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 April 10th, 2007, 11:07 PM   #81
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post

1. Regarding Zoning - see Lori Healy's presentation
she gives all the time (see the slide with the downtown map)
You will note that Central Station and Prairie District were to be
Downtown Residential (at least that what was agreed on). Not DX.
When your DPD head can't even get it right, WTF?

http://www.phil.frb.org/cca/conf/cca...des_healey.pdf
OK, DR vs DX? What's the problem? The only major difference is DX requires ground floor retail. So you are saying you don't want the retail?
Please explain in what way would X/O be different if it were DR zoned?

Last edited by Mr. Hightower; April 11th, 2007 at 12:24 AM. Reason: fixed quote
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 10th, 2007, 11:13 PM   #82
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
2. Near South Plan
At least be intelectually honest and present the entire plan (page 8). They had height recommendations on the entire District, not just the Landmarked portion. This would equate to about 20 stories, not 45, which is what all the other developers decided to respect, except for one.

The Prairie Avenue Chicago
Landmark District should be preserved and enhanced as
the “centerpiece” for this District. Low-rise structures are most
appropriate in the immediate Prairie Avenue area, with a
gradual transition to the higher-rise residential and
mixed-use buildings in surrounding blocks.

Building materials and styles that are compatible with the historic
character of Prairie Avenue should be used.

Suggested building heights for this area should be in context
with development along the block face and immediate
surrounding area. Taller buildings should be approximately
60 feet along the Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th Street frontages:
and up to 250 feet elsewhere in the Development District



http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...ad_to_I-55.pdf

The 60 ft specifically addresses frontages, which can often be misconstrued. Frontage heights of 60 feet could allow much higher towers if properly set back from the property line.

So, you have issues with a 40+ story building, but not a 25 story building. Somehow one is in context and another isn't? Hypothetically speaking, would you prefer (4) 25 story buildings over (2) 40 story buildings? And why?

Last edited by Mr. Hightower; April 11th, 2007 at 12:23 AM. Reason: clarification / fixed quote
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 11:22 PM   #83
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Pull a Haithcock

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post



3. 16th Street Bridge - will not happen anytime soon, if the the St.
Charles line is not moved. There is not the same amount of room as
Roosevelt Drive's 4+ lanes. It will also depend on Central Station's
development/Air right plans to be released in 2008. Simple solution is
is to make Prairie one-way, problem solved. The residents could always
pull a Haithcock and say "Well those plans are not always followed"
There have been numerous feasibility studies to provide access to LSD, since long before you lived there. At least one of them via 18th street. (I know, because I worked on it.)
The main issue was the length of the approach necessary to clear the electric lines above the train tracks. We need a very long ramp or a convoluted spiral curve to make it work. However, as some of the issues are being addressed, it may become feasible someday soon regardless of the status of the freight rails.

So, PDNA wouldn't be ashamed to pull a Haithcock?
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 11:29 PM   #84
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Thank you Mr. Hightower
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 11:35 PM   #85
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 04:31 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 12:35 AM   #86
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
^I have a question, why do you care if its 45 instead of 20 floors? And dont say because "the plan says so!". Give me your honest opinion please.

I personally would be elated to hear a buildings height increased, not just because I like skyscrapers, but it would increase the tax base and density of the area, which would eventually lead to better schools, more retail, improved infrastructure, more political power etc. How about you?

And also, your frustration sounds like it comes from non-adherence to this plan. Well, what if the plan underestimated the growth (which it clearly did), wouldn't you think it needs to be updated or revised to accomodate this demand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love highrises as well, especially the stuff at River-East, and the Museum Tower...but they have:
a) Good Developers with committment to quality and
b) A sound and comprehensive infrastructure plan,
c) A respectful interaction with the neighborhoods where they lie
d) An above board, transparent approval & communication process.

1. Growth Prediction -
We can politely disagree on the undestimated growth. Not sure where
you have lived, but for me, it became evident since 1997 that the growth
was going to happen, and especially in that part of the South Loop after
2000. Many came over here to stay in Chicago, yet get away from the
problems of the Frankel & Giles type developments. All the 2003 Central Plan attachments & renderings presented, penciled in much
of what is completed, or planned, with exception of X/O, Rokas at Indiana
& 21st and Rokas at 21st & Prairie. Much of this developent projection
was already captured in Central Stations plan as well.

2. Now to your question of objections:
A) The Plan - exhaustive money, effort, thought and review by
professionals that created a plan that most liked and could live with.
That is why many people jumped down here. Most of the restoration &
new low density development led to the desirability of this area.
Even the folks at Central Station, who could of added 20 more
stories to their projects, have shown restraint and respect for the
plan, it's goal, and how they fit. They realize the area is a decent
respite that can be shared by many, not just those who live there.
The plan was put together to discourage NIMBY'sm, and that is what
the project X/O destroyed.

B) The Building - A cheap design, with no respect. I invite you sometime
to take a walk to the Clark House/Woman's park and gander at
Museum Park Place Tower I with it's hideous red stripes. From
LSD it may look fine, but up close from within, it dominates when
it should not need to. X/O is going to be twice as tall,
in the middle of the District, and stick out like a sore thumb. The best
part of the District is nothing sticks out yet, and there is a decent
blend. Lucien could have taken a number of his conservative projects
like 840 LSD or Alyisian(sp) and most folks would have been
supportive; this project is a cheap knock off. It's like IKEA...
If the building was on Cermak, Michigan, etc. no one would care.

C) The Developer -This is an opportunist developer with a poor history
of uninspiring work that has quality problems, some conceiled
by non-disclosure settlemant agreements. I know personally, and
so do many others. Example, I did not realize that Dearborn
Tower had a huge settlement due to problems with the building. It
is sad that we continue to bend over for businessmen like that, when
we arrest people for stealing food if they are hungry. This is a
developer who has shown a propencity to work around the legal
boundaries, instead focusing on a first rate job. Those who buy in
Prairie District Lofts will find out.
Don't kid yourself on who holds the initial X/O contracts; After the
construction loan, these names will dissappear. Think Greektown

D) The area & Demographics - If this were the first development
here than people knew what they were buying. But much of the
restoration efforts of the area led to the desirability. No one
needed to have the developer say what 'Prairie Avenue should be',
Residents were already driving its redevelopment years before Giles
came over, proclaiming:
"We believe the South Loop has really come of age, and feel like this block wants something different than the other projects being built in the South Loop, which are basically square concrete boxes," said Giles. "This is going to be a lot more adventuresome."
(By the way did he not build 212 E Cullerton as a square box?)

The demographics already included a higher than normal amount of
families who wanted to raise their kids in the urban setting. X/O
respects none of this. It want to be a loud, in your face development.

E) Infrastructure - F&G rarely gives back to the neighborhood or
puts in necessary infrastructure. Example, 212 Cullerton,
a simple project has created a bottleneck on Cullerton. Is is hard
to put in a freaking wide curb drop off, etc. As well, this project will
require a $5-$10MM sewer upgrade for the area (some of the
developments already have flow limiting devices, and even the new
parks can't be tied into the sewer system). If you want approve a
project in excess of the infrastructure capability, fine, then make the
developer pay much of the costs, not rob the TIF funds for his
mistake or opportunity. And do the infrastructure now, not later.

F) The Way this way the developer & Alderman treated the residents
with lies, disinformation, and self-proclaimed approval long before
they were even ready to. It was clear on this project, there is a
godfather in DPD or the Mayors office. (Why would invester Peter
Parthenis need to give $5,000 to the mayor after Haithcock's remark
about stopping the project?)
The amount of money Haithcock has taken from
this developer & his project partners is stupifying. Then Glessner
House, with Developer Bill Warman as Board of Director, taking the
money for the donation...hmmm nothing wrong there.

Then you have the Near South Planning Board, a developer run
organization with Giles on the Board of Directors, as a "resident
approving body"...hmmm no conflict of interest there.

Even the Alderman at several points lied about status of project,
claiming it's approved, it's not, she is going to stop it, and when she
did host meetings, the were placation events. For example she got
members of the neighorhood together in September to talk about
the project, our concerns, but could not even bother to tell folks that
"oh by the way, I am taking the project to city council next week",
there by giving the residents no resolution or strength to review.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 12:51 AM   #87
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Loopy - Response

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
First of all, welcome to the forum. Really. It was starting to get a little boring around here.

Second, I would like to dispute your claim that GSLA did not invite community comment on X/O. I am not a GSLA member, but I heard about the initial meeting in the Chicago Journal. If I remember it correctly; in one of their "event" sections they ran a blurb from GSLA announcing that they moved their meeting, which usually convenes at the 1st District Police Station, to Glessner House to present "Lucien Lagrange's twin tower proposal for Prairie Avenue". A press release to a neighborhood paper constitutes adequate "Public Notice" in my book.

I also remember that the overwhelming majority of the packed house was favorably impressed with the proposal and there were only a couple of grumblers. Jeff Key's comments on the inevitability of development were also well received by the those in attendance.

Lastly, the X/O PD application went before the Chicago Plan Commission with no citizens speaking against it. This surprised me, because by the time of the meeting, there were press statements made by a few Prairie Avenue residents against the proposal. Long after the Plan Commission approved the proposal, those same residents were crying that the project wasn't on the Agenda, and that they had been bamboozled. We all got a good laugh out of that. Anybody who can use a computer to download the monthly PDF agendas from the Plan Commission knew that that the proposal was deferred from one meeting and scheduled at the next. Maybe that is why forming PDNA became necessary, to wrest these issues from the hands of a few neighborhood cranks and give them a little better presentation.

1. Let's just say that Mr. Key did not listen or take any input.

2. Notice - I agree - but do me this favor, go to the August meeting notice,
save to your computer, and tell me the date by looking at it's properties.
It was put up on September 1st, after the Plan Commission meeting.
(The city will claim it relies on newspaper per ordinance)
Cripes look at the this months Plan Commission April 19th - I had to call
and remind them, and it was put up today the 10th. Who the fruck reads
legal noticies if you can check on line. DPD probably received 100+
emails or letters and could not have the curtousy to tell them of the
meeting.

The GSLA, invited by developer, certainly did not send out a reminder for
such a visible project. I attented 4 GSLA Meetings before my email ever
got registered, and that note was for Bash on Wabash...sheesh.

The Glessner House meeting you speak of was the second meeting after
angrly residents banged on Haithcock's door about lack of communication,
so she put up flyers the night before (nice of Giles to send his out of
neighborhood plants) Even Haithcock called out a guy from the wrong
ward. No control over the meeting, no sign in, no floor rules. A joke.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 01:06 AM   #88
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

I felt like it..

Last edited by BVictor1; April 11th, 2007 at 01:08 AM. Reason: I felt like it...
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 01:11 AM   #89
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
1. Let's just say that Mr. Key did not listen or take any input.

2. Notice - I agree - but do me this favor, go to the August meeting notice,
save to your computer, and tell me the date by looking at it's properties.
It was put up on September 1st, after the Plan Commission meeting.
(The city will claim it relies on newspaper per ordinance)
Cripes look at the this months Plan Commission April 19th - I had to call
and remind them, and it was put up today the 10th. Who the fruck reads
legal noticies if you can check on line. DPD probably received 100+
emails or letters and could not have the curtousy to tell them of the
meeting.

The GSLA, invited by developer, certainly did not send out a reminder for
such a visible project. I attented 4 GSLA Meetings before my email ever
got registered, and that note was for Bash on Wabash...sheesh.

The Glessner House meeting you speak of was the second meeting after
angrly residents banged on Haithcock's door about lack of communication,
so she put up flyers the night before (nice of Giles to send his out of
neighborhood plants) Even Haithcock called out a guy from the wrong
ward. No control over the meeting, no sign in, no floor rules. A joke.

I knew about the plan commission meeting months in advance. It was on the July agenda, then it got defered to August which was noted on the agenda. Some people just aren't good at research and reading is suppose....
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 01:13 AM   #90
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Access to LSD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hightower View Post
There have been numerous feasibility studies to provide access to LSD, since long before you lived there. At least one of them via 18th street. (I know, because I worked on it.)
The main issue was the length of the approach necessary to clear the electric lines above the train tracks. We need a very long ramp or a convoluted spiral curve to make it work. However, as some of the issues are being addressed, it may become feasible someday soon regardless of the status of the freight rails.

So, PDNA wouldn't be ashamed to pull a Haithcock?
That was sarcasm (note the shake). When did you work on the 18th Bridge? Did that incorporate the park? There is no way this will ever happen with the Soldier field crossing, The new park space, etc. (now deeded & will have landmark returned soon) . No one will get them to remove greenspace already turned over to the Park District.

16th is still an option, but likely an offset to the current 16th street. I still think it would ruin the walkability though. If Riverside ever happens, then they will need another eastbound route and 16th would be it.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 01:15 AM   #91
Rascacielos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 0

One thing that bothers me, setting aside the Plan, is the insistence that there is a "historic district" to which all further adjacent construction should relate. By my count, between 18th and Cullerton, there are 5 buildings that survive from the old days and one that was moved to the site but wasn't original. That is hardly the critical mass that one would expect of a "district". Nevertheless, the rest of those two blocks has been filled in with imitations of historic architecture to perpetuate the feeling of a district, so for what it's worth, you get a section of uniterrupted, albeit mostly artificial, buildings that carry a theme, which is really morelike a theme park than a real, historic district like Alta Vista Terrace. Why this theme park should continue north of 18th, though, is beyond me. Neither the townhomes nor the tower respect the architecture that sits on the corner, and they are definitely cheap imitations of historic architecture. What is more insulting, a cheap imitation of something old or a truly modern statement? I would argue the latter. I for one am thankful that Lagrange didn't serve up Park Tower v. 3.0 but rather listened to his progressive instincts with this project. If the park on which Clark House sits was turned over to developers to build skyscrapers, I could understand the outrage, but that's not what's happening here. Yes, it's true that Glessner House will sit across the street from X/O, but it's just that kind of juxtaposition that makes cities so dynamic and compelling.
Rascacielos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 01:16 AM   #92
Steely Dan
born again cyclist
 
Steely Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: old style city
Posts: 3,381
Likes (Received): 1296

it's all kinda moot at this point.

the project was approved.

the PDNA will lose their suit.

it may take several years of BS court proceedings, but they will lose.

afterall, this is chicago, not some "every person deserves a voice" democracy fairyland.
__________________
"I wish they'd hurry up and just destroy humanity already........... it's the waiting that I can't stand" - Philip J. Fry
Steely Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 01:26 AM   #93
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
------------------------------------------------------------------------


B) The Building - A cheap design, with no respect. I invite you sometime
to take a walk to the Clark House/Woman's park and gander at
Museum Park Place Tower I with it's hideous red stripes. From
LSD it may look fine, but up close from within, it dominates when
it should not need to. X/O is going to be twice as tall,
in the middle of the District, and stick out like a sore thumb. The best
part of the District is nothing sticks out yet, and there is a decent
blend. Lucien could have taken a number of his conservative projects
like 840 LSD or Alyisian(sp) and most folks would have been
supportive; this project is a cheap knock off. It's like IKEA...
If the building was on Cermak, Michigan, etc. no one would care.

You make many valid points, but I disagree with your point B.

1) I think the 18th/Calumet building is quite attractive. It dominates the view from my condo, and the glass tower looks great. (the treatment of the lower level podium is not so great, however) Just my opinion.

2) X/O is not in the middle of a Historic District, just part of an arbitrarily drawn "District" of the near south plan. There is nothing of historic significance remaining north of 18th street. So, I would argue that it is clearly outside the Historic District. It is deceptive to say otherwise.

3) I think it is a fantastic design, as do others on the forum. Again, just an opnion. If there are any "knockoffs", they are the cheap Prairie District Homes Tower and Townhouses. I am embarassed to have bought my unit preconstruction.
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 01:50 AM   #94
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Rascacielos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rascacielos View Post
One thing that bothers me, setting aside the Plan, is the insistence that there is a "historic district" to which all further adjacent construction should relate. By my count, between 18th and Cullerton, there are 5 buildings that survive from the old days and one that was moved to the site but wasn't original. That is hardly the critical mass that one would expect of a "district". Nevertheless, the rest of those two blocks has been filled in with imitations of historic architecture to perpetuate the feeling of a district, so for what it's worth, you get a section of uniterrupted, albeit mostly artificial, buildings that carry a theme, which is really morelike a theme park than a real, historic district like Alta Vista Terrace. Why this theme park should continue north of 18th, though, is beyond me. Neither the townhomes nor the tower respect the architecture that sits on the corner, and they are definitely cheap imitations of historic architecture. What is more insulting, a cheap imitation of something old or a truly modern statement? I would argue the latter. I for one am thankful that Lagrange didn't serve up Park Tower v. 3.0 but rather listened to his progressive instincts with this project. If the park on which Clark House sits was turned over to developers to build skyscrapers, I could understand the outrage, but that's not what's happening here. Yes, it's true that Glessner House will sit across the street from X/O, but it's just that kind of juxtaposition that makes cities so dynamic and compelling.
Respectively, I think your answer is in the 2003 Central Plan - they created Character Districts, specifically targeting to "Protect and Enhance the Character & Scale of the Landmark District and Surrounding Blocks" . At the presentations in 2003, this was explained that the goal was to create areas of space and collection from future Towers & Hotels on Cermak, Mid-rises at Calumet, and Highrises on Michigan to frame the Distict. Essentially, if you imagine what Grant Park is today if you stand at say Congress, with the frame around the park. Their goal, as explained was to create the same for the entire District, not just the Landmark Center. They just got stupid and lazy in the follow-up of the downzoning.

I would invite you to walk the District for the other Landmarks still being restored, and the other developments, comments noted here withstanding.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 02:01 AM   #95
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
That was sarcasm (note the shake). When did you work on the 18th Bridge? Did that incorporate the park? There is no way this will ever happen with the Soldier field crossing, The new park space, etc. (now deeded & will have landmark returned soon) . No one will get them to remove greenspace already turned over to the Park District.

16th is still an option, but likely an offset to the current 16th street. I still think it would ruin the walkability though. If Riverside ever happens, then they will need another eastbound route and 16th would be it.
I worked on a design/build proposal with McHugh to provide a bridge between 18th and LSD back in 01/02, as part of a proposal to build a busway bridge. This was in response to a City RFP, forget what agency. (bridge proposal was scrapped for cheaper grade crossing) The park was not yet a park at that time.

Now it wouldn't happen at 18th as we had proposed then, now that the park is there. (we can actually thank Legacy for that favor) Now that the other towers are being built on Calumet, it becomes more difficult to provide access near 18th. So, yes near 16th is more likely.

Nonetheless, traffic will be impacted.
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 02:06 AM   #96
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

What I find sad is that some people in Chicago (not just South Loop) believe a few nice homes that are no more than 150 years old (at most) are somehow the most important things in the world. While I too like these homes and everything should be done to preserve them, stopping development near them or making them conform style-wise is wrong IMO. These are just old mansions, not the Parthenon or some other international icon.

Meanwhile, Europe is doing just fine design-wise because they mostly accept progressive designs. Instead of sticking with cheap retro styles, they expect the best from their architects and manage to get striking designs from residential, office, transportation, and cultural projects, and the juxposition between the new and old (REALLY old, mind you) is great.

Perhaps I'll find some photos of what I'm talking about and post them later.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 02:09 AM   #97
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Mr. Hightoer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hightower View Post
You make many valid points, but I disagree with your point B.

1) I think the 18th/Calumet building is quite attractive. It dominates the view from my condo, and the glass tower looks great. (the treatment of the lower level podium is not so great, however) Just my opinion.

2) X/O is not in the middle of a Historic District, just part of an arbitrarily drawn "District" of the near south plan. There is nothing of historic significance remaining north of 18th street. So, I would argue that it is clearly outside the Historic District. It is deceptive to say otherwise.

3) I think it is a fantastic design, as do others on the forum. Again, just an opnion. If there are any "knockoffs", they are the cheap Prairie District Homes Tower and Townhouses. I am embarassed to have bought my unit preconstruction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 18th & Calumet - looks good on east side, not on west close-up. The Red paint is too striking, and needs to be toned down a lot. When red painted stripes has to be your architectural feature, is that architecture?? And did you get a look at the "modern townhomes" on the west side? Did not turn out well. Next time you walk by, look at the exposed concrete around the townhome's balcony - already in bad shape. How about designing a cap to cover it.

2) X/O is not in the middle of a Historic District
You know Hightower, you and I can agree on a lot of things. I do agree, although it is a "character district" per the Central Plan. But the developer has been playing both sides of the fence, one side to justify a massive 45 story building in the middle of the "character District" and the other to drum up sides by claiming to be in the middle of a "historic residential neighborhood". Frankel & Giles was even quoted on this in the Sun-times after the Plan Commission meeting.

But the problem is, they then turn around after saying this, and put the following on their own website:
http://www.aquariusproperties.com/pr...ndominium.aspx

Prairie District

* Over the past three years, the historic Prairie District has evolved into a
high demand submarket of the South Loop. The project’s prime location on
1700 block of South Prairie Avenue is situated in the center of this historic
residential neighborhood. All condominium projects in this area have
enjoyed robust sales.
* Historically, Chicago’s elite lived along Prairie Avenue, including the
Pullmans, the Armours, the Fields, and the Kimballs


"Misleading" could be this developers middle name.

That's why I did not buy where you did. It had Warman's name on it.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 02:19 AM   #98
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

I would agree if you are talking about quality modern architecture and quality material choice. What is being built in the South Loop is not on par architecturally, construction or material quality (say for one or two towers near Roosevelt like the Columbian and Maybe Museum Tower I) than much of the Central Loop, Near North, River East, etc. The buiilders come out with their perceived price point and that's it. So now we have more of either Painted Concrete (11th & Wabash, State Place, etc.), or Knock-off glass towers (1720 S. Michigan or anything by CMK). X/O is not even close to the quality of Aqua. Build high rises, but hold these guys to some higher standards.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 02:40 AM   #99
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 18th & Calumet - looks good on east side, not on west close-up. The Red paint is too striking, and needs to be toned down a lot. When red painted stripes has to be your architectural feature, is that architecture?? And did you get a look at the "modern townhomes" on the west side? Did not turn out well. Next time you walk by, look at the exposed concrete around the townhome's balcony - already in bad shape. How about designing a cap to cover it.

2) X/O is not in the middle of a Historic District
You know Hightower, you and I can agree on a lot of things. I do agree, although it is a "character district" per the Central Plan. But the developer has been playing both sides of the fence, one side to justify a massive 45 story building in the middle of the "character District" and the other to drum up sides by claiming to be in the middle of a "historic residential neighborhood". Frankel & Giles was even quoted on this in the Sun-times after the Plan Commission meeting.

But the problem is, they then turn around after saying this, and put the following on their own website:
http://www.aquariusproperties.com/pr...ndominium.aspx

Prairie District

* Over the past three years, the historic Prairie District has evolved into a
high demand submarket of the South Loop. The project’s prime location on
1700 block of South Prairie Avenue is situated in the center of this historic
residential neighborhood. All condominium projects in this area have
enjoyed robust sales.
* Historically, Chicago’s elite lived along Prairie Avenue, including the
Pullmans, the Armours, the Fields, and the Kimballs


"Misleading" could be this developers middle name.

That's why I did not buy where you did. It had Warman's name on it.
So, is this all really a fight about the developer's integrity? Being a victim of a Warman development, I can support you on that.

But, why not just say it instead of fighting the wrong fight? If a respectable developer were doing this development, would you still be fighting it?



18th/Calumet: just a matter of taste - I prefer the modern look. I look at the west face every day. Although, I agree the base leaves much to be desired. But, I think you were referring to the view from within the park surrounding the Clark House, from where you can't see the base.
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 02:46 AM   #100
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
I would agree if you are talking about quality modern architecture and quality material choice. What is being built in the South Loop is not on par architecturally, construction or material quality (say for one or two towers near Roosevelt like the Columbian and Maybe Museum Tower I) than much of the Central Loop, Near North, River East, etc. The buiilders come out with their perceived price point and that's it. So now we have more of either Painted Concrete (11th & Wabash, State Place, etc.), or Knock-off glass towers (1720 S. Michigan or anything by CMK). X/O is not even close to the quality of Aqua. Build high rises, but hold these guys to some higher standards.
CMK has done some magnificent projects, aesthetic-wise. I think the Columbian is pretty uninspiring. But, that is another topic.

To expect every project to be on caliber with Aqua is not realistic. The construction cost prices out cost-sensitive buyers.
Mr. Hightower 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 02:33 PM.


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