For once, Blair has got it
[url=http://http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-olympics-design-15-feb15,0,103680.story ]right![/url ]
[i]The authorship of the plans is telling: Chicago 2016 organizers were in the driver's seat. Architects at the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill were mere advisers. The uninspired outcome reflects who was in control. There would be 21 high-rises, each about 12 stories, in banal rows on the site of Michael Reese Hospital. After the Games, they would become a mixed-income residential community.
The design is an outdated version of the discredited tower-in-the-park urbanism that gave us soulless housing projects in the 1960s. It is not the way to make a lively city.[/]
When I think beyond not only the 'banal objects' in the plan - but the lack of vision of how we could start spreading out the olympics beyond the lakefront which needs no know development - but how dire public transit is in chicago and when the pitch by SOM calls for innovative transit schemes such as 'taking a cab to venues' i shake my head and recongize how unlikely chicago will be picked!
What ideas from past olympics would you like to see in the chicago plan?
Yeah, that thing got watered down big time. I actually worked on a block of the athlete's village w/ my office along w/ several offices here in chicago. I don't think any of it (and there were some really good parts) got included in the bid once it became developer-driven.
Yes but remember this is the pre-sale, the buildings dont usually get designed until after the bid is awarded. Right now its sort of like the architecture of a master plan drawing, sort of generic really and highly conceptual.
I am surprised by the transit upgrades being left out. Prob a cost saving measure. But the transit will be improved, the general infrastructure is already there, it just needs augmenting.
All in all after reviewing Rio and Tokyo's PDFs I have to say Chicago's looks like a really nice, pleasent, not over the top spectacle. Sort of a "down home" olympics. I find that facinating. The games just dissapear into the city yet are mostly super compact. Its unique.
After looking at all the schemes, it does seem like they've held back images of the buildings. Hopefully they will put a lot more effort towards the final design of the new buildings, and utilize a lot of the local design talent to do it. Madrid seems to be taking on a Beijing approach, creating some iconic buildings within their plan. They differ in that regard from the other 3.
From a planning perspective, I think it works pretty well. The "banal rows" probabably will stay, but compared to the other OV plans it doesn't seem all that terrible/avoidable. Though, I think Chicago's OV does lack some real estate that the other have. They are packed in their pretty tight.
In regard to the lack of transit additions, I've seen a few comments that the feds earmark money after the bid is won. Supposedly this happened for Atlanta and Salt Lake. Plus, we should have a lot for rail in the stimulus.
And fine, the lakefront doesn't need improvement. But the lake is our biggest amenity. Where else are you going to go to attract the games? Are you going to blow away Englewood cause it needs to be gentrified? Although, instead of wisconsin, I would put the mountain bike trail on an elevated hilly high line track about 10 stories up between buildings in the loop... sweeeeet.
But did you see Rio's cost for the games... it's like 3 times Chicago's, and they have something like 75% of the facilities already built!
Another thing I noticed, every building in every proposal where possible has a green roof.
Feb 18, 09 12:52 pm ·
·
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.
Creativity in short supply with Chicago's design pitch
For once, Blair has got it
[url=http://http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-olympics-design-15-feb15,0,103680.story ]right![/url ]
[i]The authorship of the plans is telling: Chicago 2016 organizers were in the driver's seat. Architects at the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill were mere advisers. The uninspired outcome reflects who was in control. There would be 21 high-rises, each about 12 stories, in banal rows on the site of Michael Reese Hospital. After the Games, they would become a mixed-income residential community.
The design is an outdated version of the discredited tower-in-the-park urbanism that gave us soulless housing projects in the 1960s. It is not the way to make a lively city.[/]
When I think beyond not only the 'banal objects' in the plan - but the lack of vision of how we could start spreading out the olympics beyond the lakefront which needs no know development - but how dire public transit is in chicago and when the pitch by SOM calls for innovative transit schemes such as 'taking a cab to venues' i shake my head and recongize how unlikely chicago will be picked!
What ideas from past olympics would you like to see in the chicago plan?
Chicago">http://www.chicago2016.org/our-plan/bid-book/bid-book.aspx]Chicago Bid Book
try this links!
Creativity in short supply with Chicago's design pitch
Chicagos bid book
Blairs article!
Creativity in short supply with Chicago's design pitch
Yeah, that thing got watered down big time. I actually worked on a block of the athlete's village w/ my office along w/ several offices here in chicago. I don't think any of it (and there were some really good parts) got included in the bid once it became developer-driven.
Quite a shame.
Yes but remember this is the pre-sale, the buildings dont usually get designed until after the bid is awarded. Right now its sort of like the architecture of a master plan drawing, sort of generic really and highly conceptual.
I am surprised by the transit upgrades being left out. Prob a cost saving measure. But the transit will be improved, the general infrastructure is already there, it just needs augmenting.
All in all after reviewing Rio and Tokyo's PDFs I have to say Chicago's looks like a really nice, pleasent, not over the top spectacle. Sort of a "down home" olympics. I find that facinating. The games just dissapear into the city yet are mostly super compact. Its unique.
After looking at all the schemes, it does seem like they've held back images of the buildings. Hopefully they will put a lot more effort towards the final design of the new buildings, and utilize a lot of the local design talent to do it. Madrid seems to be taking on a Beijing approach, creating some iconic buildings within their plan. They differ in that regard from the other 3.
From a planning perspective, I think it works pretty well. The "banal rows" probabably will stay, but compared to the other OV plans it doesn't seem all that terrible/avoidable. Though, I think Chicago's OV does lack some real estate that the other have. They are packed in their pretty tight.
In regard to the lack of transit additions, I've seen a few comments that the feds earmark money after the bid is won. Supposedly this happened for Atlanta and Salt Lake. Plus, we should have a lot for rail in the stimulus.
And fine, the lakefront doesn't need improvement. But the lake is our biggest amenity. Where else are you going to go to attract the games? Are you going to blow away Englewood cause it needs to be gentrified? Although, instead of wisconsin, I would put the mountain bike trail on an elevated hilly high line track about 10 stories up between buildings in the loop... sweeeeet.
But did you see Rio's cost for the games... it's like 3 times Chicago's, and they have something like 75% of the facilities already built!
Another thing I noticed, every building in every proposal where possible has a green roof.
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.