here on the internet? It's good to pitch opinions, but it only really matters if it relates to the design that's going to take place instead of one that's suggested. Maybe you'd save time saying what you think should have happen, and seeing what happens with that.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Magellan keeps the site plan on their website fairly up-to-date.

Maybe as far as additions and changes, but deletions too? I wouldn't be surprised if they would shy away from erasing a building, even if its prospects had mostly faded, just to avoid people drawing conclusions from that. Anyway, the general question is, especially for architects or developer people here, how realistic is it for an ambitious building project (heck, this one straddles a roadway) to survive after 4 years of stagnation that included the seismic changes of the last 3 years? Somethin's gotta give. I'm not saying it's dead, just not to count our chickens too soon.

Also, glad we have Blago rather than Blow, I guess...

[WillPostPix]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Maybe as far as additions and changes, but deletions too? I wouldn't be surprised if they would shy away from erasing a building, even if its prospects had mostly faded, just to avoid people drawing conclusions from that. Anyway, the general question is, especially for architects or developer people here, how realistic is it for an ambitious building project (heck, this one straddles a roadway) to survive after 4 years of stagnation that included the seismic changes of the last 3 years? Somethin's gotta give. I'm not saying it's dead, just not to count our chickens too soon.

Also, glad we have Blago rather than Blow, I guess...

I would have taken the fact that it had survived the stagnation as evidence enough that it should be built, but that would have been me being optimistic, I guess. I'm more the construction-type in general, i.e., make it happen and work things out as you go along, instead of sitting around and waiting for it to be perfect and get all the checks and all the clearance. Have learned as I go along that if an architect sits around and lets its stagnate, it might be just enjoying the idea of a blueprint more than wanting to make the building. The overarching sense of futility makes it seem much less realistic. That might be where this one is at these days, honestly.

[denizen467]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.co...rk-designation

Chicago Motor Club building may get landmark designation
By Alby Gallun April 29, 2011

City officials have decided to seek landmark status for the Chicago Motor Club building, an Art Deco tower in the East Loop that's in bankruptcy and set to be sold in a June auction.

The Commission on Chicago Landmarks will consider a preliminary landmark recommendation for the 17-story tower at its meeting next Thursday, according to a meeting agenda.

Completed in 1928, the building at 68 E. Wacker Place “is really a great example of an Art Deco building,” and it was designed by “a major architecture firm,” Holabird & Root, says Brian Goeken, the city's deputy commissioner of landmarks. ...

[wrab]

^ "bout time.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by wrab

^ "bout time.

No kidding, this was long overdue. I checked out the lobby one day on my lunch break when the building was open for a brief moment. The lobby is incredible

Meanwhile, another historic tower....


Hayward

[wrab]

^ Fantastic photo. I'm glad they're saving this one.

I'm incredibly envious that you got inside the MCB.

[ardecila]

Is this building actually moving forward? The scaffolding hasn't moved in awhile and the building doesn't look any cleaner.

[wrab]

^ I saw workmen up there on Friday while I was getting my hair cut (my barber is across the street on Wells). So, they're doing something, just not sure what.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This one deserves reposting. Simply.....gorgeous. Was well worth the wait. I don't think I've been this thoroughly satisfied, without wanting to change a thing on a rendering revealed for a new tower for a long time. Best part is, it's a very real project that will get started very soon......wouldn't surprise me in the least if we learn that financing has been completed and we see the caisson rigs at work within a matter of several weeks.....
(I actually came across this rendering a couple months ago, but as no info. was given - I believe I only knew it was BKL, I tried but couldn't place the site as the A tower at LSE and incorrectly concluded this was a project somewhere in Asia-Pacific............now I can make out The Regatta of course)...

This one deserves reposting for the exact opposite. It's every bit as bad as what we saw last summer - very, very disappointing. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but in Crain's photo lineup, the architect was actually listed as SCB. Now, it could obviously be an error..............or, rather more hopefully, AMLI could have actually switched architects on the project. If that is in fact the case, I would be shocked if we do not see major design changes to the present POS - SCB is definitely too good a design firm these days to put their name behind this travesty...

[SamInTheLoop]

Crain's also had an article last week on the developer of this project switching to apartments from condos. I'm very skeptical of this..................he's apparently landed some piece of financing but toward the end of the article the minor detail is given that - oh, he's still shopping for a $50 million loan.............Catalyst has been in the news before with "positive" announcements that have of course thus far not produced anything at the site resembling construction of a high-rise, so this is one of those projects that nothing sort of seeing would be believing, at least for me...

I'd much rather see another proposed apartment tower in the general area - Jupiter Realty's SCB-designed 108 N. Jefferson - resurface in its entitlement process.....I don't know why it's disappeared after being pulled from a Plan Commission agenda in late '09 after running into a bit of "community" opposition - opposition which could have imo been addressed by some further dialogue and maybe a bit of compromise/relatively minor changes to the plan...........instead it hasn't been seen or heard of since, and in the meantime, the apartment market has strengthened considerably, including from everything I know, a successful opening and lease-up of Jupiter's own 215 West Washington project.......................anybody know anything on 108 N. Jefferson?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Edit: And the next K Station project

This deserves reposting. If anything has been indicative of the slow drift towards better design over the past 4 years or so its K Station. These buildings have evolved from horrendous (first tower) to OK (second and third towers) to Good (most recent design)...

[emathias]

I don't actually mind the AMLI design. It's not gorgeous, but I love the density. It's 400 units, which means probably 600 people. If River North averaged 600 people per block, then just River North itself would reach a population of around 50,000 people eventually, and since River North is about 0.4 of a square mile, that translates into a density of around 125,000 per square mile, which would be really rare and exciting. Obviously River North probably won't average that high, but helping keep the density up there is important for continuing to attract services and businesses. I'll take a few highly dense, boring boxes in exchange for the numbers and money those residents will bring in. The more services, the higher the demand, the more money there is for more interesting projects down the road - it's not as if River North is short on buildable space for future development or something.

Originally Posted by ardecila

...
Finally, we learn that the AMLI design hasn't gotten any better - although we do have a clearer rendering. HOWEVER - it's really the only dog in the list of active proposals. I'd say that's really, really good for Chicago.

[Alliance]

^^^ I dont think anyone here doesn't like the density or the fact that something is getting built. Its just that the city is more than numbers. Packaging matters. There are plenty of highly dense neighborhoods, cities in the world. Chicago should be continuing its tradition of great architecture...and that needs to extend to other neighborhoods. River North has several giant, highly dense, boring ugly boxes already. There is no need to emulate this further.

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

This one deserves reposting for the exact opposite. It's every bit as bad as what we saw last summer - very, very disappointing. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but in Crain's photo lineup, the architect was actually listed as SCB. Now, it could obviously be an error..............or, rather more hopefully, AMLI could have actually switched architects on the project. If that is in fact the case, I would be shocked if we do not see major design changes to the present POS - SCB is definitely too good a design firm these days to put their name behind this travesty...

I just rechecked the Crains Site and its back to saying its designed by Dick Mann/Cubellis. SamInTheLoop mentioned a while back that: "architect" (skepticism quotes mine) Dick Mann is now apparently of Canada-based NORR. I tired to google him, but the only hits came from here, which is probably fitting, because no firm in the would could possibly want to advertise a turd like that. The building didn't pop up on NORR's site either

I know people love to hate on SCB, but I'm usually pretty thankful they exist as a default for saving us form things like this. Too bad it doesnt appear that is the case this time.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Alliance

^^^ I dont think anyone here doesn't like the density or the fact that something is getting built. Its just that the city is more than numbers. Packaging matters. There are plenty of highly dense neighborhoods, cities in the world. Chicago should be continuing its tradition of great architecture...and that needs to extend to other neighborhoods. River North has several giant, highly dense, boring ugly boxes already. There is no need to emulate this further.

Yes, but there were aesthetic turds built in every era and they eventually just meld into the cityscape and cause no problems. What we need to be vigilant about is fighting things that harm the built environment beyond the question of "is it cutting edge and pretty?". The things that really effect the built environment negatively are huge parking podiums, blank walls, curb cuts, and other elements of a design that cause irreparable harm.

This building, notably, lacks any major transgressions of that nature. It may be boring, banal, and bland, but it's not a city-killing monstrosity.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Is this building actually moving forward? The scaffolding hasn't moved in awhile and the building doesn't look any cleaner.

Yes there has been quite a bit of work and noticeable progress. I check on it weekly

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Alliance

I just rechecked the Crains Site and its back to saying its designed by Dick Mann/Cubellis. SamInTheLoop mentioned a while back that: "architect" (skepticism quotes mine) Dick Mann is now apparently of Canada-based NORR. I tired to google him, but the only hits came from here, which is probably fitting, because no firm in the would could possibly want to advertise a turd like that. The building didn't pop up on NORR's site either

I know people love to hate on SCB, but I'm usually pretty thankful they exist as a default for saving us form things like this. Too bad it doesnt appear that is the case this time.

Haha... maybe I'm just being an 8-year-old here, but it seems fitting that the awful AMLI building was designed by Dick Man(n).

Cubellis is dead, though... odd that they're showing up.

The only good part of the AMLI design is the street frontage... the double-height glazing between piers is nice, and it seems like a fairly successful way to give the building a historic feel.