I'm been working on the core of the west tower of this project for the past few months (The west tower is the green tinted one). It's part of the museum park projects by PapaGeorge/Haymes. I think the two towers actually compliment one another pretty well and are a major improvement over some of the earlier buildings in the area. I imagine you guys all hate them, or am I mistaken?
Are you working with Jeff Renergen? Wasnt he the lead on the east tower?
Im torn - I dont like them but I can see why they are widely accepted and well like by the public - so in that sense they are successful. Its a war to get anything built, so this battle should be seen as something of a success.
I'm not sure who the lead designers on the towers were, they bulk of design work one both towers was completed prior to my joining my current employer. The engineer who had done the initial core design happened to leave my firm at the beginning of this year, so I've picked up where he left off.
I think they are a nice balance between economic design and aesthetics. They aren't landmark buildings that will blow people away, but at least they aren't utterly boring like so many other residential towers around the city.
east tower. it's still odd looking to me but I'm glad its there. Maybe if you build anything that tall and skin it with reflective glass it will look alright. Everyone seems to love it.
yeah i don't know if it is my favorite either, but i'm glad to see the investment in architectural features and form. I prefer it to the buildings that are going up with such blocky forms and all the effort and money being put into maximizing the floor area ratios, aesthetics be damned.
im over critical obviously... formally im not a big fan, i really dislike the skin... it has no edges... no definition...the reflectivity of the glass makes the whole thing read like a lump from a distance. which seems counter to the intention of the thing... if youre going to do these cascading flower pedals, why then pick materials that lessen their impact?
but like is said above... its better than most of the other south loop condos thats 100% true. I just wish builders would spend a little money on the skins of their buildings... WAY too many towers in this city are making noticeably selfish decisions... spending the smallest possible amount on the public face of the building...
Its probably the biggest architectural letdown in many years. A one in a million chance to do a spectacular skyline - blown.
The reason the Mich Ave streetwall works is its classical - meaning the buildings attempt to match cornice and shelf lines and form a composition greater than the parts.
This just screams "look at me".
I call it the pride parade. Overly Flambyoant and kinda gay.
the third from the left? it has no idea what it wants to be. the one thing it's easiest to do well in a skyscraper is elegance, and this is inelegant in the extreme.
the furthest one on the right unfortunately highlights this criticism, it's boring but much more elegant -- better than striving too hard to be "interesting" and ending up with "clunky"
I'm not sure if the far right one is really a proposed shape? I thought it was just a kind of place holder for a future building.
EP,
I think that you've hit on one of the great architectural catch 22s. A building that mimics it's neighbors and predecessors too closely will be critiqued for being boring and lacking innovation or effort, at the same time a building that is completely different and disregards it's context will be critiqued for being to showy and "gay". Sure we can hope for something in that gentle sweet spot between these two extremes, but it seems to be something of a moving goalpost.
My take is that there aren't many buildings directly near these towers that need be referenced or "nodded" too. The grant park buildings are creating their own context, in which there is a common theme of soft curved forms and colorful reflective glazing over a concrete structure.
From a planning perspective, the street should be comercial at the ground. You have a much traveled path to the lake, museum, sports, concerts - yet we put giant residential base on them? It's a pedestrian street that will have all the charm at eye level of it's baren neighbor to the north - randolph.
It's like Naperville - extruded.
As for the classic street wall - some of those old buildings are totally gay too - look at the frilly lacey tracery of the athletic club. Im not advocating building classical knock offs like the coupala topped museum park, but certainly figurative modernism such as these could still respect each other so not to be a nuciance to the rest of the skyline, not to mention their height deprived southern neighbors. I almost wish Pappageorge/ Haymes would have advocated a stadium like progression building up to higher buildings behind the street wall, a crecendo effect - this arrangement is like premature ejaculation.
yeah the rendering is a little confusing, I swear that fourth tower appears to be located in the middle of Roosevelt, a novel location, but i doubt the city would approve it.
The commercial at ground level would be really nice, but I can understand why it was left out, this area is, after basically part of the loop with all it's tourist and business driven garbage. It's tough to make good neighborhood commercial developments in these areas, somebody just has to bite the bullet and get it started.
Ive heard a lot of people describe it that way. Dubai lite might not be such a bad thing, no? I mean isn't one of the biggest complaints about the Dubai all of the excess? If these buildings bring in some of the emphasis on design and form, without going so far over the top, isn't that a good thing?
the third from the left and the second from the right would make an attractive beard trimmer. the fourth on the left and first on the right would make a fine graph. the other two are just unfortunate...
Vado - I like to stare at cellophane wrappers and think, " what building could this become".
I never thought to observer beard trimmers. I will start. Your keen sense of perceptian may yet uncover the underlying universal truth about highrise construction forms.
I read somewhere people saying that the Seagram Building and other Mies buildings look like the storage containers that real buildings (ie. empire state, chrysler building, etc.) are shipped in. It cracks me up whenever I think of that one.
i just reread louis sullivan's "Household Electric Appliances Artistically Considered." His remark about Form following unwanted body hair was particularly profound.
haha yeah I suppose that is actually a common problem. The two projects are contemporaries of one another, so I bet this one isn't in the Pump Shower renderings either.
Its still a little fuzzy - according to River North Residents Association there might be (2) developments there - one would be kitty corner at LaSalle and Kinzie - what else - another hotel.
The other on the site mentionaed above at clark and Kinzie would be an eco-parking structure - not an office as i previously stated. The office tower on that exact site is already built - you can see both the office tower and eco - garage in the link to PDF
this garage is in conjuction with a hotel so ugly, it must be stopped - at Clark and Grand - proposed. It is the main component of the 2 parcel deal.
"The same developer also plans to construct a 700+ space public parking garage with 14,000 square feet of ground-level retail space 2 blocks north at Clark and Kinzie. The structure will have rooftop amenities to serve an already-approved PD for a 35-floor residential rental building with 350 units and 265 parking spaces at Clark and Hubbard."
Look specifically at slide 21 of 24 in the PDF to see a recent view of that corner. The office tower on the parking lot is up, I think its the new CPS offices.
is interesting. SCAIC (school of the art institute of chicago) has hired the former dean of Arizona State's school of design to the post of president of the whole school.
Anyone know much about this fellow? This seems like good news to anyone anxious to see a greater arts/media/architectural academia develop in Chicago. Perhaps in 5-10 years we'll be talking about influential offices started by SCAIC grads as well as IIT and UIC. Good news for the city if thats the case.
Obviously, he wont be changing SCAIC into and archi-centric school, but with the quality of their fine arts degrees already very high, a melding of BA type programs with FA type programs would be a fantastic balance for the cities other prevalent programs.
I'm waiting for SCAIC to hit the big times. Their fashion program seriously impressed me this year. I think the expansion / move / squat into Carson's was a pretty sweet idea--they should take over the whole damn thing.
Everything Ive seen so far from SCAIC is great. The school makes no bones about it - we do art. They arent one of those pretendeing to be technical but really doing art schools.
Problem is can they get accreditted - I heard they are going to be but how? They dont have a physics and math department do they?
im with both you guys, ive always been really impressed with their fashion school as well as their sculpting. I dated a girl in their fashion school, and we both spent almost all our time in studio. She was there constantly and many many late nights... at least as many as i was in Arch studio. It was a very rigourous program, one with many similarities to the structure of an Arch program. I think they DO in fact have the infrastructure as far as space, faculty, and mind set to achieve a strong arch program.
They should focus on graduate or post B.Arch stuff though. Im not sure its in their best interest to have an accredited architecture school in their midst. Id imagine it would be a resource hog... though with their tuition rates, im guessing they arent short on resources...
I think you can still get accredited without things like Physics / Math if you offer a partnership set up where students can go off-campus to another university for those classes without actually paying tuition to that other school or whatever. I think.
There's a few good art-based architecture programs out there (Cranbrook & CCA come to mind, of course) that attract people who already have their BArch or who aren't interested in pursuing a licensed architect position. There's definitely a place for it in the world. There'd be more of a place if NCARB recognized that diversity in a profession fosters growth and cultural value but oh well, that's another discussion...
manta thats exactly what i mean... thats the niche i think SCAIC should shoot for.
lots of people go for masters when they already have B.Arch... myself included... in fact, it offers a lot of flexibility... do an extra year of bachelors and then do whatever the hell you want for masters... though i never anticipated grad school when i started the B.Arch, im really, really glad i did a b.arch... takes all the pressure out of grad school... its all gravy now
I agree, I don't think it would make sense for SCAIC to try and put together a really technical program. Anyone who wants a more technical education would probably go to IIT, or UIC. I think it would be pretty difficult to out technical IIT. I'm sure IIT couldn't compete with SCAIC in Art education either.
It shouldn't be too hard for SCAIC to offer math and physics via a cross-registration agreement with one of the other Loop colleges, such as DePaul, Columbia, or Harold Washington. It's a fairly common setup among smaller schools.
Aggregate Chicago
i am only posting here now cause i want to be at the top of page 4.
But ill second you evil, synergy is a good man, in spite of his many disadvantages. Not the least of which is his refusal to wear deodorant.
He smells... is my point...
don't believe the hype evil, LD is a pathological liar. He is also a terrorist.
Also, I joined a couple years ago with good intentions, but only got around to start reading and posting regularly in the past month or so.
I'm been working on the core of the west tower of this project for the past few months (The west tower is the green tinted one). It's part of the museum park projects by PapaGeorge/Haymes. I think the two towers actually compliment one another pretty well and are a major improvement over some of the earlier buildings in the area. I imagine you guys all hate them, or am I mistaken?
let me try that image again.
Are you working with Jeff Renergen? Wasnt he the lead on the east tower?
Im torn - I dont like them but I can see why they are widely accepted and well like by the public - so in that sense they are successful. Its a war to get anything built, so this battle should be seen as something of a success.
I'm not sure who the lead designers on the towers were, they bulk of design work one both towers was completed prior to my joining my current employer. The engineer who had done the initial core design happened to leave my firm at the beginning of this year, so I've picked up where he left off.
I think they are a nice balance between economic design and aesthetics. They aren't landmark buildings that will blow people away, but at least they aren't utterly boring like so many other residential towers around the city.
i am watching the cubs and between pitches i am watchin an reo concert!
east tower. it's still odd looking to me but I'm glad its there. Maybe if you build anything that tall and skin it with reflective glass it will look alright. Everyone seems to love it.
the storm
after the storm
yeah i don't know if it is my favorite either, but i'm glad to see the investment in architectural features and form. I prefer it to the buildings that are going up with such blocky forms and all the effort and money being put into maximizing the floor area ratios, aesthetics be damned.
im over critical obviously... formally im not a big fan, i really dislike the skin... it has no edges... no definition...the reflectivity of the glass makes the whole thing read like a lump from a distance. which seems counter to the intention of the thing... if youre going to do these cascading flower pedals, why then pick materials that lessen their impact?
but like is said above... its better than most of the other south loop condos thats 100% true. I just wish builders would spend a little money on the skins of their buildings... WAY too many towers in this city are making noticeably selfish decisions... spending the smallest possible amount on the public face of the building...
So what do you guys think about the proposed third tower in the series?
Its probably the biggest architectural letdown in many years. A one in a million chance to do a spectacular skyline - blown.
The reason the Mich Ave streetwall works is its classical - meaning the buildings attempt to match cornice and shelf lines and form a composition greater than the parts.
This just screams "look at me".
I call it the pride parade. Overly Flambyoant and kinda gay.
the third from the left? it has no idea what it wants to be. the one thing it's easiest to do well in a skyscraper is elegance, and this is inelegant in the extreme.
the furthest one on the right unfortunately highlights this criticism, it's boring but much more elegant -- better than striving too hard to be "interesting" and ending up with "clunky"
Mantaray,
I'm not sure if the far right one is really a proposed shape? I thought it was just a kind of place holder for a future building.
EP,
I think that you've hit on one of the great architectural catch 22s. A building that mimics it's neighbors and predecessors too closely will be critiqued for being boring and lacking innovation or effort, at the same time a building that is completely different and disregards it's context will be critiqued for being to showy and "gay". Sure we can hope for something in that gentle sweet spot between these two extremes, but it seems to be something of a moving goalpost.
My take is that there aren't many buildings directly near these towers that need be referenced or "nodded" too. The grant park buildings are creating their own context, in which there is a common theme of soft curved forms and colorful reflective glazing over a concrete structure.
From a planning perspective, the street should be comercial at the ground. You have a much traveled path to the lake, museum, sports, concerts - yet we put giant residential base on them? It's a pedestrian street that will have all the charm at eye level of it's baren neighbor to the north - randolph.
It's like Naperville - extruded.
As for the classic street wall - some of those old buildings are totally gay too - look at the frilly lacey tracery of the athletic club. Im not advocating building classical knock offs like the coupala topped museum park, but certainly figurative modernism such as these could still respect each other so not to be a nuciance to the rest of the skyline, not to mention their height deprived southern neighbors. I almost wish Pappageorge/ Haymes would have advocated a stadium like progression building up to higher buildings behind the street wall, a crecendo effect - this arrangement is like premature ejaculation.
also - is it just me or in that rendering is the southshore rail line covered by a greenway?
yeah the rendering is a little confusing, I swear that fourth tower appears to be located in the middle of Roosevelt, a novel location, but i doubt the city would approve it.
The commercial at ground level would be really nice, but I can understand why it was left out, this area is, after basically part of the loop with all it's tourist and business driven garbage. It's tough to make good neighborhood commercial developments in these areas, somebody just has to bite the bullet and get it started.
Looks like Dubai Lite.
Ive heard a lot of people describe it that way. Dubai lite might not be such a bad thing, no? I mean isn't one of the biggest complaints about the Dubai all of the excess? If these buildings bring in some of the emphasis on design and form, without going so far over the top, isn't that a good thing?
Dubai is a Flash-in-The-Pan.
Literally.
the third from the left and the second from the right would make an attractive beard trimmer. the fourth on the left and first on the right would make a fine graph. the other two are just unfortunate...
Vado - I like to stare at cellophane wrappers and think, " what building could this become".
I never thought to observer beard trimmers. I will start. Your keen sense of perceptian may yet uncover the underlying universal truth about highrise construction forms.
This air purifier would make a good building:
Or this one (already has):
I read somewhere people saying that the Seagram Building and other Mies buildings look like the storage containers that real buildings (ie. empire state, chrysler building, etc.) are shipped in. It cracks me up whenever I think of that one.
i just reread louis sullivan's "Household Electric Appliances Artistically Considered." His remark about Form following unwanted body hair was particularly profound.
A much more refined and elegant figurative building...
I really like that one. Anybody been inside it? How is that narrow side of the building utilized?
i been in the bar.
It has 2 bars -
It has 4 Bars
I worked on this one for awhile last year at my previous company, it is in construction now.
There's something missing rom that rendering.....in the background.
And it rhymes with Rump Power.
haha yeah I suppose that is actually a common problem. The two projects are contemporaries of one another, so I bet this one isn't in the Pump Shower renderings either.
I read in Crains about another planned office tower in that parking lot in the lower left
link evil?
Its still a little fuzzy - according to River North Residents Association there might be (2) developments there - one would be kitty corner at LaSalle and Kinzie - what else - another hotel.
The other on the site mentionaed above at clark and Kinzie would be an eco-parking structure - not an office as i previously stated. The office tower on that exact site is already built - you can see both the office tower and eco - garage in the link to PDF
friedman properties
this garage is in conjuction with a hotel so ugly, it must be stopped - at Clark and Grand - proposed. It is the main component of the 2 parcel deal.
"The same developer also plans to construct a 700+ space public parking garage with 14,000 square feet of ground-level retail space 2 blocks north at Clark and Kinzie. The structure will have rooftop amenities to serve an already-approved PD for a 35-floor residential rental building with 350 units and 265 parking spaces at Clark and Hubbard."
Look specifically at slide 21 of 24 in the PDF to see a recent view of that corner. The office tower on the parking lot is up, I think its the new CPS offices.
is interesting. SCAIC (school of the art institute of chicago) has hired the former dean of Arizona State's school of design to the post of president of the whole school.
Anyone know much about this fellow? This seems like good news to anyone anxious to see a greater arts/media/architectural academia develop in Chicago. Perhaps in 5-10 years we'll be talking about influential offices started by SCAIC grads as well as IIT and UIC. Good news for the city if thats the case.
Obviously, he wont be changing SCAIC into and archi-centric school, but with the quality of their fine arts degrees already very high, a melding of BA type programs with FA type programs would be a fantastic balance for the cities other prevalent programs.
I'm waiting for SCAIC to hit the big times. Their fashion program seriously impressed me this year. I think the expansion / move / squat into Carson's was a pretty sweet idea--they should take over the whole damn thing.
Everything Ive seen so far from SCAIC is great. The school makes no bones about it - we do art. They arent one of those pretendeing to be technical but really doing art schools.
Problem is can they get accreditted - I heard they are going to be but how? They dont have a physics and math department do they?
im with both you guys, ive always been really impressed with their fashion school as well as their sculpting. I dated a girl in their fashion school, and we both spent almost all our time in studio. She was there constantly and many many late nights... at least as many as i was in Arch studio. It was a very rigourous program, one with many similarities to the structure of an Arch program. I think they DO in fact have the infrastructure as far as space, faculty, and mind set to achieve a strong arch program.
They should focus on graduate or post B.Arch stuff though. Im not sure its in their best interest to have an accredited architecture school in their midst. Id imagine it would be a resource hog... though with their tuition rates, im guessing they arent short on resources...
Why would you have an architecture school if you cant have architects as alumni?
Am I going insane?
I think you can still get accredited without things like Physics / Math if you offer a partnership set up where students can go off-campus to another university for those classes without actually paying tuition to that other school or whatever. I think.
There's a few good art-based architecture programs out there (Cranbrook & CCA come to mind, of course) that attract people who already have their BArch or who aren't interested in pursuing a licensed architect position. There's definitely a place for it in the world. There'd be more of a place if NCARB recognized that diversity in a profession fosters growth and cultural value but oh well, that's another discussion...
manta thats exactly what i mean... thats the niche i think SCAIC should shoot for.
lots of people go for masters when they already have B.Arch... myself included... in fact, it offers a lot of flexibility... do an extra year of bachelors and then do whatever the hell you want for masters... though i never anticipated grad school when i started the B.Arch, im really, really glad i did a b.arch... takes all the pressure out of grad school... its all gravy now
I agree, I don't think it would make sense for SCAIC to try and put together a really technical program. Anyone who wants a more technical education would probably go to IIT, or UIC. I think it would be pretty difficult to out technical IIT. I'm sure IIT couldn't compete with SCAIC in Art education either.
this dean guy was at asu for about 10 seconds. i haven't heard that much about him.
It shouldn't be too hard for SCAIC to offer math and physics via a cross-registration agreement with one of the other Loop colleges, such as DePaul, Columbia, or Harold Washington. It's a fairly common setup among smaller schools.
So...How bout doze cubbies?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.