The new Jefferson Tower, on the NW corner of Lake and Jefferson, is starting construction on the site of a parking lot. It is being built across Lake st from Jefferson Place.

Okay, it's not particularly exciting architecture, but I like the layout of the building's (and Jefferson Place's) ground level, both of which form a good pedestrian environment with retail. Also, they are right next to the 'L tracks. I also like that the new CTA center was built right there. Wow, within a few short years a former vacant area is turning into total URBANIA!

Pictures are at skyscrapers.com. Sorry, too lazy to post anything...

Yeah, that area is really picking up! I've included the rendering from s.com below... so, does anyone else think that SCB should be a little annoyed about Loewenberg building a squat version of Plaza 440?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/geoff_diamond/Chicago%20-%20Renderings/JeffersonTower01.jpg

Its not bad, im just not to found of those colors!

Why can't this city build anything interesting?

Hrmm... I find Trump, Pritzker Pavilion, the Spertus Institute, 111 S. Wacker and even 1 S. Dearborn to be quite interesting. I'm sure Frank Gehry might agree?

I won't deny that recent residential architecture (save for the Contemporaine and Skybridge) is lacking though. On the flip side... if every piece of new architecture were a masterpiece, they'd all lose their importance. You need some mediocre infill to let the stars really shine.

Hrmm... I find Trump, Pritzker Pavilion, the Spertus Institute, 111 S. Wacker and even 1 S. Dearborn to be quite interesting. I'm sure Frank Gehry might agree?

I won't deny that recent residential architecture (save for the Contemporaine and Skybridge) is lacking though. On the flip side... if every piece of new architecture were a masterpiece, they'd all lose their importance. You need some mediocre infill to let the stars really shine.

BINGO!

It is idiotic to expect more than 20% of new buildings to be cutting-edge. Mediocrity as space-fillers is perfectly acceptable in my book. Chicago just needs a few gems in a sea of rocks to maintain its architectural prominance

"You need some mediocre infill to let the stars really shine."

But this stuff isn't even mediocre, really. And I'm not looking for cutting-edge design--not for everything, anyway--but one of the wonderful things about Chicago is that our infill ISN'T mediocre. It's often low-key and traditional but contributes to a beautiful urban landscape. These new highrises don't.

These new highrises don't.

It's still form follows function for the most part. I don't see how that's bad.

I mean, it's like the flaw with genetically engineering everyone to be beautiful (I know the analogy is wierd, but I'm doing a bio paper and I have bio on the mind)... beauty is defined BECAUSE there exists something called "the average" and "the below-average." If everyone is beautiful, we destroy what beauty is: something rare and exquisite and deserving to be savored.

Likewise, even if we had every single building to be masterpieces, we would first be destroying the idea of beautiful architecture, but we would still be complaining about the below-average crop of the super-high average buildings. Because greatness is relative in the end. I'm personally glad we don't have any windowless brutalist buildings going up. I'm glad that buildings ARE going up. Design is just icing on the cake.

Well said sim! At the end of the day... I'll take an ugly building over no building at all every single time.

And osh... you might not want to even rate these buildings as mediocre, but, let's be honest... any city in the world would be happy to have them. Quite frankly, while many of them certainly aren't fantastic... I don't look at them and go "what the hell were they thinking???" I mean, I can only assume that you're referring to Grand Plaza, Millennium Center, the Pinnacle, Hyatt Center, etc... so, are they architectural masterpieces? No. Are they so ugly or thoughtless that they serve to offend the eyes? No way.

^ well.... you are right about the last three.... but Grand Plaza is ugly and thoughtless enough so as to be offensive. ;)


oh crap... did anyone notice the pics now say "website banned from photobucket" ? lol

Hrmm... I'm not seeing that message? And I know it's not the popular opinion, but, I just don't think Grand Plaza's that bad. At least there's retail at the base!!!

Hrmm... I'm not seeing that message? And I know it's not the popular opinion, but, I just don't think Grand Plaza's that bad. At least there's retail at the base!!!

The only problem I have with Grand Plaza is the spire on top of the tallest building. It just looks so ridiculous! :weird:

"It's still form follows function for the most part."

No, it's that developers don't want to spend the money to make a decent-looking building, I think. Or they just don't care. I mean, you can tell these buildings are supposed to have some kind of decoration, but it's done in such a haphazard and half-assed way--I mean, these are not Miesian monoliths of utilitarianism.

I don't mean to come across as cranky, though I think I am. And I'm not asking that everything be beautiful. But you have to admit that the majority--certainly not all, there are some gorgeous buildings being put up, like Trump, Waterview, Skybridge and Sofitel, and some perfectly acceptable ones, like Heritage--of new construction is not something that enhances the architectural aura of its area.

But, I thought we had already come to the conclusion that new construction doesn't have to add to "aura" of an area. It just has to not detract from it. I honestly don't think any of these projects detract from their context. They're just infill.