CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction - Page 371

ardecila · #**7401** Posted: **Apr 10, 2012, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

I wonder if Sara Lee chose the building they did because it was alternative )or less expensive) and because they didn't want to be in an office building. They wanted to be in a former warehouse and be hip.

Hip had nothing to do with it. The old warehouse is close to the train stations and offers huge, open floorplates at a bargain price with the opportunity to customize the building to their preferences and to the Sara Lee identity.

Nowhereman1280 · #**7402** Posted: **Apr 10, 2012, 7:36 PM**

^^^ The Sara Lee building is a striking example of an "adaptive use home run" in my opinion. Not only is the building being reused, but it is being reused WITHOUT any outside incentives to save the structure. That means reuse of the building was so appealing that it made purely economic sense to preserve what is a very nice, perfectly good, somewhat historical, building. This is something you don't see too often and was a home run for the building, homerun for the neighborhood, homerun for the city, and, most importantly, home run for the tenant. Everybody wins except the vile suburbs from whence they've fled.

ardecila · #**7403** Posted: **Apr 10, 2012, 7:49 PM**

The Admiral at the Lake, from Uptown Update:

The composition is a great homage to Art Deco, but those massive flat concrete surfaces will NOT look good in a few years. Either we get LaGrange schlock precast, which will look as plasticky in 20 years as it does now, or we get this sitecast stuff.

Nowhereman1280 · #**7404** Posted: **Apr 10, 2012, 8:29 PM**

^^^ I dunno, I REALLY like the way it looks from the North. I was just over there last night and it's actually got excellent massing. I like how it looks right now with raw concrete and hope they don't paint it. If they do paint it they should paint it white or something similarly light. It's a very striking building.

ardecila · #**7405** Posted: **Apr 10, 2012, 10:07 PM**

I'm fine with the massing, it looks great.

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**7406** Posted: **Apr 10, 2012, 10:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I dunno, I REALLY like the way it looks from the North. I was just over there last night and it's actually got excellent massing. I like how it looks right now with raw concrete and hope they don't paint it. If they do paint it they should paint it white or something similarly light. It's a very striking building.

It's going to be painted, but I'm not sure what color. It looks like they've deviated a bit from the color scheme presented in the renderings.

The western elevation is a little unfortunate, but the building as a whole appears to be coming together really nicely. PoMo done right. And by a firm that doesn't even specialize in the style! Lucien Lagrange, are you taking notes? (Of course not.)

It's hard to overstate the Admiral's presence. It holds that corner really well, and makes a huge impression when you're heading south on Lake Shore Drive or east on Foster. I was at the intersection of Foster and Sheridan recently and had to remind myself that this was the same place that felt so barren and underutilized only a few years ago before the new Dominick's was built and the Admiral started going up. Hopefully that McDonald's isn't long for this world.

ChiPhi · #**7407** Posted: **Apr 10, 2012, 11:32 PM**

^^^ I'm undecided on Admiral at the lake. The concrete makes the overall composition feel a bit anhedonic even with the relatively nice massing. I almost would've preferred precast, though we'll have to see it painted. I also think that the steeped rooflines are a bit clumsy and the turret over only half of the top roof looks a bit unbalanced. It also lacks a bit of detail, though I suppose that is better than too much gaudy detail (see 2520 lincoln park)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ The Sara Lee building is a striking example of an "adaptive use home run" in my opinion. Not only is the building being reused, but it is being reused WITHOUT any outside incentives to save the structure. That means reuse of the building was so appealing that it made purely economic sense to preserve what is a very nice, perfectly good, somewhat historical, building. This is something you don't see too often and was a home run for the building, homerun for the neighborhood, homerun for the city, and, most importantly, home run for the tenant. Everybody wins except the vile suburbs from whence they've fled.

Sounds good and green to me - I'm always a fan of adaptive reuse over tearing down. Of course we will have to see the final design once this thing is built, but I think a new office tower would suit and improve the character (or character that attracts big name tenants) of the increasing white collar and decreasingly industrial west loop much more than a converted warehouse. OF course, it may be cool if Sara Lee stays and the area around this former warehouse gets built up. We may end up with a small reminder of the past surrounded by glass and steel towers.

ChiPhi · #**7408** Posted: **Apr 10, 2012, 11:55 PM**

^^ I just realized how stupid my last comment was. They are renovating this building more than I thought they would. Here is an article from Crain's with a pic of the building today. IT does not look like much of the original character will b maintained. If I'm correct though, they still haven't released any news on the design yet(?).

untitledreality · #**7409** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

IT does not look like much of the original character will b maintained. If I'm correct though, they still haven't released any news on the design yet(?).

Here is an image pre renovation for comparison:

ChiPhi · #**7410** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 12:55 AM**

^^^ Thanks so much. Looks pretty okay. If it were a new construction I would complain, but I laud them for their re-purposing of a building thought to be nearly useless.

Mr Downtown · #**7411** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 12:56 AM**

Yeah, I've had great ambivalence about the Sara Lee renovation since they began taking out the walls. I'm a huge Moderne fan, and Chicago only had a dozen examples to begin with. But the alternative, at least in this location, is probably demolition. Not a lot of windowless uses—except retail, ironically—downtown any more.

ChiPhi · #**7412** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 1:23 AM**

^^^
I feel like they could have kept the moderne look in tact with new windows (maybe even made it better) but instead it looks like any late pomo pos...

chief56 · #**7413** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 1:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swicago Swi Sox

^^

I wonder why 360 Hubbard is using a mixture of epoxy coated rebar and plain rebar? Strange...

Epoxy rebar is typical used in areas that have traffic or are exposed to the weather. The epoxy here will most likely be in the parking garage.

the urban politician · #**7414** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 3:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

^^ I just realized how stupid my last comment was. They are renovating this building more than I thought they would. Here is an article from Crain's with a pic of the building today. IT does not look like much of the original character will b maintained. If I'm correct though, they still haven't released any news on the design yet(?).

^ Original "character"?

What original character?

They are putting windows in where they are badly needed. What's wrong with that?

This building gets a new life as the headquarters of a major corporation or as a parking lot. Choose which one you prefer

ardecila · #**7415** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 3:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

^^^
I feel like they could have kept the moderne look in tact with new windows (maybe even made it better) but instead it looks like any late pomo pos...

Well, there are ways they could have detailed the glass (butt-glazed) to present a slick, smooth band instead of those clunky mullions.

A frit, done right, could reduce the transparency of the glass and help preserve some of the feeling of the old opaque walls. I was hoping the Bond Building on State Street would be done this way, but the results were kinda disappointing and far too transparent/reflective.

the urban politician · #**7416** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 3:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Well, there are ways they could have detailed the glass (butt-glazed) to present a slick, smooth band instead of those clunky mullions.

A frit, done right, could reduce the transparency of the glass and help preserve some of the feeling of the old opaque walls. I was hoping the Bond Building on State Street would be done this way, but the results were kinda disappointing and far too transparent/reflective.

^ Wait, so now we like opaque walls downtown?

I'm kind of confused here.

The skyscraper community on these forums whom I have enjoyed talking with for the past 8 years have done a wonderful job in guiding me through the "art" of appreciating architecture, but I find myself a bit baffled here...

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**7417** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Well, there are ways they could have detailed the glass (butt-glazed) to present a slick, smooth band instead of those clunky mullions.

Have you seen the building in person? Or have they progressed further than what's shown in the Crain's article? Because your analysis (and ChiPhi's) seems a little too sure based on the tiny image of what's clearly an incomplete renovation, and the rendering isn't informative enough to provide the kind of details you're describing. ("Rendering versus Reality" is anyway usually most extreme where glazing is concerned.)

And what's "late PoMo"?

Ch.G, Ch.G · #**7418** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 4:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Wait, so now we like opaque walls downtown?

That's not what he's saying at all. "To preserve the feeling of the old opaque walls" is not the same as "to preserve the opaque walls." There are many different kinds of glass.

Hayward · #**7419** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 4:30 AM**

I can't seem to locate any historic images of Sara Lee's new 400 S. Jefferson building, but had the darker tan brick always been there? Seems like back in the day....had the brick not been there....they would have used glass block, or just continued the glazing around the corner with the same mullion design.

Personally I always hated the opaque walls and just assumed the future owner would remove them. Sure enough, I got my wish.

ardecila · #**7420** Posted: **Apr 11, 2012, 5:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Wait, so now we like opaque walls downtown?

I'm kind of confused here.

The skyscraper community on these forums whom I have enjoyed talking with for the past 8 years have done a wonderful job in guiding me through the "art" of appreciating architecture, but I find myself a bit baffled here...

In many kinds of modern architecture, opaque surfaces are juxtaposed with transparent ones for effect. Changing the balance of opaque:transparent destroys that effect.

I certainly understand why a solid brick box is unsuitable for Sara Lee and unfriendly to the street, yet is still an attractive building. Therefore, I'm trying to think of ways to compromise and preserve some of the feeling of those opaque surfaces while still letting light through for the building occupants.