daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 19th, 2007, 05:01 AM   #1121
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 19th, 2010 at 02:20 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 19th, 2007, 05:10 AM   #1122
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 19th, 2010 at 02:19 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 05:21 AM   #1123
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Count me in as a fan of this twin rental tower development.

Rental towers rock. Here's why:

No presales, generally lots of density, tendencies towards less parking, and a lot of demand.

I'm sold...
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 05:46 AM   #1124
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

What's the rectangle behind AMLI 900? Please don't tell me it's a run-of-the-mill parking garage for residents.

After examining the situation on Google Earth, I've come to this conclusion on the Avalon Bay towers: anything that casts a big long shadow on Dearborn Park is good.

Also, that plan for LaSalle Park does not show Taylor Street crossing the Metra tracks - I thought this was an eventual goal.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 06:17 AM   #1125
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 19th, 2010 at 02:19 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 06:41 AM   #1126
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
I'm not sure how parking works at AMLI. They do have a shitload of space on their back lot that was once talked about being a Phase II, townhouse-encrusted parking deck. So perhaps that is what you see.
I am pretty sure it is going to be a parking deck. At least it will be barely visible from street level. The Avalon Bay will be similar.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 04:56 PM   #1127
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
824 S. Clark Avenue at 139 W. Polk Street.
Not bad! Pretty decent for apartment towers, but more importantly at these heights this will really help bridge the gap between the loop and central station skylines. Once this and Astoria are done, that stretch of the south loop will definitely contribute more to the overall skyline.
I guess rental towers dont bring a whole lot to the table in terms of spectacular design or anything, but they are built much faster and without many of the hassles.

btw is this whats replacing the Curve?
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 05:24 PM   #1128
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 19th, 2010 at 02:19 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 06:51 PM   #1129
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

^Yeah I really like the Curve too. Its a very good design for an apartment tower, I also hope it still gets built...
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 07:05 PM   #1130
Chicago Shawn
Registered User
 
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 361
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
Count me in as a fan of this twin rental tower development.

Rental towers rock. Here's why:

No presales, generally lots of density, tendencies towards less parking, and a lot of demand.

I'm sold...
Actually, the rental project has more parking spaces than the condo project did, with 26 fewer units. Overall its a pretty good plan, I am not crazy about the stand alone garage in the back, but I believe the towers will have units coming all down to the second floor which I suppose makes up for it aesthetically from the street view.



Vetro from 10/09....
Chicago Shawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 07:51 PM   #1131
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 19th, 2010 at 02:18 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 08:38 PM   #1132
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
Vetro from 10/09....
^ Wow, nice streetwall forming on south Wells
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 08:41 PM   #1133
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
I am not crazy about the stand alone garage in the back, but I believe the towers will have units coming all down to the second floor which I suppose makes up for it aesthetically from the street view.
^ If the garage ends up looking anything like the one in the rendering, it may actually look halfway decent, as opposed to the usual blight effect that garages tend to have. Plus, as you said, it's set back from the street so it won't be very conspicuous
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 09:53 PM   #1134
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
What would you like to see happen with the [Franklin Point] site?
Use. Transitional between a small amount of office at the north end and highrise residential at the south end.

Streets. Dedicate 24 feet along Wells to make that an 80-foot ROW. Extend Franklin across the site at Harrison bridge height (about 12 feet higher than Wells) at least 50 feet from the riverbank. Break the superblock with a new Lexington Street at 700 south that stays at Wells Street level, providing below-grade access to loading docks and parking entrances. There's probably not a need for a full lower Franklin. Reopen Polk to rise to meet the new Franklin at the proper height for a bridge approach.

Building bases. Must have active retail or commercial uses along Harrison and Wells, and preferably along Polk as well. River walk fronted by retail or marina uses, but much more heavily landscaped than the more "urban" stretches along West Wacker, indicating a transition from commercial core to residential neighborhood. Parking podiums should be lined with liner retail or residential units wherever possible, and should not be visible from the perimeter of the site.

Massing. Highest building at the northeast corner to avoid afternoon shadowing of D'Angelo Park. Residential highrises taller near Polk and stepping down toward Harrison to avoid shadowing park and to provide skyline views for more units. Buildings along Wells should have a base approximately six to eight stories at the property line. Towers above those bases should be set back at least 40 feet.

Microclimate. Buildings closest to the riverwalk and along Polk should be highly articulated, with bases of different footprints than the towers, in order to break up wind shear from the west. Protruding mullions are encouraged for any glass curtain walls for the same reason.

Materials. Buildings along Wells should have laid-up masonry bases with punched fenestration and painted windowframes, to harmonize with the remaining loft buildings on the east side of Wells. Highly reflective or mirrored glass is not encouraged for any buildings.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 10:47 PM   #1135
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Reopen Polk to rise to meet the new Franklin at the proper height for a bridge approach.
How do you get USPS to de-vacate the Polk approach on the west side of the river?

I like the idea of a Lexington Street stub for parking entrances - that way, curb cuts on Franklin, Harrison, Wells, and Polk are minimized.

Lastly - would you encourage retail along Franklin, behind the riverwalk?
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2007, 10:55 PM   #1136
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Materials. Buildings along Wells should have laid-up masonry bases with punched fenestration and painted windowframes, to harmonize with the remaining loft buildings on the east side of Wells. Highly reflective or mirrored glass is not encouraged for any buildings.
^ Made sense until this part.

Why you insist that building with cheap masonry somehow "respects" surrounding older masonry buildings continues to baffle me. You yourself once said that modern buildings can look good next to older, traditional ones.

You've seen faux traditionalism in Chicago's current boom. You call that attractive? Look at Printers Corner, for example. A cladding a garage with brick walls is like dressing up a turd--it still stinks.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2007, 12:24 AM   #1137
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

I think we can all agree that Printers' Corner sucks architecturally, but that's no reason to dismiss brick as a building material.

If done properly, brick can be just as modern as glass and steel. It all depends on the architect you hire (and of course the way you handle the parking problem).

ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2007, 12:25 AM   #1138
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 19th, 2010 at 02:18 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2007, 12:50 AM   #1139
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I think we can all agree that Printers' Corner sucks architecturally, but that's no reason to dismiss brick as a building material.
^ I would never dismiss brick as a building material. I love brick. Instead, I'm defending modernism from being 'dismissed' by people who don't think it has a place in historic neighborhoods. In fact, I would argue that modernism looks best when juxtaposed in a historic context. 50 glass and steel structures may look ho-hum when lined up together, but when intermixed with aged masonry structures, can actually be quite stunning.

This is all opinion, obviously, but I see no reason why we should enforce a certain architecture at Franklin Point
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2007, 01:50 AM   #1140
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Thanks...

Now for my responses and additional questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Use. Transitional between a small amount of office at the north end and highrise residential at the south end.
How tall?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Streets. Dedicate 24 feet along Wells to make that an 80-foot ROW. Extend Franklin across the site at Harrison bridge height (about 12 feet higher than Wells) at least 50 feet from the riverbank. Break the superblock with a new Lexington Street at 700 south that stays at Wells Street level, providing below-grade access to loading docks and parking entrances. There's probably not a need for a full lower Franklin. Reopen Polk to rise to meet the new Franklin at the proper height for a bridge approach.
OK!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
[Building bases. Must have active retail or commercial uses along Harrison and Wells, and preferably along Polk as well. River walk fronted by retail or marina uses, but much more heavily landscaped than the more "urban" stretches along West Wacker, indicating a transition from commercial core to residential neighborhood. Parking podiums should be lined with liner retail or residential units wherever possible, and should not be visible from the perimeter of the site.
Why not insist that the parking go below grade?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
[Massing. Highest building at the northeast corner to avoid afternoon shadowing of D'Angelo Park. Residential highrises taller near Polk and stepping down toward Harrison to avoid shadowing park and to provide skyline views for more units. Buildings along Wells should have a base approximately six to eight stories at the property line. Towers above those bases should be set back at least 40 feet.
You've got to be kidding me!!!???... That mound of crab grass in the middle of the Congress Drive/Wacker Drive interchange that no one in their right mind (other than the bums) would risk their life trying to get to? Why no insist the developers devote 15%-20% of the project to green space that can actually be enjoyed by the public? Shadows cast in a park isn't a big deal in Chicago. If you want to throw that argument around, go to San Francisco. I also don't see what there should be a 40' setback above the base. This isn't Michigan Avenue we're talking about, and you've already indicated your preference for the 80' -ROW which would allow ample space for light penetration. Then again the more setback you get the taller the tower will need to be to regain the FAR lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
[Microclimate. Buildings closest to the riverwalk and along Polk should be highly articulated, with bases of different footprints than the towers, in order to break up wind shear from the west. Protruding mullions are encouraged for any glass curtain walls for the same reason.
I don't think this will really work, i.e. (all the other "articulated" facades downtown don't realy cutdown on windshear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
[Materials. Buildings along Wells should have laid-up masonry bases with punched fenestration and painted windowframes, to harmonize with the remaining loft buildings on the east side of Wells. Highly reflective or mirrored glass is not encouraged for any buildings.
Why? I totally agree with TUP's sum up of this. This is not the Printer's Row of 1920. Why do we need to keep replicating architecture of the past, especially when it's rarely done correctly?
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu