Solstice on the Park | 285 ft | 26 fl | App

[CMillar]

Originally Posted by southloopscotty

Cry for me too!

Done!

[bobablob]

I like this design! Not something I'd hang a picture of on my wall, but I think if you're going to be ugly, you can do society a service and be spectacularly ugly.

[wrabbit]

Can't wait to see more on this pup. Studio/Gang is on a roll.

BTW, the rakish window angles are functional - designed specifically for the angle of sunlight in the 41st Parallel

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by CMillar

I weep for anyone that finds this pleasing.

then you're gonna have to cry the equivalent of lake michigan for me because i don't find this project merely pleasing, it's outright mindblowingly wicked-awesome; it's an archi-gasm.

[The Urban Politician]

From Hyde Park Progress:

The community meeting (with Antheus Capital and Leslie Hairston) regarding the proposed "Solstice on the Park" development at 56th and Cornell is set for Thursday, November 15th, at 7:00 PM at the Bret Harte School, 1556 East 56th Street.

[NearNorthGuy]

In one of the renderings there are parts of the Solstice facade that are green. Is that really going to be the case? Are those tinted windows, painted concrete panels, or something else? Just wondering.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Best of Chicago Condos
Solstice On The Park Angles For Approval

...Solstice on the Park started out as Windermere West. It began as a Hyde Park proposal from Antheus Capital to construct a 26 story tower with 142 units on a parking lot next to the Windermere House apartment building. It was met with skepticism because of the height, concerns about traffic and the fact that the Bret Harte Elementary School is nearby. A community meeting is scheduled for November 14th and the city could rule on the zoning request shortly thereafter. If approved, Solstice on the Park could be completed in 2009...

http://www.bestchicagocondos.com/blo...-for-approval/

[i_am_hydrogen]

From SSP:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

I was amazed at how well the meeting went. Not only was there support, but enthusiastic support from the residents. The room filed with applauds with each positive comment. One man representing the chamber of commerce broke out population numbers and mentioned that Hyde Park once had 71,000 residents, which has shrunk to about 43,000 today. He then stated that “We need more density to support our stores, and CTA”. There were concerns about circulation with the neighboring Bret Harte School which were all addressed. Some were even saying “its time get this building approved.” The only negative comment was about shadows cast on building to the north, which was silenced after a shaddow study was shown. The alderman was present and seemed pleased, although she did not really speak to the crowd much. The overall mood in the room was great, with lots of laughs coming from the crowd after comments from the very charismatic lawyer representing the developer.

Some tidbits on Solstice…

-The tower’s parapet tops out at 285’. The mechanical penthouse may take it just over 300’.

-56 permanently affordable units will be provided for in a existing walk-up building that the developer purchased one year ago next door.

-The “carved” south façade is angled inwards at 72 degrees, the angle of the summer sun, (I’m guessing on the summer solstice) to minimize solar heat gain, but allow natural light and heat in the winter.

-The building will recycle rain water with a cistern under the garage for landscape irrigation.

-The “plaza” in front of the tower on 56th has been modified, and is now landscaped with sculpted hedge rows.

-Shear walls on the East and West facades were subjected to computer load tests, which reveled where the reinforced concrete was carrying little force. These areas were then subtracted and replaced with the glazed notches which increase in size as one gets higher, reducing the amount of material used, and showing true form following true function.

-The tower’s unit mix is separated into three tiers, each with its own façade layout of window bays based on the unit sizes which increases as one moves up the tower.

-Two floors of parking underground, and about four above. There will be a 2:1 ratio for Solstice, because the developer is building replacement parking for the existing lots on the site as well as opening some op to the neighborhood. The Cornel side will have offices along the ground floor facing the sidewalk. No parking will be visible on the 56th Street elevation, the condos come down to the second floor there.

-The developer will realign the alley and provide for more drop off space, as well as more green space for the neighboring Bret Harte School.

-They would like to begin marketing soon, opening a sales trailer on the site in January 2008. If all goes to plan, construction starts in summer of 2008, with completion 18 months after.

-Poured-in-place concrete structure.

-Ivy will be planted, fertilized and encouraged to grow freely up the Cornell side of the building. I asked the attorney if that could be a world record for the tallest Ivy covered wall if it was able to climb all the way up.

I guess that’s about it, ask any other questions you may have…

Sorry for the posting delay, I don't visit Hyde Park often and was obligated to go for a walk on this beautiful brisk evening.

[spyguy]

Site plan from Hyde Park Progress

Different rendering from HPCC

[Beware]

" HORRIBLE! " Whoever approved It for Chicago should be arrested.

[i_am_hydrogen]

^I beg to differ. This is an exceptional design. Chicago desperately needs more avant-garde modernism.

[CMillar]

Avant-guarde modernism is a scourge. Especially when it channels the avant-guarde modernism of 40 years ago.

To each their own. As for me, I find this physically painful to look at.

[CHIsentinel]

Originally Posted by CMillar

Avant-guarde modernism is a scourge. Especially when it channels the avant-guarde modernism of 40 years ago.

To each their own. As for me, I find this physically painful to look at.

Making blanket statements such as that are, quite frankly, indicative of not knowing what your are talking about - "avant-garde", or progressive architecture as it is more properly known, such as for a building like this, exists to advance ideas about built form, design, aesthetic, etc., that doesn't typically happen because of money (or lack thereof), fear of something new/not understanding why certain things are the way they are, etc. This building is very much a watershed in high-rise design because it does what other high-rises don't - it presents a new way of thinking about high-rise living while at the same time allowing the form of the building to help dictate the function; those angles which really define the look, act as a solar shield in the summer time, so that when the sun is at a higher angle the stronger sunlight doesn't fall into the units, but hits the canted roof-line instead (I've seen the solar gain diagrams at Arup, you'll all have to trust me on this) - and the criss-cross pattern on the sides is probably mimicking the the structural shape on the inside - one thing most people don't realize about diagonal bracing in terms of structural consideration is that there is an ability to use a lot less steel (assuming this is a steel structure) which saves money, which saves resources, etc, etc. For example: the Hearst tower in NYC by Foster and Partners, where I think 30-40% less steel was used because of the orientation of the steel grid.

That's why this building is so unique and important IMO because of it's innovation and the desire by the architect and the developer to do something different and one-of-a-kind. If it wasn't for avant-garde/progressive architecture, we'd only be seeing cheap, colonial-esque knock offs (which unfortunately still happens) - so try and think about what you're looking at next time before you make comments that allow people to think you don't know what you're talking about - opinions are fine, but educated opinions are even better

[CMillar]

I understand the philosophy behind the building. However, when that philosophy results in something which is abhorrent to any reasonable sense of form and symmetry, it is, in my opinion, worthless. Which is why I find "avant-guarde" designs to be so displeasing in general. Of course, I find most "avant-guarde"ism to be silly in general. It's a forced effort to be different, not necessarily good or better.

I appreciate your attempts to educate, but they aren't necessary. In my opinion, the aesthetic rules, not the function. And this is an aesthetic disaster; a modernist mishmash of foreign angles and bizarre shapes. The mind revolts at the sight of it.

You're welcome to love it.

[CHIsentinel]

Originally Posted by CMillar

I understand the philosophy behind the building. However, when that philosophy results in something which is abhorrent to any reasonable sense of form and symmetry, it is, in my opinion, worthless. Which is why I find "avant-guarde" designs to be so displeasing in general. Of course, I find most "avant-guarde"ism to be silly in general. It's a forced effort to be different, not necessarily good or better.

I appreciate your attempts to educate, but they aren't necessary. In my opinion, the aesthetic rules, not the function. And this is an aesthetic disaster; a modernist mishmash of foreign angles and bizarre shapes. The mind revolts at the sight of it.

You're welcome to love it.

Um, ok - you're entitled to that, but I'm just curious to know what in your opinion dictates good design, where "the aesthetic rules" over the function of the building - can you site an example?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by CMillar

Avant-guarde modernism is a scourge. Especially when it channels the avant-guarde modernism of 40 years ago.

To each their own. As for me, I find this physically painful to look at.

I guess the solution would be not to look then wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by CMillar

I understand the philosophy behind the building. However, when that philosophy results in something which is abhorrent to any reasonable sense of form and symmetry, it is, in my opinion, worthless. Which is why I find "avant-guarde" designs to be so displeasing in general. Of course, I find most "avant-guarde"ism to be silly in general. It's a forced effort to be different, not necessarily good or better.

I appreciate your attempts to educate, but they aren't necessary. In my opinion, the aesthetic rules, not the function. And this is an aesthetic disaster; a modernist mishmash of foreign angles and bizarre shapes. The mind revolts at the sight of it.

You're welcome to love it.

Well, "form follows function", and that's exactly what this building does.

[geoff_diamond]

I appreciate your attempts to educate, but they aren't necessary. In my opinion, the aesthetic rules, not the function. And this is an aesthetic disaster; a modernist mishmash of foreign angles and bizarre shapes. The mind revolts at the sight of it.

Hooray!!! Finally some real discussion around here!

Okay, so, I've gotta say that a statement like "the aesthetic rules, not the function" is a bit dangerous, no? Especially when you say that you're not into avant-garde - isn't the point of avant-garde, typically, to seperate itself from everything else based solely on aesthetics? You should love the avant-garde movement, if your position is truly that the aesthetic is king.

More troubling than the contradiction, however, is the statement itself. How can you say that nothing else matters as long as something is pleasing to look at? This may be true for art (in fact, it is true for art), but, it's hardly a safe way to go about practicing architecture. If I design and construct a house that is striking to the eye, but, the owners hate it, it leaks, it costs a fortune to heat and cool and is a-typically dark inside, even on the clearest of days - how can we say that this is acceptible just because it's pretty?

Good architecture must perform. Period. Both functionally and aesthetically. The two ideas must exist symbiotically and should be the cornerstone of practice. Performace without aesthetic isn't architecture, it's building. Aethetic without performance isn't architecture, it's sculpture.

[globill]

at least it's a conversation piece. That's more than can be said for 90+% of new residential buildings. In fact, considering its location, near the Science&Industry and all those Nobel minds in Hyde Park...it seems rather appropriate.

If it were anywhere else in the city, the NIMBY's would certainly shoot it down.

If it's built, it'll be Chicago's little slice of Rotterdam...

[BVictor1]

Several images of renderings and drawings presented at Thursdays plan commission meeting for Solstice on the Park.







Environmental diagram.

[The Urban Politician]

It's nice to be getting some of the first glimpses of my future home