U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2020, 02:15 PM
 
1,056 posts, read 285,512 times
Reputation: 750

Advertisements

He can win... apparently to downplay Chicago has to. Also my link was on the new resign of the former Spire sight. Whether it was completely clad in Terracotta originally? No link I say said it was. Whether just the Podium was? I never saw a link say the Podium was all clad in terracotta which is more a think veneer I believe and not load bearing at all.

A Fetish for reaching the 969 ft height as must? Is what you do not even accept as enough. I get it ... you want all to be 1.400+ and higher and hate any downsizing as girth and length matter. Well not girth for NYC.

When I visited the Empire State Building the first time. I was surprised at the small foot-print on the block and in the middle of the block on a smaller street with no grand lobby I expected and no exterior plaza whatsoever. Not that it had to. Just after Chicago it was odd to me as I had lived in Chicago before I visited NYC even from the East. Of course the Freedom Tower grounds are impressive. There was some scaledown and it took many many years and even re-designs for it to get completed. As I noted..... Hudson Yards is impressive. Then even Chicago's Lakeshore East is to me. Sure it has some boxes. It began in that era of building style.

By the 80s Chicago started to leave just glass boxes alone. Sure we got some new blue and green glass ones too since. I still can't believe the State or any new owner would want to bulldoze the - Thompson Center. It was built in 1985 and to me .... just its lobby alone warrants a Landmark status and end any destruction for a supertall that can go elsewhere even outside the loop. The butting on against the Thompson .... was at least to keep it intact more then not. I rather it left as it is and improved to get the upgrades that were left never done by the state.

Still I see these post Spire towers - as gonna be spectacular and losing the Podium is no biggie. Actually, most prefer it and hate that Chicago got so many Podium-types. NYC does very few Podiums cause no use in such severe cost per square feet of space in a building ... be taken up by a parked car. Chicago still can and other cities have a parking in the building standard for a nice added fee. As long as retail etc is still around a base. I am fine with it. Still again, I think losing the Podium for these towers is better at this sight.

I also would rather the podium was erased from the Chicago One towers.... or at least a joined Podium for either. That is not the case. Most still look better once I see them then I thought and a hellova better addition then a parking lot left. Again, in the Philly forum.... all you hear is hope for more parking lots to just go away and infill built. They clearly applaud it there even if they desire more a spectacular tower and who would not.

To continue this for me serves little purpose. It is a defense in I think Chicago is not doing badly in what new buildings it got. One I like less is one on the Chicago river next to the former Chicago Court building with clock. Even that old red brick building I am not fond of. If that was raised ... I would not bat a eye. The new tower I clearly think could have been better next door. It is what it is and serves it intended purpose. Mixing some more stunning with some so so ..... is the best most cities can ask for. Chicago is better then most there.

I still like the Trump Tower and what a view down the river in its location. Do I wish it was taller as Trump originally planned and scaled down supposedly cause of 9 11 still fears? Sure and more like Burj Khalifa ... both by SOM? Sure. As for the Wrigley and Tribune lovely's .... well that era is passed. The Bennet Tower is impressive despite its prefab concrete exterior over all granite like the base. I also like the NBC Tower.... though its base is pretty void of any retail etc the rest is a 1980s Rockefeller Center or The Rock revival that works for me.

Also remember that Chicago early in the Skyscraper era because of over speculative building etc of the late 1800s. Set "Height Limits". till the 20s it was then raised only for tower parts that were not the main occupied floors. That still height limits lasted I believe till the late 50s maybe the original Prudential building was part of the going past the old limits? Not sure. Still by the end of the 60s Chicago FINALLY got supertalls NYC got much much earlier cause it did not have height restrictions as Chicago. Some forget that too.....

Last edited by NoHyping; 12-09-2020 at 02:26 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2020, 02:43 PM
 
5,272 posts, read 9,065,919 times
Reputation: 2298
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
Chicago hasn't been leading the way in height or design for a very long time now. Chicago firms are still very much in demand around the world however where there is actual innovation and new height thresholds taking place. Developers in Chicago have been demonstrably conservative and risk averse the last decade.

Chicago is stuck in the Miesian past where minimilism is king. Developers and architects are building blue-glass-boxes ad-nauseum which have dominated the city's landscpae the past 10 years. In the few years leading up to the 2008 recession Chicago was still the leader in world class designs and pushing boundaries for height. New York has ran away from Chicago in terms of innovation, materials and height.

I haven't seen anything in NYC that looks as good as Vista Tower. It's an amazing design with some great exterior materials. My only criticism is the parking podium. Why???? They should have also built it taller to take the USA's tallest crown.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2020, 06:06 PM
 
330 posts, read 131,354 times
Reputation: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC's Finest View Post
I haven't seen anything in NYC that looks as good as Vista Tower. It's an amazing design with some great exterior materials. My only criticism is the parking podium. Why???? They should have also built it taller to take the USA's tallest crown.
I'll give you a quick example of what I'm talking about.

New York is utilizing terracotta, limestone, granite, brass, copper, bronze etc.

Chicago is using concrete, steel, glass, aluminum and brick veneers.

Chicago 369 W. Grand: 450'





New York 30 E. 31st Street: 477'





There's no comparison. The Chicago building is a blue-box with ordinary glass curtain wall. Giant parking podium, basic insert baclonies etc. There's nothing noteworthy about this building's minimlist design. It has been used on dozens of recent Chicago buildings and comes straight from the Mies Van Der Rohe playbook.

The New York building is clad in terracotta, an homage to Gothic style, has exposed structural skeleton forming lattice patterns, slim form, active base that engages the street well. There's distinctive dark colored glass at the top of the building providing more visual appeal for the crossbeams. The base has ornamental shapes at the tower set-back and the interior creates unique views and spaces with the structure being visible.

Here's that same architect, very talented Morris Adjmi designing a building in Chicago for Fulton Market and suddenly, you get a Miesian steel and glass box. As I stated previously architects in Chicago aren't pushing the envelope or expanding what is possible and deep-pocketed institutional developers are only focused on maximizing profits rather than creating landmarks.

900 W.Randolph: 436'



Last edited by IronWright; 12-09-2020 at 07:20 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2020, 06:24 PM
 
5,272 posts, read 9,065,919 times
Reputation: 2298
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
I'll give you a quick example of what I'm talking about.

New York is utilizing terracotta, limestone, granite, brass, copper, bronze etc.

Chicago is using concrete, steel, glass, aluminum and brick veneers.

Chicago 369 W. Grand: 450'





New York 30 E. 31st Street: 477'





There's no comparison. The Chicago building is a blue-box with ordinary glass curtain wall. Giant parking podium, basic insert baclonies etc. There's nothing noteworthy about this building's minimlist design. It has been used on dozens of recent Chicago buildings and comes straight from the Mies Van Der Rohe playbook.

The New York building is clad in terracotta, an homage to Gothic style, has exposed structural skeleton forming lattice patterns, slim form, active base that engages the street well. There's distinctive dark colored glass at the top of the building providing more visual appeal for the crossbeams. The base has ornamental shapes at the tower set-back and the interior creates unique views and spaces with teh structure being visible.

Vista is a supertall and the design looks different compared to the supertalls that New York is building. I hate the skinny buildings that New York is approving. Although not skinny, Hudson Yards is a bunch of glass boxes that aren't that inspiring up close. I don't like the Freedom Tower design either. I've seen some of the newer designs of a few new skyscrapers in New York that are paying homage to its storied past. They look nice, complete with materials and elements that you described perfectly. I am more privy to how Chicago changed the game with Sears and Hancock. Both of those buildings and their designs were way before their time. They possess a menacing and intimidating look on the skyline. I don't think Vista will leave the same legacy but its a very unique looking building. The parking podium is horrible for such a beautiful building. It's like a Ferrari with Walmart tires.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2020, 06:54 PM
 
330 posts, read 131,354 times
Reputation: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHyping View Post
He can win... apparently to downplay Chicago has to. Also my link was on the new resign of the former Spire sight. Whether it was completely clad in Terracotta originally? No link I say said it was. Whether just the Podium was? I never saw a link say the Podium was all clad in terracotta which is more a think veneer I believe and not load bearing at all.

A Fetish for reaching the 969 ft height as must? Is what you do not even accept as enough. I get it ... you want all to be 1.400+ and higher and hate any downsizing as girth and length matter. Well not girth for NYC.

When I visited the Empire State Building the first time. I was surprised at the small foot-print on the block and in the middle of the block on a smaller street with no grand lobby I expected and no exterior plaza whatsoever. Not that it had to. Just after Chicago it was odd to me as I had lived in Chicago before I visited NYC even from the East. Of course the Freedom Tower grounds are impressive. There was some scaledown and it took many many years and even re-designs for it to get completed. As I noted..... Hudson Yards is impressive. Then even Chicago's Lakeshore East is to me. Sure it has some boxes. It began in that era of building style.

By the 80s Chicago started to leave just glass boxes alone. Sure we got some new blue and green glass ones too since. I still can't believe the State or any new owner would want to bulldoze the - Thompson Center. It was built in 1985 and to me .... just its lobby alone warrants a Landmark status and end any destruction for a supertall that can go elsewhere even outside the loop. The butting on against the Thompson .... was at least to keep it intact more then not. I rather it left as it is and improved to get the upgrades that were left never done by the state.

Still I see these post Spire towers - as gonna be spectacular and losing the Podium is no biggie. Actually, most prefer it and hate that Chicago got so many Podium-types. NYC does very few Podiums cause no use in such severe cost per square feet of space in a building ... be taken up by a parked car. Chicago still can and other cities have a parking in the building standard for a nice added fee. As long as retail etc is still around a base. I am fine with it. Still again, I think losing the Podium for these towers is better at this sight.

I also would rather the podium was erased from the Chicago One towers.... or at least a joined Podium for either. That is not the case. Most still look better once I see them then I thought and a hellova better addition then a parking lot left. Again, in the Philly forum.... all you hear is hope for more parking lots to just go away and infill built. They clearly applaud it there even if they desire more a spectacular tower and who would not.

To continue this for me serves little purpose. It is a defense in I think Chicago is not doing badly in what new buildings it got. One I like less is one on the Chicago river next to the former Chicago Court building with clock. Even that old red brick building I am not fond of. If that was raised ... I would not bat a eye. The new tower I clearly think could have been better next door. It is what it is and serves it intended purpose. Mixing some more stunning with some so so ..... is the best most cities can ask for. Chicago is better then most there.

I still like the Trump Tower and what a view down the river in its location. Do I wish it was taller as Trump originally planned and scaled down supposedly cause of 9 11 still fears? Sure and more like Burj Khalifa ... both by SOM? Sure. As for the Wrigley and Tribune lovely's .... well that era is passed. The Bennet Tower is impressive despite its prefab concrete exterior over all granite like the base. I also like the NBC Tower.... though its base is pretty void of any retail etc the rest is a 1980s Rockefeller Center or The Rock revival that works for me.

Also remember that Chicago early in the Skyscraper era because of over speculative building etc of the late 1800s. Set "Height Limits". till the 20s it was then raised only for tower parts that were not the main occupied floors. That still height limits lasted I believe till the late 50s maybe the original Prudential building was part of the going past the old limits? Not sure. Still by the end of the 60s Chicago FINALLY got supertalls NYC got much much earlier cause it did not have height restrictions as Chicago. Some forget that too.....
Originally the tower sections and window frames were clad in terracotta. I have shown you twice now that there will be no terracotta on these buildings what-so-ever from the official presentation to the city. You can't change a single facet of a planned development without it going for public approval. I gave you the approved submission that they will build if it ever moves forward.

I know all about Chicago's history and height restriction in 1893. This isn't about height alone. It is only one element to design. I have said repeatedly that the materials are cheap as well. I have said that the physical forms of today's buildings are monotonous and banal. This isn't just whining about NY having more supertalls.

I am speaking of the noticebale lack of relative risk taking by institutional developers with endless resources and the supression of visionary work.

The propogation of budget-friendly designs on almost every high-profile project and even those below the radar. The culture of city officials to use zoning as dictators to scale back density and height. The lack of civic pride among elected officials and community activist organizations that are hostile towards progress and the academic community that is forever stuck on pushing forawrd the Miesian principles of minimalist shapes, anti-ornamentation, heavy reliance on glass, etc.

As far as podiums New York requires parking to below grade, Chicago could easily do this as well with a simple vote.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2020, 07:14 PM
 
330 posts, read 131,354 times
Reputation: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC's Finest View Post
Vista is a supertall and the design looks different compared to the supertalls that New York is building. I hate the skinny buildings that New York is approving. Although not skinny, Hudson Yards is a bunch of glass boxes that aren't that inspiring up close. I don't like the Freedom Tower design either. I've seen some of the newer designs of a few new skyscrapers in New York that are paying homage to its storied past. They look nice, complete with materials and elements that you described perfectly. I am more privy to how Chicago changed the game with Sears and Hancock. Both of those buildings and their designs were way before their time. They possess a menacing and intimidating look on the skyline. I don't think Vista will leave the same legacy but its a very unique looking building. The parking podium is horrible for such a beautiful building. It's like a Ferrari with Walmart tires.
My complaint with Vista is the mechanical floor louvres that leave black strips across the south elevation. I do feel that at the right angle, in the right lighting conditions it is world-class. The problem is that like all glass towers the lighting impacts the details and prominence too dramatically. There are times and angles Vista is a green blob. Other times and angles it is a marvelous structure with a stunning gradient and the frustrums appear to pop with contrast/shadowing that really pronounce it's stacked shapes.

111 W. 57th for me is beyond Vista. The terracotta piping, interweaved brass, it's Art Deco detailing and verticality along with it's ridiculously ever tapering form towards a crown that is only a fraction of the ultra-thin base is an instant landmark for me. That building looks like an achievment in design, engineering and construction.

I'm no fan of Hudson Yards but at least they had the audacity to attempt such a massive endeavor.

NEMA and One Bennett Park are the only other two towers Chicago has built in the last decade that are even worth mentioning in my opinion. Unfortunately One Bennett Park is precast where Stern's Central Park tower that is similar is actual limestone. Related was never going to shell out the money for limestione and real bronze framing. Instead of terracotta NEMA is painted concrete. Still these are the best in show for modern Chicago which is sad.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2020, 07:17 PM
 
1,056 posts, read 285,512 times
Reputation: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
Originally the tower sections and window frames were clad in terracotta. I have shown you twice now that there will be no terracotta on these buildings what-so-ever from the official presentation to the city. You can't change a single facet of a planned development without it going for public approval. I gave you the approved submission that they will build if it ever moves forward.

I know all about Chicago's history and height restriction in 1893. This isn't about height alone. It is only one element to design. I have said repeatedly that the materials are cheap as well. I have said that the physical forms of today's buildings are monotonous and banal. This isn't just whining about NY having more supertalls.

I am speaking of the noticebale lack of relative risk taking by institutional developers with endless resources and the supression of visionary work.

The propogation of budget-friendly designs on almost every high-profile project and even those below the radar. The culture of city officials to use zoning as dictators to scale back density and height. The lack of civic pride among elected officials and community activist organizations that are hostile towards progress and the academic community that is forever stuck on pushing forawrd the Miesian principles of minimalist shapes, anti-ornamentation, heavy reliance on glass, etc.

As far as podiums New York requires parking to below grade, Chicago could easily do this as well with a simple vote.
This is getting too deep even for me. as we have to fear getting labeled bickering. Still this Thread is not a CHICAGO VS NYC THREAD. I will concede that NYC is on another level if you will that Chicago is not withough its VALUE of buildings too. What is great is ordinary can have older-built with retail and new-build added around it to give a combination that is still great. OLD AND NEW. What the New lacks the old has etc.

You want to lessen Chicago and I feel it is wrong. No warrant to say Chicago did not get some awesome new additions sorry.

You want to think NYC is in this extra-ordinary tier. fine by me. Just to say all it does is somehow so superior to Chicago it is off on another planet..... I disagree. Sure say another tier. Then Chicago is also IN ITS OWN TIER. Then the rest perhaps. Some might disagree?

We can disagree and that is fine. Lack of civic Pride I disagree with OFF C-D Chicago forum. That is like nega-Chicago Central by politics. Another animal.

Again, this thread was to complement Chicago and on C-D it gets it you do not and that is fine. We disagree agreeably to not cause bickering accusing. I feel I stand by my positive post..... IF NYC IS YOUR AWESOME STAND-ALONE CITY..... sure move there and be in your glory.....

Like I said if you missed it.... Chicago had height limits though most of the 20th century where it could not get a supertall like the Empire State building.. So it did not. Once it was ultimately lifted. Chicago got a few supertalls. That is that in history.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2020, 08:19 PM
 
882 posts, read 489,774 times
Reputation: 1426
IronWright I enjoy your posts. Does price / wealth of NYC drive the additional design, engineering and construction. Where today's building designs require price sale points that are beyond Chicago economics so they go back to the boring boxy designs to make it economical? NYC has triple the ultra high net worth individuals as Chicago plus it serves as one of the top draws of international investment (and money laundering). A great example is Ken Griffin has a $60M home in Chicago but also a $238M home in NYC and $78M home in London. How many NYC or even international high net worth individuals also have a home in Chicago? Not many. Plus the ultra high price point places in Chicago resale sit on the market FOREVER cause there's just not as much demand. So why invest or money launder here? The Parillo estate has been for sale since 2016 and no one is going to buy that...if it were in NYC it would have easily sold pre-covid.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/2/21...rrillo-mansion

For the record I think 150 N Riverside is the coolest recent building design. But I don't know if that had been done elsewhere before.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2020, 05:22 PM
 
330 posts, read 131,354 times
Reputation: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtcbnd03 View Post
IronWright I enjoy your posts. Does price / wealth of NYC drive the additional design, engineering and construction. Where today's building designs require price sale points that are beyond Chicago economics so they go back to the boring boxy designs to make it economical? NYC has triple the ultra high net worth individuals as Chicago plus it serves as one of the top draws of international investment (and money laundering). A great example is Ken Griffin has a $60M home in Chicago but also a $238M home in NYC and $78M home in London. How many NYC or even international high net worth individuals also have a home in Chicago? Not many. Plus the ultra high price point places in Chicago resale sit on the market FOREVER cause there's just not as much demand. So why invest or money launder here? The Parillo estate has been for sale since 2016 and no one is going to buy that...if it were in NYC it would have easily sold pre-covid.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/2/21...rrillo-mansion

For the record I think 150 N Riverside is the coolest recent building design. But I don't know if that had been done elsewhere before.
Thank you for the compliment.

A lot of what has caused Chicago's architectual complacency over the years is a robust subject.

To try to put it concisely, what I have taken notice of is it's an amalgamation of extremely organized neighborhood activists that vehemently oppose height & density actually winning lawsuits that dictate what can be built on private land which set a terrible precedence. Aldermen that use zoning powers to change projects into their own personal visions for a property or appease those same community groups.

Developers that are well-connected and deeply entrenched in the community purchase most of the land but aren't willing to take long-term approaches to their investments by building something that may not be profitable but would raise the standards for design. Then there's the budget-friendly architects that clone Miesian principles for efficiency first structures which has fostered an era where Chicago has been knocked down a bit from its proverbial perch.

Jeanne Gang's work is world-class and unique. She is always at a minimum creative and heavily stylistic. It just took a Chinese billionaire entering the U.S. market to take the risk of building a luxury tower with a visionary architect.

150 N. Riverside is a recylced and reimagined design that Goettsch used in the UAE.

Here is the 4 building development at Sowwah Square, notice the cantilevered base and materials.



Of Chicago's most high profile towers this last boom period Goettsch has designed 150 N. Riverside, 110 N. Wacker (BOA), 320 S. Clinton (BMO) and "One Chicago" (Square). He also has quite a few other projects around the Loop and south Wacker.

Most of these are in close proximity of eachother forming a heavy concentration of one firm's vision around the river canyon. This contributes to the lack of diversity that we see especially around the confluence.

With a building like Vista that is truly one-of-a-kind you run the risk of cost overruns and engineering challenges/delays which they had.

Cesar Pelli who is another legendary architect very capable of awe-inspiring work designs Wolf Point to fully embrace these same design concepts as Goettsch. The Kennedy family and Hines Development promised "iconic" architecture realizing the historical prominence of the site as well as it's ideal physical location.

This is why I don't believe that it is just about New York having wealthier buyers. They had all the resources imaginable at their disposal to develop a world class tower and were aware that the site called for something in that elite tier. They opted to build three ho-hum buildings and not even fully utilize the available zoning heights that were approved. For the money they spent a singular "Salesforce Tower" in the 1,500'+ range with one of Pelli's most ambitious designs could have been built.

If there's no feasability for earning profits in Chicago on a luxury supertall at Wolf Point's location when Chicago is at a point in its history with the highest percentage of residents with 4-year degrees in the nation, has been number one in corporate relocations and foreign direct investment for 7 consecutive years, is booming with construction and all-time tourism highs while the tech industry has ballooned to 14% of the GDP seeing six-figure salaries increase drastically in the city then when is it ever feasible to build something ambitious?

Billionaires Row was over 80% vacant from the last article that I read. New York developers are just much more willing to risk it and sit on an investment off the strength of Manhattan real estate. I think that they also have the deeply ingrained belief that it's the greatest city in the world and are willing to prove it through action. I think that they allow architects to provide the most expressive designs they can and bragging rights/pride/legacy are much more of a motivating factor.

Chicago needs a renewed civic pride, officials and planners that want to restore our global relevance and developers that are motivated to build statement buildings in any height range. The Obama Library is a pathetic case of a broken system. Years of legal challenges, community housing/employment demands, protests etc, all over a few acres of a park being used for an institution that will bring jobs, educational outlets, toursim, investors and revitalization in an area that desparately needs it. The loss of the Lucas Museum over public land use lawsuits is another sad casualty of the climate in Chicago.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2020, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Central IL
18,025 posts, read 11,148,280 times
Reputation: 42756
How simplistic that bigger (taller) is always better. I want innovative DESIGN not just tall spires. And I want it to not look like a sore thumb sticking out above everything else with no regard for anything around it. Chicago has many styles and continues to represent itself well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top