I was looking at numerous picture threads of numerous developments going on in several cities, especially sunbelt cities. Chicago's highrise building boom is probably only equaled by Miami and NYC (although in total housing units--including outside of downtown--Miami is far behind), but something has started to cross my mind. It seems like everything being built in these other cities just don't look that impressive. These developments all have this cute, almost plastic look to them. There is no character to them and they don't seem to be creating an urban environment. Many of them have very little regard for the pedestrian.

Chicago has had its share of mistakes, but it's a northern, post-industrial city and has that grit that these other towns will never be able to create. Perhaps the palm trees and pink plastic highrises appeal to some, but they just don't say "big city" like Chicago and New York do. Even Chicago's newer highrises, whether modern or art deco looking, just add to Chicago's urban character, with its rigid lines and street grid. But Miami, LA, Atlanta, etc will never have that urban, established, classy, European-esque look that northern powerhouses will (granted they are likely not even going for that look), and they just don't impress me. I am not trying to insult anyone, but does anyone understand what my point is?

Sorry, but northern grit is where it's at. Like it or not--but it's true...

^I agree.

I agree as well. It's true that their buildings look plastic, which is why we always have a fit when it comes to architects like James Lowenberg. Those tan concrete towers in River North are exactly the same thing. They make us cringe and critisize.

^Sure, but even then, they still give Chicago a big city feel. Even if they are bland. Definitely not the same as the buildings going up in the other warm cities, which look more like Cancun resort hotels..

Please click this link, then come back and read below:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=320233

Is it forward-thinking? No way! Would most sunbelt/warm cities build it? No!
Do I think Chicago can build more cutting edge? Of course! And it is!
Does it say "Chicago"? Definitely. Does it look urban, gritty, and "big city-ish"? Without question
Does this development add to the area? No doubt about it

Chicago has had its share of mistakes, but it's a northern, post-industrial city and has that grit that these other towns will never be able to create. Perhaps the palm trees and pink plastic highrises appeal to some, but they just don't say "big city" like Chicago and New York do.

UP, I end up seeing something other than grit that may explain Chicago's passion for architecture. Personally I think water is a huge reason for Chicago looking the way it does...and wanting to look the way it does.

Chicago has two fairly unique waterways, both downtown:

• a huge, open body of water that looks out to the horizon in Lake Michigan. There are only two other US cities whose downtowns look out onto open water (Milw and Cleve) and they are obvioiusly not in the category of Chicago. The open waters of Lake Michigan, with their beaches and parklands not only create views but invite quality construction to take advantage of the extraordinary site (and sight).

• a river running through it. No major city is divided by a river downtown the way Chicago is (again, Cleveland and Milw come close). The Chicago River is unique. There is nothing like it in the world. Not because it flows backward, but because it alone of the world's rivers creates a manmade canyon, with towers rising on both shores. No wonder the architectural boat tour in Chicago is such a joy.

I can't underestimate the importance of the river and lake in giving the city the proper setting for exciting architecture. I would probably add one other ingredient that affects architectural quality: flatness. It proves the best base for buildings and allows for a much easier environment to mold than hilly land would provide.

Setting, IMHO, has a lot to do with making Chicago architecture work.

I agree with most points urb pol makes. however, i too, am sick of the bland concrete highrise condos that are being built faster than cancer cells. why not build something that is bold these days, something shocking, say an Internationalist style condo such as 860-880 north lake shore drive.

http://tpxchi.myphotoalbum.com/albums/mies/860lsd.sized.jpg

Here's how I see it-- the old cities of the United States can always build new and modern, but the historic infrastructure that gives a city a true sense of place can never be replicated in younger cities. There are certain qualities that come with age. That's not to say that certain Sunbelt cities don't have these attributes, but not nearly to the extent of their Frostbelt counterparts.

this is a bit off-topic, but I must nit-pick a slight fallacy when I see one..

Chicago's highrise building boom is probably only equaled by Miami and NYC

emporis.com

Chicago

72 proposed
38 approved
21 under construction

Toronto

122 proposed
112 approved
56 under construction

Toronto is unequalled in NA for it's current construction boom. Just setting facts straight.

why not build something that is bold these days, something shocking, say an Internationalist style condo such as 860-880 north lake shore drive.


^you're right. Why not? That's why Chicago is building 600 N LSD, Spertus Institute, 126 E Chestnut (I hope), Trump Tower, Waterview Tower, and has built Skybridge and The Contemporaine, etc :)

this is a bit off-topic, but I must nit-pick a slight fallacy when I see one..



emporis.com

Chicago

72 proposed
38 approved
21 under construction

Toronto

122 proposed
112 approved
56 under construction

Toronto is unequalled in NA for it's current construction boom. Just setting facts straight.

yawn. Who cares? I'm talking about American cities

yawn. Who cares? I'm talking about American cities

ahh, sorry about that. Never mind then.

yawn. Who cares? I'm talking about American cities

1 I care about Canada. Toronto has a couple of good projects. As I recall, a couple of 1,000 footers, the nation's first (CN Tower does not count).

2 I don't care about Emporis though. They define a hi-rise as 12 stories, which is fine and good for small and medium-sized town, but becomes utter crap when it comes to big cities.

I don't know much about cities, but somehow Chicago really sticks out to me. It's not so much the city's image that sticks out (but, believe me, it does), but the feeling and atmosphere it gives off. It's huge and impressive, but at the same time, warm and modest. I think you can build pretty much anything in Chicago, but it wouldn't change the way I feel about it.

ahh, sorry about that. Never mind then.

Oh, and don't let those stats get too much into your head. America has so many more major cities vying to build themselves up than Canada, thus it's easier for Canada to divert investment into just 2 or 3 of its "star" cities than the US can.

Also, another major hindrance? Sprawl. America is so victimized by sprawl that in order to get the critical density in the US just to build 1 skyscraper is equivalent to making 3 or 4 in Canada. I mean, getting Americans to actually move and live downtown is a complete miracle due to social/political circumstances, and the fact that a historically and politically strife city like Chicago is pulling it off so well is nothing short of brilliant.

Toronto does not come close to facing the opposing forces to centralization as an American city like Chicago does!!

this is a bit off-topic, but I must nit-pick a slight fallacy when I see one..



emporis.com

Chicago

72 proposed
38 approved
21 under construction

Toronto

122 proposed
112 approved
56 under construction

Toronto is unequalled in NA for it's current construction boom. Just setting facts straight.
Highrises not 12 story stubs. Shall I look up the stats on Emporis for 300 feet or higher.



After downtown Chicago the vast majority of new buildings are three stories.

From what I have read, it just sounds like people are pretty much saying southern cities need to stop building period. It is 2004, there is no need to go back decades or even centuries to try to capture the urban gritty look that can be seen in northern cities. It is just not necessary. Some cities like NYC and Chicago may have this because they developed during a certain period of time from other cities. If southern cities start to build projects with an "old" appearance to it, it would be knocked down by other people, because they would say that they are stealing another cities architecture. So what is the point? Trust me, there was a thread about the brownstones that are going up in downtown Houston, and people did not like them because they thought it was fake and not very unique of the city to build it.

I love Toronto though, I love Canada. Oh Canada. I'm claiming myself to be Canadian when I go to Europe next year. Its safer that way.

I wouldn't want Southern cities to start building buildings with the same look and architecture of Northern cities. It's something that makes the two regions stand out from one another and gives them a sense of identity they can call their own. Hell, even in the South's few large urban cities, the architecture and housing stock is remarkably different. There is no city in the North that looks or feels like New Orleans, and I wouldn't want that any other way.

Now granted, sprawl in both regions is pretty fucking ridiculous. In this sense, all pro-urbanists have a common cause, and the South isn't incapable of building great urban cities... but if that is to change, it needs to change nationally.

AMEN to Rail Claimore. Sprawl must be stopped now damn it.

Alot of people knock the emporis definition of 'highrise', yet 12 story buildings (and under) comprise a healthy percentage of the built form in cities that exemplify density, like London or Paris, even Tokyo for example. We should get excited about this form of growth, as it affects the city as experienced from it's own streets more than supertalls do. Big or small, each has it's place in creating the city.

And Chicagoians should know better, being from the birthplace of the skyscraper, the first being only 9 stories high! :)

America has so many more major cities vying to build themselves up than Canada, thus it's easier for Canada to divert investment into just 2 or 3 of its "star" cities than the US can.

America is so victimized by sprawl that in order to get the critical density in the US just to build 1 skyscraper is equivalent to making 3 or 4 in Canada.

thats nonsense.. it's hardly easier for Canada investment wise, because we're a much smaller country. As a ratio of population to urban centres, we're probably on par.

We have sprawl problems as well.

Back on topic, the reason why you find Chicago architecture so appealing is because Chicago has an inventory of modernist architecture that is only rivaled by NYC. And as well all know, modernism is the superior form! Chicago moderninsm, in particular, has a masculinity that is undeniable (Sears tower, John Hancock). I can hardly think of any other skyscraper that is as imposing and assertive as the John Hancock.

From what I have read, it just sounds like people are pretty much saying southern cities need to stop building period. It is 2004, there is no need to go back decades or even centuries to try to capture the urban gritty look that can be seen in northern cities. It is just not necessary. Some cities like NYC and Chicago may have this because they developed during a certain period of time from other cities. If southern cities start to build projects with an "old" appearance to it, it would be knocked down by other people, because they would say that they are stealing another cities architecture. So what is the point? Trust me, there was a thread about the brownstones that are going up in downtown Houston, and people did not like them because they thought it was fake and not very unique of the city to build it.
There is a Southern urban vernacular architecture. Look at New Orleans. Cities in the deep south could build whole streetwalls of that style of 4 story building and it would look great and unique to the South. But they don't. It's all sprawl.

3 and 4 story buildings acheieve the same results, and Chicago's new construction is compromised primarily of these:

http://www.pbase.com/goonsta/image/35827679.jpg

The infill movement around Chicago is amazing. They're everywhere in seemingly every corner of the city, even the once-decayed areas:

http://www.pbase.com/goonsta/image/27702618.jpg

The spaces that seperate the buildings make for some unique juxtapositions and ammo for NIMBY's who complain about context:

http://www.pbase.com/goonsta/image/30201765.jpg

Some are more daring than others though:

http://www.pbase.com/goonsta/image/30201767.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/goonsta/image/30201959.jpg

But most remain in a similar style:

http://www.pbase.com/goonsta/image/30201957.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/goonsta/image/30201920.jpg

we know whats up
http://www.pbase.com/goonsta/image/36885266.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/goonsta/image/36885267.jpg

I agree with most points urb pol makes. however, i too, am sick of the bland concrete highrise condos that are being built faster than cancer cells. why not build something that is bold these days, something shocking, say an Internationalist style condo such as 860-880 north lake shore drive.

http://tpxchi.myphotoalbum.com/albums/mies/860lsd.sized.jpg

I think we're all sick of them, TPX. I also think the worst of them are over. You know how you just get that "feeling" that something is over, has passed? It's like, when you drive by the Rainforest Cafe or Gino's East in the old Planet Hollywood, you know that nobody is going to build that tacky anymore.

I get the feeling the same is through for that dreadful stretch of highrise bldgs west of Michigan and south of Chgo Ave....Rush, Wabash, State. I don't think we're going to see the likes of that again.

I don't know why everyone is always dumping on 12-storey buildings. Surely they don't do much for the skyline, but, the impact they can have on pedestrian life is no different than something three, four or five times their size.

I think we're all sick of them, TPX. I also think the worst of them are over. You know how you just get that "feeling" that something is over, has passed? It's like, when you drive by the Rainforest Cafe or Gino's East in the old Planet Hollywood, you know that nobody is going to build that tacky anymore.

I get the feeling the same is through for that dreadful stretch of highrise bldgs west of Michigan and south of Chgo Ave....Rush, Wabash, State. I don't think we're going to see the likes of that again.


Bingo! Well said, Edsg

"I don't know why everyone is always dumping on 12-storey buildings. Surely they don't do much for the skyline, but, the impact they can have on pedestrian life is no different than something three, four or five times their size."

I don't think anyone is dumping on 12-storey buildings. People are just saying that when comparing the skylines of two major cities like Toronto and Chicago, using 12 stories as the cutoff for a "tall building" is pretty stupid. Which is true. That cutoff is certainly a measure of something, but not of the power of a skyline.

I think we're all sick of them, TPX. I also think the worst of them are over. You know how you just get that "feeling" that something is over, has passed? It's like, when you drive by the Rainforest Cafe or Gino's East in the old Planet Hollywood, you know that nobody is going to build that tacky anymore.

I get the feeling the same is through for that dreadful stretch of highrise bldgs west of Michigan and south of Chgo Ave....Rush, Wabash, State. I don't think we're going to see the likes of that again.

Edsg, I always hear you describe yourself "driving" when you talk about Chicago. Do you ever actually walk or use transit? :)

Edsg, I always hear you describe yourself "driving" when you talk about Chicago. Do you ever actually walk or use transit? :)

i sure came up with the wrong term. driving has clearly been last place for me downtown. i use metra or cta to get downtown and do an incredible amount of walking. i don't believe there are many blocks betwen north and Cermack, the lake and racine that I haven't walked.

I absolutely love seeing the city on foot.

3 and 4 story buildings acheieve the same results, and Chicago's new construction is compromised primarily of these

Thanks Goonsta! One of my favorite picture threads by you. I have been dying to see some pics of some of he newer neighborhood developments