Chicago Reaching for the Sky

[pianoman11686]

This thread will try to sum up most of the notable new highrise construction in Chicago. Here's a good introductory article from the Chicago Tribune:

HIGH ANXIETY
Tall and thin may be the future, but city's mission must be to see the light -- and patches of blue -- as its new, dazzling towers reach for the sky

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published November 13, 2005

Chicago has long been a city of cloud busting skyscrapers, but its latest push toward the sky is enough to make jaws drop, eyes pop and start alarm bells ringing.

Every week, it seems, a rendering of a new tower is splashed across the front page or the business page in the hopes of generating positive "buzz" and attracting potential buyers and investors.

Some of this may be pure hucksterism. Nothing like a sexy architect's rendering to drum up a prospective tenant or two. Still, every proposal bears watching. It's the ugly one we ignore that -- surprise! -- will get built.

The trend goes beyond the biggest headline grabbers, the 2,000-footers that have spawned nicknames such as "the Drill Bit" and "the Tweezer Tower." Not since the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the Sears Tower, the Standard Oil Building (now the Aon Center) and the John Hancock Center redefined the Chicago skyline, have there been such spectacular possibilities for aesthetic payoffs and pratfalls. At stake in this profusion of residential towers and one proposed broadcast tower is the character of North Michigan Avenue, the lakefront, the riverfront and the walls of buildings flanking Grant Park. The skyline is sure to assume a new center of gravity along a new Gold Coast -- the once-foul Chicago River, where Donald Trump's much-hyped, 1,361-foot hotel and condo tower soon will rise out of a construction pit, and more giants may follow.

None of this is accidental. With little public discussion, Mayor Daley's administration has made a dramatic policy reversal, encouraging great height rather than forcing developers to make their towers shorter. At the House of Daley, where the city's architectural cloth gets cut, tall and thin is in. Short and squat is out. It is, on the whole, a change for the better.

City planners envision a skyline comprising pencil thin "point" towers that leave space around them for light and air. When it works, it should be dazzling, offering the best of both worlds -- great height without overwhelming congestion.

Yet all architecture, like all politics, is local. Tall towers do not belong everywhere. Some stand to do as much harm as good, canyonizing streets, dwarfing waterfronts or marring the skyline with bizarre Buck Rogers silhouettes. The emphasis on bigness still has to come to terms with smallness -- the shops, restaurants and other human-scaled features that give cities their accidental, quirky appeal.

Almost no one suggests that Chicago adopt a highly prescriptive set of design rules that would mandate the shape of towers. That could well kill off a building boom that is the envy of other cities and staunch the city's celebrated tradition of innovation.

But there is a need for the city to develop a planning framework that offers specific guidelines about where tall towers should go, how they can be placed so they block as few views as possible, and how they should behave at ground level to avoid the sort of city-deadening blank walls that now blight River North.

Such guidelines offer the prospect of carefully managed growth instead of unchecked, Dodge City growth, a specter that became very real last month when developers J. Paul Beitler and LR Development Co. unveiled plans for a 2,000-foot broadcast tower along the lakefront.

The plan, it turns out, was a slick switcheroo.

For months, the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents (SOAR), a respected neighborhood group, negotiated with LR over a condominium tower of about 60 stories that was to rise on the west side of Lake Shore Drive just across from Lake Point Tower. Chicago architect Ralph Johnson of Perkins & Will, who has produced some of the city's finest residential towers, designed the structure, whose details haven't been made public. SOAR members were happy with the broad strokes of Johnson's design and with details such as a dog run.

Then they woke up on Oct. 25 and read the front-page story about the broadcast tower, designed by New Haven, Conn., architect Cesar Pelli.

"Basically, it's a giant utility pole," said Brian Hopkins, a SOAR board member.

Following the route usually taken by developers, Beitler and LR only pictured their plan when they announced the tweezer-shaped tower, conveniently ignoring another planned 2,000-foot skyscraper just a few blocks to the south, Santiago Calatrava's Fordham Spire, which would be shaped like a giant drill bit.

Calatrava's design, which still must be financed and receive city approval, appears astonishingly graceful when it stands alone, an extraordinary piece of architectural sculpture that marks a special place in the city, the meeting of the lakefront and the river.

But with the broadcast tower alongside it, as pictured in a composite photo prepared for this story, it looks like one-half of the world's largest set of football goal posts.

This is but one example of the costs of unchecked growth.

Chicago's explosion of tall towers is at once a real estate phenomenon and an urban planning phenomenon, illustrating how quickly ideas from one city can migrate to another in the global age.

One reason for the tall towers, real estate experts say, is that developers have moved from secondary sites, such as the West Loop and the western flanks of River North, to marquee locations, such as North Michigan Avenue. There, land is more expensive and the developers need to build taller so they can make a profit.

Then there is the Trump factor. The developer and reality TV star has pushed Chicago's luxury condominium market to new physical and financial heights, blazing a trail that competitors lust to follow. Trump reportedly is getting stratospheric prices at his Trump International Hotel & Tower -- about $1,000 a square foot, up from roughly $675 a foot when he started selling condos there a few years ago.

"Other developers are looking at his numbers and drooling," says Gail Lissner, vice president of Chicago-based Appraisal Research Counselors.

Last but hardly least is City Hall's changing attitude toward tall buildings, a shift that reflects the growing influence of Vancouver in urban planning circles.

Why Vancouver? Because it offers an eminently livable model of tall, thin high-rise towers set on townhouse podiums.

That prototype clearly is familiar to key city planners, including Lori Healey, the city's new commissioner of Planning and Development, and Sam Assefa a former San Francisco planner who is Daley's deputy chief of staff for economic and physical development.

Assefa helped encourage Chicago architects David Haymes and George Pappageorge to stretch their planned One Museum Park condo tower at the southern end of Grant Park to 720 feet from an initial proposed height of 450 feet. That move shocked the architects, who recognized that the site demanded a commanding presence, but were used to the city's old ways of knocking down height to make towers palatable to neighbors.

"They said: `Can't you make it taller?' We were taken aback by that," Haymes said.

Healey said: "There has been a growing movement in the design community to educate the development world that tall, slender buildings are not bad things . . . [They allow] developers and their architects to be innovative."

Of that, there is little doubt. Look at the contrast between the tall and thin Park Tower, which soars 844 feet above the sidewalk at 800 N. Michigan, and the short and squat Peninsula Hotel building, which sits just to its south at 730-750 N. Michigan, and you see the basic wisdom in the city's shift.

Yes, the mansard-roofed Park Tower, which was designed by Lucien Lagrange Architects, looks like a big yellow rocket ship and could have been more architecturally daring. But it's still a good piece of urban design, with elegant proportions and a silhouette that doesn't overwhelm the neighboring park around the old Chicago Water Tower.

By contrast, the 20-story Peninsula building is a stump, a five-star hotel with a one-star public face.

More skinny towers are on the way, and with Daley warming to adventurous design in the wake of Millennium Park's success, they promise to be fresh and modern rather than tried-and-true traditional.

One intriguing example, now under construction at 340 E. Randolph Drive and designed by Solomon Cordwell Buenz, will soar 672 feet and will include a 25th-floor winter garden with exterior glass walls that open in warm weather, allowing residents to proceed onto a terrace and gaze over Millennium Park.

But top-of-the-line amenities for affluent buyers by no means guarantee the quality of the public realm we all inhabit.

As towers rise, so do concerns about snarled traffic, blocked views and pedestrians being blown off their feet by downdrafts that woosh off the sides of skyscrapers. Density is good because it means people can walk or take public transit to their jobs instead of driving. But when it takes 10 minutes to drive a few blocks in Streeterville at rush hour, are we starting to reach the limits of density?

Streeterville is especially vulnerable to congestion at street level, for unlike the Illinois Center mega-development south of the Chicago River, it has no three-tiered subterranean circulation system. Thank goodness for that. But this means Streeterville's narrow, at-grade street grid must carry the load -- delivery vans, garbage trucks, taxis, even the pizza guy.

Such quality-of-life concerns transcend architecture, suggesting that there is far more to the debate over the city's growth than the graceful presence of towers on the skyline. Indeed, while the design standards of the new towers are head and shoulders above the concrete hulks of River North, good architecture in some cases may not be enough.

A fresh example is the newly announced proposal that would replace the banal north tower of the InterContinental Chicago hotel on North Michigan Avenue with an 850-foot hotel and condominium skyscraper while leaving intact the hotel's 42-story Art Deco south tower. The plan, designed by Lucien Lagrange Architects, calls for a glass-sheathed tower that would rise straight up from the North Michigan Avenue sidewalk.

And that has the potential to cause great trouble.

Even though the architectural quality of buildings along North Michigan Avenue has declined precipitously in recent years, it remains a delightful place to walk -- not a darkened canyon, like LaSalle Street, but a boulevard with abundant sunlight and patches of blue sky. The chief reason for this blessing is that nearly all the very tall buildings along North Michigan, from the John Hancock Center to Lagrange's own Park Tower, have towers that are set back from the street, either behind plazas, parks or retail podiums.

The InterContinental proposal offers something very different. While it would have notches in its upper reaches, there would be no setbacks. The architecture is appealing enough, at first glance, and could, with considerable tweaking, form an elegant backdrop for the Art Deco tower to its south.

But if the building rises without a significant setback, it might open the door to other, very tall towers along North Michigan. And that would risk turning the street into a darkened canyon.

Trump's tower offers a taller, bulkier variation on this theme.

No one doubts the ability of its architects, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill of Chicago, to superbly detail the giant. What remains very much in question, however, is whether Trump's mega-tower will overwhelm the riverfront with the substantial girth of its clifflike southern wall. The squat Chicago Sun-Times building that used to occupy the site looked, at best, like a marooned river barge. But at least its seven stories didn't hog the sky.

All this demands a question: Can the city do a better job guiding where tall towers go?

Healey, the planning commissioner, expressed satisfaction with the way things work. When it comes to the placement of skyscrapers, "we respond to the private sector," she said.

Asked if that means the Department of Planning and Development is essentially passive, more like the Department of Reacting and Development, she responded that Chicago does guide growth by regulating density. Many of the new tall buildings, she added, are actually less dense than zoning laws allow.

It's true that Chicago's Planning Unit Development zoning category has been an effective, if secretive, arm-twisting device for winning public amenities. But typically, as the pitiful public art and other decorations tacked onto the bases of the monstrous high-rises of River North reveal, these efforts amount to little more than damage control -- the regulatory equivalent of perfuming the pig.

Why not develop flexible planning guidelines that direct growth in advance rather than forcing planners to engage in futile rear-guard actions?

Architect Johnson, whose credits include the acclaimed Skybridge and Contemporaine high-rises, offers some answers: He suggests that the city spell out where conventional wall-like buildings should go (along Grant Park and the lakefront) and where tall "point" towers would be appropriate (behind the clifflike lakefront wall). City planners, he adds, also could encourage developers to provide lively streetscapes instead of brute walls, lining parking podiums with townhouses, plus the shops and restaurants that provide essential neighborhood gathering places.

"A framework like this might make sense out of what we are doing," Johnson wrote in a series of sketches laying out his ideas. "It's at least better than nothing."

He's right. Without more fine-grained tools to guide growth, Chicago risks becoming a city of mega-projects where the small gets lost in the big and the big is placed indiscriminately amid the cityscape with devastating consequences.

There is a difference between a vital city and a healthy city. In a healthy city, traffic is not perpetually snarled, tall towers inspire awe rather than fear, and there is not a Darwinian struggle for access to light and views. Chicago's reach for the sky is heading in the right direction, but it must be refined if the cityscape is to reach its highest, humanistic potential -- truly healthy rather than merely vital.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2005-11/20457292.jpg

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2005-11/20457346.jpg

Copyright 2005, Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com)

[pianoman11686]

InterContinental plans skyscraper
Hotel/condo tower would reshape part of Magnificent Mile

By Thomas A. Corfman
Tribune staff reporter
Published November 1, 2005

The nondescript north tower of the InterContinental Chicago hotel on Michigan Avenue would be replaced with a 71-story hotel/condominium skyscraper, under a dramatic proposal that would reshape the south end of the Magnificent Mile.

The ambitious plan would not affect the key architectural features of the 42-story Art Deco south tower, which is topped by a Moorish-styled dome, said Laurence Geller, chief executive of Strategic Hotel Capital Inc., which acquired the hotel about seven months ago. The 26-story north tower, notable for its blank concrete exterior along the avenue, was built as a separate hotel in 1961.

The proposal must receive city zoning approval. Construction, which would depend on sales of the high-priced condo units, is not expected to start until mid-2007 at the earliest.

The proposed skyscraper, to be designed by Chicago architect Lucien Lagrange, "adds an elegance" to the historic tower, without a "dwarfing factor," Geller said. "Truthfully, it would replace a building that is not particularly pleasing," he added.

Even so, the new tower is sure to prompt scrutiny by preservationists, concerned about the continued "canyonization" of North Michigan Avenue, and by some Streeterville neighbors, who already feel cramped from the building boom east of the hotel, including plans for two 2,000-foot skyscrapers in the last four months.

But the financial aspects of the plan also are expected to spark questions on Wall Street, even for a company known as an aggressive asset manager. While most hotel owners would only consider development plans for a poorly performing property, Chicago-based Strategic is proposing a redevelopment of a well-performing asset to make it better.

"Strategic is never shy about changing a property type to maximize value," said hotel analyst John Arabia with Newport Beach, Calif.-based Green Street Advisors Inc., who hadn't been briefed on the plan. "It would be a pretty big move."

Strategic paid about $170 million for an 85 percent interest in the 807-room property at 505 N. Michigan Ave. The hotel pulled in almost $6.4 million in the second quarter, accounting for nearly 17 percent of the real estate investment trust's earnings of $37.6 million before interest and other expenses, according to a financial statement. Room rates averaged about $193 a night during the quarter, and the hotel was more than 83 percent occupied.

The new tower would include 150 hotel suites, 310 condos, parking and 11,000 square feet of prime, first-floor retail space. It would replace a building with 477 rooms, reducing the overall number of rooms to 480.

The 330-room historic south tower would receive a $15 million renovation, a key part of a repositioning of the property.

"We're moving it from being a big, bulk group hotel, which is doing very well, into a luxury hotel that will compete against the top end of the market," Geller said.

Strategic, which is represented by prominent zoning attorney Jack Guthman of Shefsky & Froelich Ltd., is filing an application for a planned development Tuesday.

The plans also include construction of a landscaped plaza over a portion of Grand Avenue east of Michigan. And the hotel's entrance would be moved to Illinois Street to reduce congestion on Michigan, Geller said.

The proposed 850-foot tower would be almost twice the height of the historic south tower, which was built in 1929 as the Medinah Athletic Club and is known for its blend of design features inspired by sources that range from ancient Egypt to the Italian Renaissance.

Moreover, some of the city's best-known skyscrapers of that era, including the Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower and the McGraw-Hill Building, which was rebuilt in 2000, are within steps of the InterContinental, further highlighting the differences in height.

But key to the new development is the continued strength of the high-end condominium market, which is seemingly overcrowded with projects.

"I believe a building like this on Michigan Avenue is a unique opportunity that stands to segregate itself out from the bulk of the stuff that's being put out there," Geller said

Strategic, which is advised by Chicago-based U.S. Equities Realty Co., has already held talks with several local developers, including LR Development Co. and Magellan Development Group Ltd., he said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-11/20263883.jpg

Copyright 2005, Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/)

[pianoman11686]

2,000-foot TV tower may pierce skyline

By Thomas A. Corfman and Blair Kamin
Tribune staff reporters
Published October 25, 2005

Imagine this addition to Chicago's fabled skyline: a futuristic, tweezer-shaped broadcast tower looming 2,000 feet over the lakefront as one of the world's tallest structures.

The digital age may soon bring this sleek, scissors-like conversation piece to the city, within clear view of the tourists at Navy Pier who will either ooh with awe or laugh with disbelief.

To be designed by prominent architect Cesar Pelli, the tower would help redefine Chicago's horizon. Rising above the skyline between the John Hancock Center and the Sears Tower, it would usher in a new era of daring, ultramodern architecture for the city. Another sensation would be a proposed Santiago Calatrava-designed skyscraper shaped like a drill bit.

The $300 million Pelli tower would function as a platform for local television stations to mount their new high-definition broadcasting antennas.

Instead of building a conventional building that reserves roof space for antennas, the developers--J. Paul Beitler and LR Development Co.--are proposing the lower-cost option of a needle-thin, triple-spired tripod. At the top would be several floors for restaurants and an observation deck, and at the base would be a 400-car garage. The tapered space in between would be largely open, except for six large beams connecting the spires.

"It is a very intelligent structure," said Pelli, in a telephone interview from his office in New Haven, Conn. He compared the structure to a ship's mast, saying it will be "a very handsome form next to the water."

The proposed broadcast tower, which would be located along Lake Shore Drive between Illinois Street and Grand Avenue, would jump past the CN Tower in Toronto, which at 1,815 feet holds the title as the world's tallest free-standing broadcast tower.

But comparing tall structures is complicated, so much so that it can seem the height of absurdity.

Not a building

For one, the structure could not lay claim to becoming one of the world's tallest buildings because it isn't technically a building--its structure would not be filled with floors as in a conventional skyscraper.

Currently, the world's tallest building is the 1,671-foot Taipei 101 in Taiwan, but other superstructures are under development.

Among broadcast antennas, the proposed lakefront structure is taller than the CN Tower but would fall short of a guywire-supported radio mast antenna in North Dakota, as well as an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, according to reports.

Beitler, president and chief executive of the Chicago-based real estate firm that bears his name, confirmed the broad outlines of the project, which does not yet have city approval.

"We are not out to have the tallest building in the world, or the tallest anything," Beitler said. "That's simply silly because somebody will come along and build something taller. There have been a lot of tombstones put up for people who proposed the `tallest.' The problem has always been financeability, and we have financing."

The project would be driven by agreements, not yet signed, with local television stations, which are preparing for a shift to exclusively high-definition broadcasting, expected to be required in 2009.

Beitler declined to comment on the status of any talks with broadcasters. Local television stations currently broadcast HDTV and traditional analog broadcast signals from the 1,451-foot Sears Tower in the West Loop and the 1,127-foot John Hancock Center on North Michigan Avenue, where they lease space.

But television executives have long wanted a third option that they would control, and in the late 1990s even floated a proposal for a free-standing antenna mast that would have been located either in the suburbs or on the West Side.

The selling point of the new tower is that high-definition signals need to emanate from the highest, least obstructed point.

Still, the new tower is not a done deal.

Neighbors overwhelmed

In addition to tough negotiations with broadcasters, the latest proposal will likely be an even tougher sell to Streeterville residents, many of whom already feel overwhelmed by new high-rise construction and suffocated by traffic generated by Navy Pier.

The proposed site, which is zoned for a 610-foot structure, is just a few blocks north of a riverfront parcel where another developer has proposed a 115-story condominium/hotel to be designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava that would also soar to 2,000 feet.

As originally proposed in July, the Calatrava tower did not include broadcast facilities. But developer Christopher Carley said he may eventually add broadcast transmission facilities to his project, called Fordham Spire.

"As the time goes on, there is going to be more and more demand for these high antennas, not only high definition," said Carley, chairman of Chicago-based Fordham Co.

He said he has not had any discussions with local broadcasters, and didn't think the newly proposed broadcast tower would affect his project.

Whether the lakefront could accommodate two tall towers so close by would depend on neighborhood residents, who Carley expected would raise several concerns to the broadcast tower.

"It's not the height per se," he said. "It's more traffic, density, blocked views and shadows."

Beitler said the Planning Department has been briefed on the plans.

"I think it would be very dynamic to have two great architects like this put up buildings so close to each other," said Beitler. "I think they are so completely different from each other it would be interesting."

The proposed broadcast tower would be on a 41,000-square-foot site owned by a joint venture that includes LR Development, a Chicago luxury residential firm, and JER Partners, a Virginia investment firm.

Thomas Weeks, president of LR Development, declined comment.

Beitler is a veteran office developer whose projects include the Pelli-designed 181 W. Madison St. and 131 S. Dearborn St. In the late 1980s Beitler and Lee Miglin proposed a "world's tallest" tower for a Loop site, but the deal ended in foreclosure.

Beitler's partner, LR Development, also is co-owner of the site that developer Carley would buy for the Calatrava tower.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2005-10/20149524.jpg

Copyright 2005, Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/)

[Dagrecco82]

I can't be the only person in the NYC area that feels a little jealous. :(

[ablarc]

Chicago re-takes the lead in American skyscrapers.

[Citytect]

Wish the Calatrava and Pelli towers weren't so close together. They're both very interesting and unique towers.

[ablarc]

Wish the Calatrava and Pelli towers weren't so close together.
Yeah.

[LeCom]

I can't be the only person in the NYC area that feels a little jealous. :(
Everyone else just doesn't admit it. It's like penis envy, someone doesn't just go out and say how he wishes his wang was as big as someone else's.

[pianoman11686]

Two articles about the area in Chicago seeing the most new construction:

High-speed high-rises stagger Streeterville

By Kathy Bergen and John Handley
Tribune staff reporters

Published July 17, 2005

Streeterville residents are not a naive bunch.

They moved into their condos and apartments knowing they would share their turf with hordes of tourists bound for Michigan Avenue or Navy Pier or Millennium Park. And they knew that the patchwork of surface parking lots dotting the landscape would eventually give way to more high-rises, and that those new skyscrapers, ranging from 26 to 65 stories, would block some spectacular views.

Still, many are reeling at the sheer volume of high-rise residential development storming their way at the southern end of the neighborhood. Within the next five years, another 13 high-rises will go up in the area wedged between Michigan Avenue and the lake, and Chicago Avenue and the river. That will boost the supply of apartments and condominiums by more than a third, to 12,523 units.

The building boom could bring another 5,250 residents to a neighborhood already housing 13,535, according to some estimates.

"Streeterville had been a totally overlooked sub-market, but now it's hot," said Gail Lissner, vice president of Appraisal Research Counselors.

"The new wave of Streeterville development has started," said Daniel McLean, president of MCL Cos., which already has built three residential high-rises and plans two more. "We're halfway."

The speed of change is making some residents sweat.

"It seems kind of overwhelming," said Deborah Mitchell, a marketing consultant who owns a one-bedroom condo on East Ohio. "The numbers I've heard seem staggering."

The concerns weighing on the neighborhood are many. What will happen to already-congested traffic, to panoramic views, to property values? What will happen to the character of the neighborhood, to the way it feels to walk down the street?

"Most people who live in the area find this a good place to live," said James Houston, president of the Streeterville Organization for Active Residents (SOAR). "Our concern is that if we get excessive density and begin to approach the feel of Midtown Manhattan, we may begin to see a decline in interest in living in this area. I don't think we're there yet, but we need to consider this as development proceeds in the future."

Not everyone wary

"Parking lots are not the best use of space," said Connie Buscemi, a spokeswoman for the city's Department of Planning and Development. "This is a high-density corridor, and people want to live there because there is so much to do."

An increase in residents should spell big business for the stores on North Michigan Avenue. Streeterville residents "shop locally, and that's part of the reason North Michigan Avenue has been a phenomenal success," said John Maxson, president and chief executive of the Greater North Michigan Avenue Association.

The area was zoned for high-rise development 20 years ago, noted Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd).

"We've been struggling to negotiate with developers, on a volunteer basis, to reduce the size and alter the projects," Natarus said. "Also, we've been working with SOAR on their neighborhood plan, which does not have the effect of law but gives ideas on how to change."

The plan urges developers to preserve historic elements, maximize street-level natural light, use architectural screening on above-ground parking, and include landscaped areas in new developments, among other things.

Still, random chats with neighborhood residents indicate many harbor concerns, the biggest ones centering on traffic.

On summer evenings, traffic can gel into gridlock, especially when there are special events in the area, said Stephen Daniels, a legal researcher who owns a condo on East Ohio as a second family home.

On such nights, "traffic-wise, it's almost unbearable," he said. "And with what's on the books, it will only increase."

The city is trying to be proactive on the issue, said Brian Steele, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation.

For instance, the city is considering a $4 million program to coordinate the timing of all traffic signals in Streeterville so they will work in sequences tailored to meet the traffic flow needs at peak times. The program is expected to go into effect next year.

Within Streeterville, there is no room to build new roads or expand existing ones, "so our goal is to manage the capacity we have," Steele said.

The city also works with developers to come up with ways to prevent traffic problems, he said.

Views indefinite

Then there's the issue of views.

Many residents understand that the views they've enjoyed will not last forever.

"If I really wanted a view of the lake, I would have paid for a place with a lake view," Daniels said. "I can't complain because I'm not paying a premium for a view."

Others are less sanguine.

Law student Shaun Raad and his girlfriend, attorney Amanda Feltman, would consider moving from their 35th-floor one-bedroom apartment on East Ohio if a planned development to the east should block their view of Navy Pier, Raad said.

The couple also has grown attached to a small, temporary park about a block from their home, where they take their 10-week-old golden retriever, Wrigley.

"It's beautiful and we've met tons of people here," Raad said as he walked Wrigley through the landscaped patch between Illinois Street and Grand Avenue, near Peshtigo Court.

"We've been told they are going to put up condos here," he said.

In fact, it's something of a neighborhood joke, he said.

"People say, `That's what we need around here. More condos,'" he said. "You can't look around without seeing more condo ads."

Two residential high-rises are planned for the site, but a permanent park will be built between the new buildings, the city said.

The volume of units coming on the market has other residents concerned.

"Basic economics tell you if there is oversupply, it will depress prices," said Mitchell, the marketing consultant who lives on East Ohio. She also is an adjunct marketing professor at the University of Chicago.

Others say there will be sufficient demand since the build-up will be gradual.

"I do not see a glut with new buildings half-empty," said Gail Spreen, who is vice president of the Streeterville residents organization and who sells and rents residential properties in the area.

Boomers drive boom

Real estate analyst Steven Friedman, president of S.B. Friedman Co., said he does not expect prices to drop as a result of the building boom.

"Strong Baby Boomer demographics are underlying the strength of the downtown housing market," he said.

"Boomers are emptying out of the suburbs and moving downtown. They especially want larger and higher-quality units," Friedman said.

The Streeterville organization does have some concerns about aesthetics.

The group is encouraging developers "to create a contiguous feel, from one building to the next and from one block to the next, and to create as much green space as possible," said Spreen, who is chairman of the group's Neighbors Action Task Force, which works with developers.

The group also is advocating for loading docks with adequate space, underground parking, and street-level facades with windows, and in some cases, retail.

"We really don't want this to be like a concrete jungle," said Spreen.

So far, the group has found developers responsive, she said.

"I feel very optimistic," she said. "I think the developers appreciate what a great location this is, and that the projects will be there for the long-term."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2005-07/18521677.jpg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glass and glitz are the new traditions in Streeterville

By John Handley
Tribune staff reporter

Published July 10, 2005

Glass is in. Concrete and brick are out.

Modern is in. Traditional is out.

Those are the guiding lights of Chicago's leading architects who are competing — informally — to design unique skyscrapers for a glitzy new neighborhood.

Their entries in what they hope will be the best of 21st Century residential architecture soon will tower over the south end of Streeterville, the fast developing neighborhood between North Michigan Avenue and Navy Pier.

Suddenly hot, Streeterville will sprout 13 new high-rise condos in the next two years, adding 3,500 residential units.

None of the towers is ordinary. All are contemporary.

Why the switch from the old-style buildings of concrete, brick and stone?

"Developers have discovered that great design actually sells condos," explained David Hovey, president of Optima Inc., an architectural and development firm in Glencoe.

"The surge in contemporary architecture means there is an alternative to bland buildings. It's a breath of fresh air," Hovey added.

Helmut Jahn, internationally known architect of the James R. Thompson Center and the United Airlines terminal at O'Hare International Airport, has designed his first residential high-rise in Chicago for a Streeterville location.

"It will have a total glass and metal skin. No exposed concrete outside. All the balconies are recessed and part of the curtain wall," said Jahn, describing his 41-story condo that will be built at 600 N. Fairbanks Ct. "This building will be different from what you normally see. I call it urbanistically sophisticated."

The building will have a rounded corner at the intersection of Fairbanks and Ohio Street, and one side curves upward from the base.

Jahn noted that there have been complaints about the architecture of some Chicago high-rise condos built in recent years. "In a hot market, you can sell anything. But it's fortunate now that some developers want to do something better," he said.

Gary Rosenberg, president of Urban R2 Development, developer of 600 N. Fairbanks, said it will be "a work of art itself."

Jahn is not as optimistic about all the other residential towers going up in Streeterville. "My expectations are not high. We'll have to wait until they are built."

From residents' perspective, Hovey noted that buildings with floor-to-ceiling glass windows are more livable. "The views are better, and there is more light inside."

"High-rise living is all about the views," said Robert Bistry of Built Form Architects, designer of Avenue East, the 27-story condo to be built at 160 E. Illinois St., directly behind the Intercontinental Hotel at 505 N. Michigan Ave. It will have only three sides with windows.

"Architecturally, Avenue East will be a transition between the classic buildings on Michigan Avenue, including Tribune Tower and the Wrigley Building, and the new high-rises in Streeterville. The east facade will be more glassy than the sides," Bistry said.

"The refreshing, friendly architectural competition in Streeterville is good for the city," he added.

"Most developers want a safe and predictable look, so less interesting architecture has been the result," said David Brininstool, partner in the Chicago architectural firm of Brininstool & Lynch, designer of 550 St. Clair, a 26-story condo to be built at St. Clair and Ohio Streets.

"What's happening now," he said, "is that developers feel architecture has value in the marketplace."

Another force affecting design comes from City Hall. "Mayor Daley didn't like contemporary architecture before. But now he's coming around," said 550 St. Clair developer Mark Sutherland, principal of Sutherland Pearsall Development.

"There has been a definite change in climate at City Hall. Now they are encouraging contemporary design," Brininstool said. "Before, city employees were trying to read the mayor's mind. They thought he wanted red brick and limestone."

"Now is one of the most exciting times in 25 years as an architect. Great work is possible again," Brininstool said.

One key developer looks south for proof of the trend. "Millennium Park was one indication that the city had changed its thinking," said Daniel McLean, president of MCL Cos., builder of three Streeterville condo towers. "Now contemporary architecture is more accepted and main stream. The public has embraced the clean, modern look."

McLean described the look of his latest Streeterville project, Park View, as "soaring glass." Designed by the architectural firm of Solomon Cordwell & Buenz, it will have 47 stories and 270 units and is scheduled to begin in the fourth quarter.

Why is Streeterville emerging as a showcase for modern architecture?

Abe Lincoln started it all. He charged $350 in 1858 for legal work in forming Chicago Dock and Canal Trust, a real estate investment firm that became a major landowner in Streeterville.

Then came "Cap" Streeter, who ran his ship aground in 1886 on a sandbar offshore of what is now Chicago Avenue and Superior Street. He decided to stay and gave the neighborhood its name.

Though just east of Michigan Avenue, south Streeterville has been slow to develop. Gradually, the sea of street-level parking lots and industrial sites is giving way to more residential buildings.

The latest condo explosion will fill in most of the vacant sites.

"Streeterville's time has come," said 550 St. Clair developer Sutherland, who added that his firm is planning another residential project in the neighborhood.

First occupancies at 550 are scheduled for the third quarter of 2007.

He says he doesn't fear the competition of the other new buildings being launched at nearly the same time. "No, the momentum of all the projects will help us," he said.

Real estate analyst Steven Friedman, president of S.B. Friedman Co., explained why Streeterville is suddenly hot. "There's land there." He added that the emergence of Chicago as a leisure destination has helped spark the popularity of city living.

"Streeterville is the only place where there are vacant sites near the lake and river," said Gail Lissner, vice president of Appraisal Research Counselors. And, she foresees no threat to the launching of the Streeterville projects. Despite fears about the overheated housing market nationally, Chicago condo sales and traffic remain strong, according to Lissner.

Not everyone is looking forward to more construction in Streeterville. The panoramic views of some existing residents will be blocked by the new buildings. These residents also fear the Manhattanization of the neighborhood, resulting in high-rise canyons towering over gridlocked traffic.

Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd), who represents the area, stressed that the neighborhood was approved as a high-rise area in the 1980s, when Chicago Dock and Canal plans were approved.

But McLean, a pioneer in Streeterville condos, sees a different outcome:

"This is the most complete downtown neighborhood in the city," he said, adding that the new projects will increase foot traffic on Streeterville's streets and make it a real neighborhood.

"Streeterville has the river, the lake, a new art gallery, sightseeing boat tours, grocery stores, two hotels, a movie theater, dozens of restaurants, a fountain on the river and views of the city's skyline from many buildings."

As cranes start cropping up, it appears that "Cap" Streeter's new neighborhood has set sail, and no sandbars are likely to block its progress.

---

New Streeterville towers

CityFront Plaza: Three towers of 31, 65 and 40 stories. First tower: the Fairbanks, 31 stories; 281 units; prices, mid-$300,000s to $2 million-plus; developer, Centrum Properties Inc.; architect, DeStefano & Partners.

Avenue East: 160 E. Illinois St.; 27 stories; 133 units; prices, mid-$200,000s to $1 million-plus; developer, Residential Homes of America; architect, Built Form Architects.

600 N. Lake Shore Drive: Tower one, 40 stories, 154 units; tower two, 46 stories, 246 units; prices, from high $300,000s to $1.7 million; developer, Belgravia Group; architect, Pappageorge/Haymes.

The Park View: McClurg Court and Illinois Street; 47 stories; 270 units; prices, from $425,900; developer, MCL Cos.; architect, Solomon Cordwell & Buenz & Associates.

Second MCL tower: Peshtigo Court and Grand Avenue.

Two rental towers: 300 block of East Ohio Street; 49 and 51 stories; 481 and 420 apartments, respectively; developer, Golub & Co.; architect, Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates.

550 N. St. Clair: 26 stories, 112 units; prices, high $200,000s to nearly $2 million; developer, Sutherland Pearsall Development; architect, Brininstool & Lynch.

600 N. Fairbanks: 41 stories; 224 units; prices, from $310,000, penthouses, $1.6 million to $1.9 million; developer, Urban R2 Development; architect, Murphy/Jahn Architects.

150 E. Ontario: 51 stories, 160 units; developer, Monaco Development.

Copyright 2005, Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/)

[pianoman11686]

This might be a precursor to what the finished product of the Goldman Sachs tower might look like. Same architect, similar height and shape:

Throwing tradition a curve
The Pritzkers' new Hyatt Center takes the edge off Chicago's relentless right angles

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published July 10, 2005

Because it is Chicago's first post-9/11 skyscraper and its developers include the billionaire Pritzker family, which each year awards architecture's equivalent of the Nobel Prize, the new Hyatt Center office building was bound to attract a high level of scrutiny.

Would the Pritzkers produce a building that lives up to the prize's lofty rhetoric about contributions to humanity through the art of architecture?

Would the skyscraper creatively balance security and openness or would it be a fortress, like the proposed new Freedom Tower at ground zero? That question took on fresh urgency Thursday after a series of explosions ripped through London's subway system and destroyed a double-decker bus, killing at least 37 people.

The suavely curving, 49-story office building, it turns out, is very good, though not the show-stopping aesthetic statement some had hoped for and the Pritzkers themselves had planned before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks prompted them to change their architect and ambitions in midstream.

Designed by Henry Cobb of the New York City firm of Pei Cobb Freed, the Hyatt Center cleverly accepts the constraints of tight budget and security features and, in the manner of a skilled practitioner of judo, turns them to the advantage of the cityscape.

The tower's curving walls of steel and glass lend it a distinct skyline presence, making it seem like a ship cutting through space. But it really excels at ground level, where its curves open its narrow, blocklong site to a small but artfully composed public plaza that has instantly established itself as a serene oasis amid the dense commercial canyon of South Wacker Drive.

Joining with the open space at the bottom of an equally fine new skyscraper across Monroe Street, the 52-story 111 South Wacker Drive, the Hyatt Center forms an elegant, pedestrian-friendly gateway to the Loop.

The design reveals how architects can deftly layer security features into their buildings rather than letting the need to fortify overrun the desire to beautify. And while its curves appear to be a heretical departure from the relentless right angles of Chicago's street grid and skyline, the skyscraper actually fits into the city's vaunted tradition of hard-nosed, but high-quality, commercial design.

Located at 71 S. Wacker, two blocks north of Sears Tower and set to have its ceremonial opening July 19, the Hyatt Center originally was to have been designed by Lord Norman Foster, the Pritzker Prize-winning London architect renowned for his spectacular, ecologically conscious office buildings. It was to be a corporate headquarters with a lavish budget. The design was to make "a special shout," in the words of the Pritzkers' development partner, John W. Higgins, chairman of Higgins Development Partners of Chicago.

Foster's plan called for a rectangular office block linked by bridges to a rectangular core for elevators and other services. A towering atrium would have soared between the offices and the service core.

But on Sept. 12, 2001, Penny Pritzker, president of the Pritzker Realty Group, called Foster and told him the project was dead. The first Gulf War in 1990-91 had had severe economic consequences for the Pritzkers' Hyatt hotel chain, and "we knew this was worse," she said in an interview last week. The prospect of a major downturn in the hotel business made going forward with Foster's ambitious design unthinkable.

In many respects, it is remarkable that the Hyatt Center turned out as well as it did, given what then transpired.

The tower was, in effect, downgraded from a corporate headquarters to a speculative office building that would have to attract tenants and be built on a tight budget and a tight time frame. In response to 9/11, the building's security features were ratcheted up. And a new architect of less starpower was brought on -- Cobb, a distinguished elder statesman whose best-known work is Boston's John Hancock Tower, an abstract, mirror-glass high-rise that seems to disappear into the sky.

Cobb seemed like a conservative choice. Yet his skill would be a decisive factor in making the project a success.

Cobb flew to Chicago and walked the long, rectangular site, which, he quickly realized, would be hemmed in on the north by Helmut Jahn's 1 S. Wacker office building and on the south by the 111 S. Wacker project.

No corner offices

He also read a document, known as a program, that laid out the functional needs of a key prospective tenant, the law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw. Critically, the lawyers weren't demanding corner offices, which inevitably lead to boxy or serrated exteriors.

Cobb jumped on that detail, sketching a plan for a fish-shaped office tower that offered several advantages: It would have no corner offices, offer more expansive views than a conventional box, carve out room for the plaza and be architecturally distinctive. Mayer Brown and the developers bought the idea, though the curving building would cost slightly more than a conventional box.

So did other key tenants, including IBM, Charter One and Goldman Sachs, the global investment banking, securities and investment management firm.

While Cobb already had completed a curving office tower at La Defense in Paris and some wondered whether the Hyatt Center would be a retread, the soundness of Cobb's concept is apparent now that the tower is complete.

The curve is the key to the building's skyline success. Without it, the tower's horizontal bands of stainless steel and glass would be a visual bore. Yet the curve energizes the bands, making them appear to sweep around the tower and making the tower itself seem as if it is steaming forward, like a great ship.

Even though the Hyatt Center is less than half as tall as Sears, it nonetheless has an assertive skyline presence, its ship shape clearly visible from such everyday vantage points as the Kennedy Expressway, the boat cruise on the Chicago River and Grant Park.

Equally important is the way the tower's curves end -- not in a rounded prow but in solid, angled steel-covered walls that suggest the mouth of a fish. Resolutely vertical, these end walls establish a simmering tension with the horizontality of the bands, giving the tower the right dose of Chicago toughness.

In another well-handled detail, window frames are set flush with the facade, avoiding costly projections and enhancing the tower's continuity of line. "Let's face it," says Cobb, "if you're doing a budget building, keep it smooth. What makes it affordable is the fact that it doesn't have relief."

The lone fault is in the surface of the stainless steel, which suffers in some places from the dimpled effect architects call "oil canning."

Obligations of skyscrapers

Cobb often speaks of the social obligations of skyscrapers, saying they should be good citizens, especially as they meet the street. His performance at ground level lives up to that challenge. He and Chicago landscape architect Peter Schaudt have deftly balanced security needs and a desire for openness in the interconnected spaces of the Hyatt Center's public plaza and lobby.

Casual passersby may not realize that the planter boxes in the plaza are designed to keep a car- or truck-bomb away from the building's concrete-encased supporting columns. Yet the boxes do that double duty, an assignment they carry out far more gracefully than a graveyardlike row of bollards.

The free-form curves of the planters sensitively extend the office tower's curving geometry. And the planters offer a good combination of perimeter sitting areas and intimate, circular nichelike spaces. Still, few people seem to be sitting on the bent-grass lawns that fill them.

Inside, Cobb has turned the need for metal detectors to his advantage, shaping an entry sequence that actually improves upon the modernist convention of the wide-open, but spatially undernourished, office building lobby.

Instead, he gives you this eventful sequence: You pass beneath low canopies on the Wacker and Franklin Street ends of the building and arrive in one of a pair of skylit, 50-foot-tall outer lobbies.

From there, if you are an office worker or an approved visitor, you go through a low-ceilinged metal detector area before heading into another expansive space -- the tower's curving inner lobby, which extends the length of the building and is lined with a veil of bamboo trees and bubbling fountains as it leads to the elevators.

While the public isn't allowed to venture into the serene inner lobby, it still gets the visual bonus of an indoor extension of the plaza's green space.

The tower's office floors appear to be attractive work places, an impression confirmed by a Mayer, Brown lawyer who offered the following observations: Lawyers appreciate their new quarters' openness and light-filled quality. Uninterrupted, curving hallways encourage people to interact. Still, the building's curving shape hasn't really eliminated the hierarchy once created by corner offices. Senior lawyers took offices with the prime views, looking northeast toward the skyline and the lake.

In other words, everything at the Hyatt Center is operating normally, or at least as normally as one can expect within the new realities of the post 9/11 world. While Cobb's tower may not set the architectural world on fire, it is nonetheless a distinguished contribution to the Chicago skyline and to the broader culture. Following the unveiling of the fortresslike Freedom Tower, it offers an alternative vision, one in which our fears -- and, thus, our buildings -- remain in proper proportion.

- - -

The Loop gets bold, inviting gateway

The Spanish Revival Wrigley Building and the neo-Gothic Tribune Tower shape a stylish entrance to North Michigan Avenue. Now the Hyatt Center and its equally appealing counterpart across Monroe Street, the new office building known as 111 South Wacker Drive, are putting a fresh spin on this tradition, using the abstract forms of modernism to usher into and out of the Loop commuters who use the nearby train stations.

Even though the two buildings were designed in different manners by different architects for different developers -- and neither team communicated with the other -- they work surprisingly well together. Maybe the late, great Chicago modernist Ludwig Mies van der Rohe had it right when he said, "Build, don't talk."

Designed by Jim Goettsch of the Chicago firm of Lohan Caprile Goettsch and developed by the John Buck Co. of Chicago, the 52-story 111 S. Wacker is a muscular skyscraper that reveals its internal structure rather than concealing it, as the Hyatt Center does. Yet like the Hyatt Center, it makes a civilized, curvaceous clearing at ground level.

The big move is structural: V-shaped diagonal columns, expressed in the facade's lower portions, transfer the building's loads to beefy columns that meet the ground. The spans between these columns measures a jaw-dropping 80 feet, providing a remarkable degree of openness even though the building's footprint occupies nearly the entire site.

An oval-shaped lobby that slips beneath the building's boxy office and parking garage floors adds to the sense of spaciousness. It is wrapped in an extraordinarily transparent wall of cable-supported glass, almost making the distinction between inside and outside disappear. At the Hyatt Center, space flows around the building's curving, shiplike form. Here, space flows right through the lobby.

The visual drama is enhanced by what passersby can glimpse inside -- a stepping, curved ceiling that echoes the contours of a parking garage ramp that passes directly above it. Perhaps the ceiling's accent lights are a bit bright. Yet one can forgive that fault when the lobby is seen in the broader picture of the show that 111 S. Wacker puts on at ground level and the amenities it places there, including granite-clad benches.

111 S. Wacker and the Hyatt Center are as urbanistically responsible as the handsome pair of gateway towers that lead into the Loop at the eastern end of Monroe, the University Club at 76 E. Monroe and the Monroe Building at 104 S. Michigan Ave. Both were designed by Chicago architects Holabird & Roche in the early 20th Century, with complementary Gothic details and gabled roof silhouettes. At Wacker and Monroe, though, the gateway moves are at the bottom, not the top. It makes sense: Put the gateways at the base, right where pedestrians can see (and use) them.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-07/18426708.jpg

Copyright 2005, Chicago Tribune (www.chicagotribune.com)

[pianoman11686]

Several projects from the Chicago-based architectural firm, Solomon Cordwell Buenz (www.scb.com):

340 East Randolph
Chicago, Illinois
In partnership with LR Development, SCB is designing a new multi-family residential condominium building on a parcel of the Lakeshore East development at 340 East Randolph in downtown Chicago. The 62 story clad building will contain approximately 325 units and 430 parking spaces. In addition to the standard amenities for a luxury residential building, this project takes full advantage of the site by offering a 25 yard pool and a 2 ½ story winter garden on the 25th floor overlooking Grant Park and Lake Michigan. Reinforcing a commitment to sustainability, the team is incorporating LEED™ standards into the design to plan for an eventual LEED™ 2.0 certification.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/image%5F340%2D81%2Ejpg

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/northwest%2Ejpg

---

Parkview Towers
Chicago, Illinois
In partnership with MCL Companies, SCB is designing the first phase of two buildings planned for the River East Development in Chicago. This new multi-family residential condominium building is a 48 story glass and copper building is located next to a new public park designed by Hargreaves and Associates. Below the parking is a 900 car parking garage. A second 28 story tower located at the eastern edge of the park will complete this spectacular new community.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/PVW0304%2DE10000%20copy%2Ejpg

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/PVW0304%2DS10000%20copy%2Ejpg

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/PVW0304%2DW10000%20copy%2Ejpg

---

Legacy Tower
Chicago, Illinois
Rising 72 stories above Michigan Avenue, The Legacy will contain 360 luxury condominium units and 460 parking spaces. In addition, the project will integrate 41,000 sf of classroom space for the School of the Art Institute of Chicago into the lower floors. The project will retain the historic facade of Jeweler’s Row on Wabash Avenue.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/110705%2Ejpg

---

The Heritage at Millennium Park
Chicago, Illinois
Anchoring the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street, the Heritage at Millennium Park forms an elegant pivot between the two street walls. The building's stepped form transitions gracefully from the smaller masses on Michigan Avenue to the larger masses of Randolph Street. The project includes 360 condominiums that capitalize on the views toward the new Millennium Park and Lake Michigan. It also contains 90,000sf of retail on the historic Wabash Avenue shopping corridor with restored facades of four historic buildings incorporated respectfully into the new structure.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/heritage%2D41%2Ejpg

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/Street%2Ejpg

---

The Bristol
Chicago, Illinois
Slender and elegant, this 190-unit condominium building rises 42 stories above Chicago’s Gold Coast, just off the Magnificent Mile. SCB's design for the Bristol incorporates a unique double diamond structure that allows each of the six units per floor a corner view. Floor to ceiling windows flood each unit with natural light while providing spectacular cityscape views.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/Golub%2Ejpg

---

The Sterling
Chicago, Illinois
In designing the Sterling, SCB created a building that satisfies the top priority of high-rise apartment dwellers: the view. The building’s northwest and southwest corners are curved, yielding a floor plan that provides the residents with broad, panoramic views over Chicago’s Loop and Downtown. In addition to 389 apartments, the 49-story building includes parking for 609 cars, 37,990 square feet of ground-floor retail space, tennis courts, an outdoor pool, fitness room, and a hospitality room. The Sterling is a modern structure with a “crisp” aesthetic that provides a notable gateway to Chicago’s Loop.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/sterling%2D11%2Ejpg

[pianoman11686]

More from SCB:

50 East Chestnut
Chicago, Illinois
The corner of Rush and Chestnut in Chicago’s Near North neighborhood is the site of 50 East Chestnut, a luxury condominium featuring thirty-two full floor units. The residential units are composed as a slender tower, terminated at the top by two penthouse units and a health club. The tower is articulated as two vertical masses; a glazed, slightly curved form clad in glass, and a more solid form punctuated with windows. Expansive living spaces are organized across the curved south face of the building.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/exterior4%2Ejpg

---

Park Place
Chicago, Illinois
Located on a challenging site in the booming River North neighborhood of Chicago, Park Place's unique form was significantly influenced by the site, which is bounded by the Chicago River to the west, a freeway to the south, and a new city park to the north. SCB designed three different unit types: interlocked 2-story lofted condos that overlook the Chicago River adjacent to the city’s developing Riverwalk; larger two-story lofted units that face the public park; and tower units offering 360-degree views of Chicago’s skyline.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/pp%2D11%2Ejpg

---

345 East Ohio
Chicago, Illinois
Bounded by Ohio Street on the north, McClurg Court on the east, and Grand Avenue on the south, this proposed development is a two phase project consisting of two high rise residential towers with structured parking flanking a central private drive between Ohio Street and Grand Avenue. Ground level of both buildings will contain retail tenants, residential lobbies and auxiliary functions.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/OGM%20Final%2Ejpg

---

Madison West 645
Chicago, Illinois
This multi-use complex is being developed by MR Properties and designed by Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates. The site is prominently located between Madison and Monroe and Des Plaines and I-94. The current design calls for two office buildings totaling 1.2 - 1.5 million square feet with the ability to build in excess of 2.0 million square feet of office, retail, and hotel space. The site is 86,000 square feet and the visibility and views unparalleled in the city. The building is estimated to be completed in 2007.

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/north%5B1%5D%2Ejpg

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/west%2Dfix%2Ejpg

http://63.240.68.122/FirmFiles/95/images/east%2Ejpg

[Fabrizio]

Wow. Don´t all of those residential buildings look like well made, serious architecture? Compare them with the average ticky-tack brick, balconied residential building in Manhattan...

[ablarc]

Wow. Don´t all of those residential buildings look like well made, serious architecture? Compare them with the average ticky-tack brick, balconied residential building in Manhattan...
In renderings the designs look good for background buildings; we'll know if they're well made after they're up.

New Yorkers like balconies and Chicago isn't nearly as in love with brick.

If New York buildings cut corners in construction and detailing, could it be to recover the astronomical cost of just getting a building out of the ground? Those New York years of peliminary dickering and maneuvering seem compressed in Chicago's more development-friendly regulatory process; NIMBYs aren't paid as much heed.

[Fabrizio]

Ok, ok got ya....but I´m just wondering if it´s more about expectations and a higher level of taste?

We are judging from mere renderings....and background buildings they may be .....but better these than a scar on the cityscape.

[ablarc]

...and background buildings they may be .....but better these than a scar on the cityscape.
Amen, bro; our friend Kondylis sets the bar way too low in NYC. Or is it his masters who do that?

[Johnnyboy]

as long as these supertall buildings are being build in america, i am more than happy. I do prefer that they would be build here in NYC but, can't have it all. im sure New york will someday get a 2000 footer. hopefully some time soon.

[Alonzo-ny]

As jealous as i am of the towers their getting chicago as a city is nothing compared to new york as a city. Having seen chicago and lived in NY i can easily say NY is a a million times better than chicago

[antinimby]

Those renderings show office building-type quality, something residentials in NY don't even aspire to. In NY, we mostly get thin, flimsy-looking, exposed floor plates.

Amen, bro; our friend Kondylis sets the bar way too low in NYC. Or is it his masters who do that?Don't think we should put all the blame on Kondylis or any other architects for that matter. Many-a-times, they're just doing what they were asked to: keep designs cheap, simple and conservative. The results are usually just that, bland and boring.

[TLOZ Link5]

We've had many high-quality residentials lately, though. The Helena, the Orion, the Friar's Tower...I think that things are looking up.

[spyguy999]

You're missing a few other talls.

One Museum Park, 62 floors 720 ft
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8066/4011656gq.jpg

29-39 South LaSalle 51 floors, 870 ft

Mandarin Oriental 90 floors, 887 ft (?)

300 North LaSalle 60 floors, 775 ft
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1747/3908442zg.th.jpg (http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3908442zg.jpg)

Cityfront Plaza Tower III 65 floors, 700+ ft

Fourth Presbyterian Church Condo 64 floors, 745 ft
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4278/4thpres9fx.png

65 East Huron 64 floors, 730 ft
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4818/4132971mo.th.jpg (http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4132971mo.jpg)

The Elysian 60 floors, 661 ft - over 700+ ft

[Johnnyboy]

wow. all of this makes me feel thats NYC is getting behind on skyscraper building

[spyguy999]

A few updates:

29-39 S. LaSalle (Hopefully will fail)
870 ft, 51 floors

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/7319/2939southlasalle0nx5xi.jpg

Mandarin Oriental Chicago
930 ft, 69 floors
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/4554/mandarin1mq2np.jpg


Aqua
823 ft, 83 floors

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/3873/aqua6ne9bf.jpg

351 North Clark
631 ft, 42 floors

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/3194/351northclark8ad5vc.jpg

One Museum Park West
620 ft (currently), 54 floors

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/8002/onemuseumparkwest0kr5ye.jpg

[ablarc]

Aqua is amazing. Not sure it'll be good for the townscape, however.

[BVictor1]

Here are a few other highrises which are now under construction here in Chicago.

And what makes nyone think that Chicagoans don't like balconies? The majority of the residential highrises under construction now have balconies.

Trump Tower Chicago
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/554/6324trump_chicago.jpg

Waterview Tower
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/554/6324waterview_tower.jpg

600 North Lake Shore Drive
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/554/6324600_north_lsd.jpg

600 North Fairanks
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/554/6324600_north_fairbanks.jpg

MoMo/Joffrey Tower
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/554/6324momo.jpg

30 West Oak
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/554/632430_west_oak.jpg

Every building pictured above is in one stage or another of construction.

[spyguy999]

Two interesting towers

18th-Prairie Towers
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5011/4472081hx.jpg

I also like Silver Tower
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/9932/6324silvertower8fo.jpg

And 3660 LSD
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3165/63243660northlsd8dr.jpg

[czsz]

Damn you Chicago for having somewhat decent architecture! What enables it? Lower land prices?

[JMGarcia]

Damn you Chicago for having somewhat decent architecture! What enables it? Lower land prices?

Lack of Community Boards full of political hacks and reactionaries.

Well, that, and a much easier design and approval process.

Well, that too, and a market where developers still have to do something a little better to be competetive.

[TomAuch]

Isn't Chicago more "skyscraper-friendly" because of less strict zoning laws than New York?

[spyguy999]

Damn you Chicago for having somewhat decent architecture! What enables it? Lower land prices?
Perhaps. I don't really know the answer to your question, but take a look at Emporis. There was certainly a TON of garbage residential buildings from ~2000-2005. Chicago only got a few good residential buildings and some nifty office buildings out of that early boom. The height and quality now far exceed the expectations most of us had years ago.

I also think a lot of people have the wrong idea about Chicago. There are plenty of NIMBYs out there, it is just that the city doesn't pay any attention to them when buildings are right on the river or already dense areas. But NIMBYs have certainly killed off a few talls, a few 30 story buildings, and have downzoned entire areas where high density would make sense in future with transportation expansions.

[spyguy999]

Museum Park's together
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/676/omp1jb.jpg

18th and Prairie
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/8889/4572469jd.jpg

5440 Sheridan
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/8342/5440sheridan7lo7vs.jpg

Clark & Illinois
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/8417/clarkillinois2zt0vg.jpg

351 N Clark base
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/7630/321nclark20dr8fw.jpg

SoNo
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/160/sono4wo0gq.jpg

Lexington Park
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/844/lexingtonpark63qv0ra.jpg

[stache]

Many years ago Chicago realized that they could never hope to compete with NY re/ sheer volume or cultural expression, so they turned to quality architecture to get noticed.

[Jake]

I like Chicago's arcitecture so much more than what NY has proposed now, I like innovative but still "classical" skyscrapers much more than the plain weird stuff (Gehry) that is underway here.

Now don't get me wrong, I like original designs but every one of Chicago's buildings is just "wow, that's tall" and none of them are "wtf is that supposed to be?" like many are in NY.

[antinimby]

...and none of them are "wtf is that supposed to be?" like many are in NY.You mean like this one:

517 W. 42nd St.
http://i2.tinypic.com/ouw2ee.jpg

[Fabrizio]

^^^I think this is by now NYWired´s official ugliest building for 2006.

[pianoman11686]

^Maybe even of the entire decade. Putting that aside though, I don't find Chicago's architecture to be that enthralling. With the exception of 18th & Prairie, none of those residentials are any better than what you'd find going up in Manhattan these days. Standard boxy shapes, glass, balconies...and some of them may look taller, yes, but a lot of times that's just because there are no tall buildings in the immediate surroundings. I'll admit, Chicago has some great projects going up - Trump, Waterview, Fordham (although I think that last one may suffer the same fate as 80 South) - but as far as overall quality of design, I'm not overly impressed. Especially now that a lot of us forumers agree the bar for average residential design has been lifted in New York. And, one more thing to keep in mind: This is a forum about New York. We see literally everything that's going up in Manhattan these days, now matter how small or big, ugly or striking, cheap or luxe. With only a few people posting Chicago projects, it's more likely we're seeing the upper echelons of new construction there anyway.

[STR]

^The worst thing put up here over the past few years has to be the Gateway Plaza towers. This is the taller of the two buildings, the other is a shorter but otherwise identical buildings

http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/chicago113.jpg

[spyguy999]

Please STR, don't scare us like that.;) Only thing good about Grand Plaza was the amount of retail they crammed into the base.

I'll admit, Chicago has some great projects going up - Trump, Waterview, Fordham (although I think that last one may suffer the same fate as 80 South)

Why the hesitation? It's still far from being built, but all the news has been fairly good.

With only a few people posting Chicago projects, it's more likely we're seeing the upper echelons of new construction there anyway.
You're somewhat right. This isn't a compilation of all projects so I wouldn't bother to bore anyone with the worst proposals. But many of the projects I did post are not highly publicized, and some of them (like Lexington Park above) are being proposed in places we never thought would be possible.


Here's a sampling of good, bad, and average buildings (under construction and proposed)

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5330/6324leftbankapartments3xe.jpghttp://img518.imageshack.us/img518/2620/4101516ec.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4793/6324451huron5mq.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5664/63241620southmichigan8sh.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3023/flairtower6zi8rm.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/2964/6324azuretower2fo.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/112/6324granvillebroadwaycondos8vl.jpghttp://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9265/6324trio4vh.jpg

You can tell me which ones you like and don't like :D

[Alonzo-ny]

You mean like this one:

517 W. 42nd St.
http://i2.tinypic.com/ouw2ee.jpg

Oh my god

[ASchwarz]

Chicago has some good stuff going up but the problem is the huge parking podiums. In almost all the new towers the lowest third of the building is a giant parking garage.

This seriously compromises the new buildings at street level, though it actually enhances the skyline as it makes the buildings taller than they would be if the parking were put underground.

My sister lives in River North. There are some gigantic parking garages at street level, though the upper portions of the towers are often rather attractive.

[Thethinkingman]

Chicago why do you do this to us? I'm so jealous of Chicago. They have some exciting new buildings out there. Right now there are only a handful of NYC projects that could really rival Chicago's in the design department. I've said so many times that I want to move out there and some day I will.

[ASchwarz]

Chicago why do you do this to us? I'm so jealous of Chicago. They have some exciting new buildings out there. Right now there are only a handful of NYC projects that could really rival Chicago's in the design department. I've said so many times that I want to move out there and some day I will.

Design is obviously subjective but there are far more projects by starchitects and other big-deal types in NYC than in Chicago. The ratio is probably like 10-to-1. Pretty much every "name" architect has a couple projects brewing in NYC.

It's hard for me to make a comparison because you have a difference of scale. Both cities have tons of good stuff and tons of crap. NYC has about 3x the construction of Chicago so it has lots more good and bad.

If you do move out there, understand that NYC and Chicago are completely different. Both great cities but not at all comparable.

[pianoman11686]

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5664/63241620southmichigan8sh.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3023/flairtower6zi8rm.jpg


You can tell me which ones you like and don't like :D

Honestly I only like these two. All the others are average-looking, even subpar.

[STR]

Design is obviously subjective but there are far more projects by starchitects and other big-deal types in NYC than in Chicago. The ratio is probably like 10-to-1. Pretty much every "name" architect has a couple projects brewing in NYC.
Who gives a @#$% what the name is? You can get quality stuff from no names (Teng's Waterview, Gang's Aqua) yet get absolute crap from famous architect's (Ghery's bandshell).

"The name" is, has been and will always be more hype than substance.

[MidtownGuy]

I agree, and that goes for every single creative profession in existence.
From fashion to music to architecture. The truly great ones toil in anonymity.
For every crappy, no-talent hack like Britney Spears, there are 5 genius musicians who will never get a contract.
For every overblown, idiotic and hugely successful Hollywood movie, there are 5 independent films that outclass it.

The armies of merchandisers, PR goons, salespeople, "journalists", "critics"(oh Jesus, I hate that term), and "experts"(even worse) are the culprits.. Basically, people with no creative talent of their own. Artists of the world, UNITE!!

My morning rant is officially over now. Bye, I'm off to consume and experience more crap!

[ASchwarz]

Who gives a @#$% what the name is? You can get quality stuff from no names (Teng's Waterview, Gang's Aqua) yet get absolute crap from famous architect's (Ghery's bandshell).

"The name" is, has been and will always be more hype than substance.

Fair point. This is all subjective and its probably best to consider design on a case-by-case basis rather than fawning over starchitects.

I would however argue that most "name" architects are famous for a reason...

[Thethinkingman]

Design is obviously subjective but there are far more projects by starchitects and other big-deal types in NYC than in Chicago. The ratio is probably like 10-to-1. Pretty much every "name" architect has a couple projects brewing in NYC.

It's hard for me to make a comparison because you have a difference of scale. Both cities have tons of good stuff and tons of crap. NYC has about 3x the construction of Chicago so it has lots more good and bad.

If you do move out there, understand that NYC and Chicago are completely different. Both great cities but not at all comparable.
I was only kidding about moving, lol. I see your point, but just because there are more "name" architects doesn't really mean much to me. Just like STR said, they've been on a slump.

[STR]

I would however argue that most "name" architects are famous for a reason...
Yes, there are two reasons:
1) Hype. From the usual "experts" and know-nothing art-farts*
2) Politics. The big names know how to play the game.

That's not to say the big names are bad, most of them are competent, but few are great and even fewer are as good as the hype makes them out to be.

*=The type of people who go around using large pretentious words to sound superior, but never make their own judgement on artists and only follow who's popular at the time.

[pianoman11686]

While the two reasons you give might very well hold true, I think ASchwarz was referring more to the fact that early on in their careers, when they were unknowns, these starchitects must have designed some incredible buildings to gain recognition and appeal, and henceforth used their celebrity status to their advantage, which is only to be expected.

[spyguy999]

Honestly I only like these two. All the others are average-looking, even subpar.

Well that was sort of the point. I tried posting a mix of crap and decent, and as you said, the rest were average looking, which is why I wouldn't really post them here.

But also it's revealing in that although I agree with your first choice, I think the second is one of the weakest designs currently out there and I thought a few others in my post were better.

[spyguy999]

A few new ones:

Park Kingsbury
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/05/460071.jpg

535 St. Clair
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4069/535stclair25uh.jpg

28 West St. James Place
http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/8468/stjames2qp.jpg

[ablarc]

For every crappy, no-talent hack like Britney Spears, there are 5 genius musicians who will never get a contract.
Thinking of Britney Spears as a musician is like regarding Halle Berry as an actress. They're both very good at what they do, and that is looking good, selling tickets, and turning folks on in a compatible context (a stage with musicians, a movie with action heroes, magazine covers).

.

[lofter1]

Bad move to compare a manufactured no talent like BS (funny that, eh?) with the very accomplished Miss Halle Berry, who has shown quite a bit of range with her work from "Monsters Ball" to "The Dorothy Dandridge Story" -- and survived a lot of schlocky Hollywood blockbusters in between (and making quite a nice piece of change for her employers at the same time).

[spyguy999]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062400509.html

Skyscraper Projects Booming in Chicago

By DON BABWIN
The Associated Press
Saturday, June 24, 2006; 7:47 PM

In this city where the skyscraper was born, it is being reborn.

Luxury condominium towers and office buildings that climb 600 feet and more are sprouting up all over downtown. Along the Chicago River, the Trump International Hotel and Tower is inching its way up to a planned 92 stories.

Plans are in the works for a nearby 124-story skyscraper, the Fordham Spire, that would knock the Sears Tower from its perch as the tallest building in the United States.

Since 2000, no fewer than 40 buildings at least 50 stories high have been built, are under construction or are being planned. It's a surge in high-rise construction that hasn't been seen here since the 1960s and 1970s when the Sears Tower, John Hancock Center and other buildings helped give the city one of the most distinctive skylines in the world.

And while there is a flurry of high-rise construction elsewhere in the United States, particularly in New York, Miami and Las Vegas, the tallest of the tall are going up in Chicago. Of the three tallest buildings under construction, two are here, according to Emporis, an independent research group that catalogues high rise construction around the world.

"Out my window there are two, three, four, five new high-rises under construction or just completed in the last year and a half, and they've just announced another 80-story building," said Jim Fenters, who has lived on the 51st floor of a 54-story building overlooking Grant Park since 1979. "It's just remarkable what's happened here."

Projects that would be headline news in other cities go all but unnoticed.

"The Waterview Tower, that project is 1,047 feet, taller than the Chrysler Building," Blair Kamin, the Chicago Tribune's Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic, said of one building under construction. "In any other city there would be endless conversations, (but) here a 1,000-foot tower is `Ho-hum, how are the Cubs doing?'"

One factor that has fed the construction frenzy is the attitude at City Hall.

Chris Carley, developer of the Fordham Spire, remembers the time several years ago when proposals for high-rises would prompt city officials to ask about knocking off 10 or more floors.

Today, the official attitude is reversed.

"I remember at least two (planning and development) staff members saying `Can't you make it taller? We really would like it taller,'" Chicago architect David Haymes says about discussions with the city for a planned condominium tower.

The change makes sense, says planning commissioner Lori Healey. In exchange for allowing developers to go higher _ where they get eyepopping views that allow them to charge huge price tags _ the city gets buildings that are a lot smaller at their base, allowing more open space and light than in cities crammed with shorter, wider buildings.

That's not to say there aren't concerns, particularly since these projects will cast long shadows.

"The jury's out on whether (the building) will overwhelm landmarks like the Wrigley Building and overwhelm the river," Kamin said. "People are concerned."

Still, more than a century after the world's first skyscraper _ the nine-story Home Insurance Building _ went up in 1885, Chicagoans remain enamored with tall buildings.

"Chicagoans live and breathe high-rises both within the profession and within the city," said David Scott, chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, an international nonprofit organization based in Chicago.

Another reason for the surge in construction is that cities are becoming increasingly popular places to live among people with a lot of money _ the same population that fled to the suburbs decades ago.

Geography also plays a role. Unlike some other cities, Chicago has huge chunks of land, much of it near Lake Michigan, the Chicago River or parks.

"We offer unobstructed views, basically forever, of the park and the lake," said Bob O'Neill, president of the Grant Park Conservancy.

And some residents like Fenders say the view is getting even better. From his window, he can see Millennium Park's band shell designed by architect Frank Gehry, the spot where Renzo Piano's new wing at the Art Institute of Chicago is being built and the planned site of the Santiago Calatrava-designed Fordham Spire.

"These are three of the most famous architects in the world, and their (projects) are right here," he said.

[spyguy999]

617-627 West Division
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/7011/4683984xd.jpg

aloft Hotel (?)
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7626/grec1a7dd.jpg

The Streeter II - 570 ft
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/1685/4668390vl.jpg

An animation of the booming South Loop (mainly Central Station is visible)
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2708/centralstation0cz.gif

[ablarc]

...the very accomplished Miss Halle Berry, who has shown quite a bit of range with her work from "Monsters Ball" to "The Dorothy Dandridge Story" -- and survived a lot of schlocky Hollywood blockbusters in between (and making quite a nice piece of change for her employers at the same time).
Looks like she got you, lofter. ;)

[spyguy999]

Park Michigan (830 S Michigan) - 866 ft/ 80 floors


http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8536/4696879fi.jpg


Another somewhat mysterious project unveiled this week. The community meeting went well with large support from the crowd as well as the alderwoman. One of the more pathetic NIMBY leaders who came out to speak was heckled and told to shut up and sit down. All in all a great night. This building, if built, would have an enormous effect on the city skyline.

[pianoman11686]

No kidding. Talk about towering over your neighbors.

[krulltime]

The community meeting went well with large support from the crowd as well as the alderwoman. One of the more pathetic NIMBY leaders who came out to speak was heckled and told to shut up and sit down. All in all a great night.

Now that will never happend in this city.

I am glad Chicago will get a new supertall. The building looks great.

[antinimby]

Here, just the opposite would happen. The pro-development person would be told to shut up and get the hell outta there.

[lesterp4]

I have family in Chicago. When I visit the people there are very proud of their architecture and really embrace "the bigger the better". I think they feel if the developer owns the land that he has the right to build as big as he wants. Chicago does not have community boards like New York. The mayor and city council are pro development. I think it is absurd that here the boards feel they are entitled to dictate what the developer can build. This is almost anti capitalism. People don't have a " right" to views and dirt cheap apartments at the expense of everyone else. There is a housing shortage and every time something is proposed the boards scream bloody murder and try to prevent anything from being built and thus the shortage only gets worse and the prices keep going up.

[ablarc]

^ Maybe this helps explain why Chicago's skyline rivals New York's --though Chicago is a much smaller city.

[OmegaNYC]

Chicagoians are very proud of their skyline. They love the fact that the very first true skyscrapers, and some of the tallest buildings in the world, are in their hometown. I love that attitude. Think BIG!!!!!! :D

[krulltime]

^ Sometime ago, New Yorkers were proud of their ever changing skyline. Oh well... now they think SMALL!!! http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/sad0020.gif

[spyguy999]

I probably should have explained that this guy had it coming. People only started yelling after he veered off-topic and spoke about his crusade against a 30 story building. He was stupid enough to buy a unit (or more) in a building next to a lot that they didn't control in the hottest part of the city and actually believed people would care if he lost his views. And so he started picketing the sales center and never told people about a secret meeting he had where he rejected a compromise deal. So he has basically embarrassed the tenants of that building in the neighborhood and turned off a lot of would-be NIMBYs because of his behavior.

He's really doing a service to us, however. :D

[pianoman11686]

^ Maybe this helps explain why Chicago's skyline rivals New York's --though Chicago is a much smaller city.

It's incredible how much smaller and less dense the skyline is in Chicago. I recently saw aerial shots of both cities, and the difference was astounding. I'll try to get them posted at some point, assuming I can find them again.

[lesterp4]

Unlike New York, there is lots of vacant land near the downtown area and tons of parking lots and small buildings that the owners hope will get bought and hardly anyone to fight the plans since the plots are generally a few blocks from the lake where there is the greatest residential concentration. Very few people are going to lose the views even with these massive buildings, so most people don't care.

[pianoman11686]

Funny you should mention that in Chicago, the valuable views are of the lake. In New York, while views of the river are nice, people seem to pay much more for inward-looking views - of Central Park, and of the skyline.

[spyguy999]

It's incredible how much smaller and less dense the skyline is in Chicago. I recently saw aerial shots of both cities, and the difference was astounding. I'll try to get them posted at some point, assuming I can find them again.
Yeah, it's definitely very different. Also, land prices do not always warrant the need for highrises, thus why the skyline basically hugs the lake up to Evanston. Only in a place like Lincoln Park or Lakeview have the prices gotten to the point where developers would put up a highrise on whatever lots are left.

There was a nice pano someone did that should a good deal of the skyline going up north. Hopefully I'll find it.

[pianoman11686]

Here are the aerials. Found them at Skyscraper City (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=134529&page=1)

Chicago:

http://fotot.jarvenpaa.net/arkisto/web/0000000090.jpg

New York:

http://img71.exs.cx/img71/1903/Newyorkbig.jpg

http://vm.uconn.edu/~pbaldwin/nyc2000.jpg

And just for kicks, Sao Paulo:

http://img71.exs.cx/img71/351/spbig.jpg

There are a few other amazing ones on there, if anyone's interested.

[antinimby]

^ That's every New York NIMBYs' worst nightmare.

We should all kick in to help pay for Andrew Berman's one-way plane ticket to Sao Paulo. :D

[spyguy999]

http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/1857/cimg000619gh.jpg
http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/5011/93825947d03f7b23fco9en.jpg

[pianoman11686]

^ That's every New York NIMBYs' worst nightmare.

We should all kick in to help pay for Andrew Berman's one-way plane ticket to Sao Paulo. :D

Yeah, if you wanna talk about horrible architecture and boring buildings, don't even start with New York. All these cities - Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Beijing - have endless vistas of blank walls and overall depressing architecture.

[ablarc]

Yeah, if you wanna talk about horrible architecture and boring buildings, don't even start with New York. All these cities - Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Beijing - have endless vistas of blank walls and overall depressing architecture.
Buenos Aires is a lot better than Sao Paulo.

[pianoman11686]

Spyguy: If there's one advantage Chicago's got over New York, it's that coastline. Beautiful shot! Although the skyline itself looks even less substantial there...


Ablarc: I'll take your word for it. I've heard that some of Buenos Aires' more recent development has been fairly high quality architecture. But this pic doesn't seem to do it justice. Bleak is the word that comes to mind. Maybe it's the lack of green/open space (with the exception of that gigantic thoroughfare that seems to slice the city into two parts):

http://chansen.home.cern.ch/chansen/AMERICA/ARGENTINA/ba5.jpg

[OmegaNYC]

I think the reason why NYC has a better skyline than Chicago, is because the fact that NYC (or Manhattan for that matter) is nothing but an island. Where as NYC is 5 boroughs that are either on an island or part of one, Chicago is just a vast city sprawled over 225 sq miles. So the population density isn't going to be that high, unless you're in the Loop. Where as Manhattan, is forced to build high, there is no where to go, but up. The city has only about 20 some sq miles, with over 1.5 million people living there (and that's not counting tourist, or people who work in the city). That is why Manhattan is an island of man-made mountains. We can all agree that Los Angeles has almost NO skyline to speak of. That's because of the fact that city is spread out over so many sq miles (I think it's over 460, in terms of land). Why would LA waste time building higher and higher when they don't have to? So, NYC will always be the king when it comes to a skyline. Though I think cities can compete with New York when it comes individual skyscrapers.

[cfrobel]

Where as NYC is 5 boroughs that are either on an island or part of one

The Bronx?

[ablarc]

^ The island's called North America.

[OmegaNYC]

lol. You guys know what I mean. :D

[ablarc]

lol. You guys know what I mean. :D
Yeah, I guess so. ;)

Actually, before 1914 the name of the island would have been just "America." :D

North and South hadn't yet been separated by water.

[Deadlychipmunks]

I think some people are getting confused between "bigger" and "better".

I'm an unabashed and very biased Chicagoan. Lived here all my life. I've been to New York on trips. Each city is great in its own way: New York is filled with a certain buzz that you just don't get in any other city in America. There's just so many people doing so many things that you can't help but feel excited. Chicago is a more laid-back town, a town where the people work hard and have a lot of fun when they're done. Now because I said Chicago is more laid-back doesn't mean its boring; anything you can do in New York, you can do in Chicago too.

As for the skylines, New York's is, always has been, and probably always will be bigger than Chicago's. The density imposed on the population by Manhattan Island will ensure that there will always be a need for skyscrapers. Chicago on the other hand is blessed (cursed) with nothing but wide, flat, rolling plains for a thousand miles in every direction. That being said, I think Chicago's skyline is better. Chicago's skyline is greater than the sum of its parts. Each building complements the other and leads to a harmonization that just isn't present in New York. Manhattan's skyline has a collection of very impressive pieces of architecture, but in the end, they all just blend together to form a big collection of skyscrapers: it's impressive, but it isn't beautiful. In addition, Chicago has an abundance of parks leading to great views from some islands in the heart of the city. New York is just one unending building after another, to the point where you sometimes feel you just need a break from it.

[TREPYE]

New York is just one unending building after another, to the point where you sometimes feel you just need a break from it.

I don't know that you are making an informed judgment by saying that the NYC skyline has no break.

If you have ever seen the NYC Skyline from the east or the west it has various peaks and valleys. Specially from the east you can see at least 4 different peaks. You have the downtown skyscrapers, then midtown skyscrapers of course, separated by the low lands of smaller buildings then on the periphery separated by the rivers you have downtown Brooklyn skyscrapers and Jersey city skyscrapers. And eventually a fifth one is sprouting in Queens very soon.

[TREPYE]

I must say, the aqua tower in Chicago is just totally awesome. The facade is really one of the most imaginative pieces of work I have ever seen in a scraper; check out how the balconies were worked into the facade waves. Pure imagination. So freaking cool.

(I took these pics from Chicago and STR posts on skyscraper page.com)

http://images1.snapfish.com/3475%3A%3C%3B92%7Ffp33%3B%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492% 3EWSNRCG%3D3233944292%3B95nu0mrj

http://www.loewenberg.com/images/pop_hirise/popup_aqua_05.jpg http://www.loewenberg.com/images/pop_hirise/popup_aqua_04.jpg http://www.loewenberg.com/images/pop_hirise/popup_aqua_03.jpg

...and here in NYC we end up with crap like the Orion :(

[malec]

What I love about the Aqua tower is that not much needs to be done in order to make it look like this. It seems like a cost-effective way of making a great design, just change the balconies a little and there you have it :)

[lesterp4]

I think this building is grogeous. If someone proposed this in NY they (community boards) would complain about the height and that the design didn't fit in with the rest of the skyline.

[pianoman11686]

It's a box with wavy balcony designs. Big deal. The Absolute Condo in Mississaugu, Ontario, is much more interesting:

http://www.absolutecondos.com/images/AbsoluteCondos_1.jpg

[STR]

The big deal is that Aqua has just passed the 70% sold mark. That Canada thing is still a gleam in a developers eyes.

[TREPYE]

Also, the big deal is that it is a beautiful example of how aesthetic form follows function. In this case the use of a component of a condo (balconies) was used to enhanced its design (waves).

[pianoman11686]

Like I said, it's a box with some wavy balcony designs. It's a nice idea, but it remains to be seen what the effect will be like in person. And so what if it's already 70% sold? The Absolute Tower's design was only finalized about three and a half months ago, and they haven't even completed thorough sketches yet. Nonetheless, it's already generated a lot of international attention because of its unique design, and will instantly create a new landmark for Mississauga and for Canada. Another rendering:

http://www.yankodesign.com/images/Design_News/2006/April_3/absolute_design.jpg

[OmegaNYC]

Like I said, it's a box with some wavy balcony designs. It's a nice idea, but it remains to be seen what the effect will be like in person. And so what if it's already 70% sold? The Absolute Tower's design was only finalized about three and a half months ago, and they haven't even completed thorough sketches yet. Nonetheless, it's already generated a lot of international attention because of its unique design, and will instantly create a new landmark for Mississauga and for Canada. Another rendering:

http://www.yankodesign.com/images/Design_News/2006/April_3/absolute_design.jpg

OMG. I want one.... That is beautiful!

[ablarc]

Fad.

[STR]

Like I said, it's a box with some wavy balcony designs. And so what if it's already 70% sold?

"So what" is that it has financing and will be built. Why? Low cost box form, which maximizes space and minimizes cost, plus the addition of curved balconies which add a unique and creative touch. That Toronto tower has to deal with a whole host of engineering issues that raise cost, lengthen schedule, and narrow the potential buyers to the top tier. It may not even get built because of that.

In case you're still not able to grasp the difference, Aqua represents a very good solution to creating beutiful and interesting residential buildings when margin or market don't allow for crazy-ass designs. Architecture for the masses.

[ablarc]

^ STR's got it right, I think.

[kz1000ps]

Fad.

I agree with your sentiments on this tower and your comments in response to STR's thoughts on "Aqua." But this makes me wonder what will we be getting from tomorrow-year's market -- will we see more and more Absolute Towers and other "iconic" Starchitect shock-value buildings that require complex, costly engineering, or will bottom line boxes (with a few "contemporary" frills thown in) still rule the landscape?

Now of course this isn't something that can be answered today here and now. This is one of those catch-22s with architecture and urban planning -- there's a built-in "wait 25 years and then judge" dimension to things that muddies our current perspective. But I can't help but view today's starchitect as tomorrow's "what the hell," and this almost makes me appreciate the typical developer's answer to issues that much more.

All these new towers that make their raison d'etre out of wierd shapes that seemingly defy gravity and nature will only look more and more awkward as time passes. Good for us that we have computers to create complex buildings, but a structure with a solid base will always speak to us more directly than something that has a 174 ft cantilever, or whatever the latest technology can support...

[Laharl]

Wow, these bulidings are really exciting and tall. o.0
Of course, there are some nice projects in NYC, too, but they are not so adventurous. :/
Go, NYC, go! *g*

[Citytect]

I guess no architectural portfolio is complete without a twisting tower design.

The twist has become tiresome.

[spyguy999]

This one has been in the works for a while, but it was never known when it might happen.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield HQ building next to Aon was finished in '97 at 411 ft with 32 floors. The architects designed the building so that it could be expanded when the company needed more office space.

Well yesterday BC-BS announced that they will exercise that option and build an additional 25 floors to make the building 57 stories and 743 feet tall. I'm not sure if this has ever been attempted before, or at least at this size.

Existing structure:
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2574/bcbsweb1hu1.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/31/bcbsweb2vz6.jpg


Future building with extension:
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/9717/bcbsfz2.jpg

[lofter1]

That ^^ works well -- at least in the drawing.

[STR]

^Keep in mind that there will be a lot of buildings right behind it. It won't just be that one row of highrises on Randolf St as shown. Aqua should be just to the left of Blue Cross.

[ablarc]

Tombstones. Way too wide. It was OK as long as it was just the Prudential, and Aon at least got the proportions right.

Blue Cross is just plain overbearing. Reminds me of some of the scale-busting monstrosities in Lower Manhattan where East River meets the harbor. Thumbs down.

[OmegaNYC]

I like it, it's something new. Thumbs up from me. :)

[pianoman11686]

Tombstones. Way too wide.

The building that's receiving the addition starts out with horrible proportions. It's amazing how even with such a dramatic increase in height, it still looks too wide.

[Bob]

Doesn't surprise me that a building could be designed outright to be expandable. In my hometown of Meriden, CT, the Central Bank for Savings built a new headquarters building in 1969 with just such a feature. Built at 3 stories, it was designed to accommodate 2 additional floors if needed. Of course, the two extra floors were never built, but the building -- now some 37 years old (wow -- was 1969 that long ago?) is still ready to take it on.

[spyguy999]

155 N. Wacker
50 floors - ~600-700 feet
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/7264/155nwackerch0.gif

[OmegaNYC]

Marv: Modern cars - they all look like electric shavers.<<< Sin City.


I guess that work for buildings, too.

[BVictor1]

X/O Condominiums

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/09/485562.jpg

[spyguy999]

New 50 story tower - condos + Graves Hotel (200 rooms)
741' (without steel mast)
http://www.newcityskyline.com/lastscanC_op_247x600.jpg
Image via newcityskyline.com

[spyguy999]

^^560 North Fairbanks is actually 787 feet with the mast
Scanned image:
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/9930/560fairbanksxz7.jpg

[lofter1]

A Windy Wal-Mart

nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/opinion/29urrea.html)
By LUIS ALBERTO URREA
October 29, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor

Naperville, Ill.

To some Chicago residents, it was surprising that America’s third-largest city managed for so long to bar Wal-Mart from establishing a foothold inside city limits. What are we, Aspen? The corporation’s stores have crept up on us in the suburbs, but the Big Onion conspired to keep them out there. Until now.

Amid protests of lawmakers, fair-wage advocates, community small-business representatives and even environmentalists, Wal-Mart opened a 142,000-square-foot monster on the West Side last month.

The city council thought it had stopped the store, and its inevitable siblings, by putting an ordinance in place in July that barred stores that don’t pay a “living wage” and offer acceptable benefits. Mayor Richard Daley, however, is a restless kind of visionary, impatient with obstructionists. Arguing against sending jobs, services and a juicy tax base to the suburbs, he vetoed the ordinance and gave his potent blessing to the new store’s arrival.

Critics made it sound as if Godzilla had arrived on West North Avenue, looking to flatten the West Side as if it were Tokyo. The reception on the street, though, was more enthusiastic: 15,000 people lined up to try to snag one of the 400 available jobs at the store. (This was actually not a record: the largest turnout of job-seekers in Wal-Mart’s history involved 25,000 potential employees vying for 325 available jobs. Mayor Daley couldn’t have missed this event — it happened in the Chicago suburb of Evergreen Park in January.)

No mere store can cure a city’s ills. Nor can it address all the issues of a community that has historically been ignored and underserved. But Wal-Mart knows its target shoppers: the new store is aimed directly at local African-American and Latino residents.

Wal-Mart has made the store family-friendly, giving it a spacious, light aspect. The aisles have been made wider than the usual Wal-Mart aisles, affording room for large families that make their way in clusters. The store’s manager says that 98 percent of the employees are from the wards surrounding the store. And Reuters reported this amazing fact: the new store has an enhanced fishing section that features special tackle needed to catch catfish, since “Chicagoans like to go for catfish.”

The critics’ worries about the corporation’s reputation for annihilating mom-and-pop stores are sincere. In Chi, we love our local businesses no matter what size; witness the wave of mourning that overtook us when Macy’s bought out Marshall Field’s last year. But Wal-Mart seems to understand our affection for local ties. The food court, for example, instead of featuring the national fast-food counter found in other stores, has a decidedly West Side vendor in place: Uncle Remus Saucy Fried Chicken.

Among Mayor Daley’s many goals is to make Chicago a “green” metropolis. One of his ideas is to plant lawns and gardens on the tops of big buildings, cutting down the city’s radiant heat fingerprint. Thus half of the new Wal-Mart’s roof has been planted in just such a global-warming-addling garden. The other half of the roof has been left bare. And the entire expanse is hooked to monitors that lead to computers that analyze fluctuations in radiant temperatures. As an added bonus, shoppers and catfishermen should be able to enjoy a blossoming overhead garden come spring.

http://www.glwi.uwm.edu/research/genomics/ecoli/greenroof/images/greenroofcom.jpg
http://www.glwi.uwm.edu/research/genomics/ecoli/greenroof/benefits.php

However it all works out — whether the city will allow further incursions by Godzilla and whether this particular store is the success it seems to be — one thing is forever certain: Chicago does things its own way.

Wal-Mart is already finding this out in a vivid fashion. Its good-neighbor policy, which invites weary recreational-vehicle drivers on the Interstates around the country to park in its stores’ lots free, is getting its own West Side permutation. People in the ’hood don’t have R.V.’s. But several who have cars have taken to parking them in the lot and living there, watching and waiting. It’s a safe haven, there’s good chicken, and it offers a small shot at catching a part of the American dream.

Luis Alberto Urrea, the author of “The Hummingbird’s Daughter,” is a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

***

Wal-Mart Store #5402

Case Studies

Roofmeadow® Type I: Roofrug®

http://www.roofmeadow.com/projects/walmart.shtml

http://www.roofmeadow.com/images/walmart_pavers.JPG
Newly planted Roofrug® by Enviroscape.
Note paver paths and multiple skylights

Irrigation: None
Size: 74,000 sf
Client: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Location: Chicago, IL

Design and Construction Administration: Roofscapes, Inc.

Roofscapes, Inc. Installer: Enviroscape
Architect: BSW International

Status: Completed Fall 2006

Distinguishing Features

The Roofrug® is four-inches thick and has a maximum weight, when saturated, of 20 pounds per square foot. The plant cover consists primarly of flowering succulent plants called Sedum. A unique feature of the Roofrug® is the incorporation of a one-inch thick foundation layer that is, at once: (1) a protection layer, (2) a drainage layer, and (3) a root supporting structure. This mat is manufactured entirely from recycled post-consumer products, most notably athletic shoes. The layout includes paved walkways to access roof top utility units.

Plant establishment was from Sedum cuttings and seed. Depending on weather conditions, the roof should take between 12 to 18 months to produce a dense and uniform foliage cover. During this time ti will be maintained by a Roofscapes, Inc. Network company.

Improvements in the rate and volume of runoff were apparent as soon as the green roof was installed. A dramatic decrease in the temperature of the "greened" roof was also observed. As a service to the City of Chicago, Wal-Mart is voluntarily monitoring the performance of its new green roof. Wal-Mart will be comparing the green roof to the exposed Energy Star roof that covers the other half of the building. The data collected from the green roof and the Energy Star control roof will include:

• Runoff rates and volumes
• Energy flow across the roof, both into and out of the building
• Roof top temperature

These characteristics will be correlated to site variables, such as potential evapotranspiration and solar radiation, that are also being measured at the facility. This information gathered from this monitoring program will constitute the most complete database on a full-scale green roof in North America. At 74,000 sf, it is, in fact, the largest green roof being monitored anywhere in the world.

The Roofrug® green roof is designed to be compatible with electric methods of lead detection. Due to its thin profile and its unique foundation mat, it is very easy to remove portions of the cover to examine the underlying roofing materials, should this become necessary.

Transition to Energy Star roof:

http://www.roofmeadow.com/images/walmart_detail.JPG


Green roof media installed with hydraulic equipment:

http://www.roofmeadow.com/images/walmart_media.JPGhttp://www.roofmeadow.com/images/walmart_sadhu_cropped.JPG


Monitoring apparatus on Walmart #5402:

http://www.roofmeadow.com/images/walmart_monitor.JPG

[spyguy999]

Third time's a charm

560 N Fairbanks
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2834/graveschicago07qw9.jpg

215 W Washington - 490 ft (for now)
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/1500/215westwashingtonnj7.jpg

235 W Van Buren - 543 ft/ 48 floors
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1692/vbf3nc8.jpg
http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/7440/vbf4op4.jpg

6400 South Stony Island - 34 floors (let's see if it makes it)
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3209/64th2od0.jpg

Glashaus - 25 floors
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/9600/154733ep8.jpg

[commentator]

And to think a lot of fans of CHI criticise the Asians for gimmicky pretence. I do like the CHI skyline - who doesn't - but really why all the pretence?

To be honest when I see all those antennae, spires, tapering towers etc I despair. Freedom tower is the same. it will be the height of 2IFC and 180 feet less than ICC and no amount of antennae will change that and i for one don't care. Build the building to have it's function.

Do we have to play these games? isn't the CHI skyline massive enough and famous enough not to need gimmicks?

[spyguy999]

isn't the CHI skyline massive enough and famous enough not to need gimmicks?

What gimmicks?

[ryeler]

on a little bit of a side note but still on the topic of chicago. All this recent construction boom may come in perfect time for this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Chicago_2016.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chicago_2016.jpg)

Doesn't that jsut get you excited? The olympic games. It could do wonders for chicago. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_2016_Olympic_bid )

[finnman69]

^ That's every New York NIMBYs' worst nightmare.

We should all kick in to help pay for Andrew Berman's one-way plane ticket to Sao Paulo. :D


Zero zoning and regulation. What a scary environment.

[BVictor1]

Here's a better rendering of 560 North Fairbanks, actually it's a photo of the rendering.

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2007/01/512255.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2007/01/512256.jpg

[JCMAN320]

I gotta give Chi-Town it's props its really trying to take back it's skyscraper supramacy. NY has not been this creative and JC has been getting creative just recently with the Metropolitan and Elipise. I can't wait to see what Koolhas has desgined for 111 First.

Chi-Town stand up. Never been there but I will def make trip especially since Calatrava is building his drill bit I will def come up soon. From Newark Liberty to O'hare I go. :)

[ASchwarz]

The Drill Bit will never be built. It doesn't come close to making economic sense, especially in its latest incarnation.

In general, though, I agree that Chicago deserves massive praise for its pro-development stance.

[antinimby]

Well, if using New York NIMBYs' reasoning, building all those big forbidding towers will mean that Chicago will be going to hell very soon.

"Any day now boy, you watch and see, that Chicago is gonna become unlivable."

[kliq6]

As jealous as i am of the towers their getting chicago as a city is nothing compared to new york as a city. Having seen chicago and lived in NY i can easily say NY is a a million times better than chicago

Right on, there city will no matter what they build always be the Second City. Why anyone would want to live in Chicago I dont know. Having been there so often thru my job, the winter weather is unlivable!

[spyguy999]

Right on, there city will no matter what they build always be the Second City. Why anyone would want to live in Chicago I dont know. Having been there so often thru my job, the winter weather is unlivable!

Yay, you have been nominated for stupidest post of the day. Congrats!:)

You are on Wired New York. I find it funny that you would not see an obvious bias for city preference, much like you would if you visited a Chicago forum or a Dallas forum or an Atlanta forum.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Are you saying all bias is stupid or just New York bias on a New York forum is stupid?

[spyguy999]

Are you saying all bias is stupid or just New York bias on a New York forum is stupid?

I'm saying that almost everyone has hometown pride and I'm responding in part to alonzo's "i can easily say NY is a a million times better than chicago" and kliq6's agreement. I don't particularly care if someone likes or dislikes a city, that's their opinion and that's fine, but I'm also sure you know that you'll get a different response in a different city.

However, what annoyed me was:

Why anyone would want to live in Chicago...the winter weather is unlivable!There's a difference between living and visiting a city, and making a broad generalization based on visits (assuming he hasn't lived in the city for a while) is never a good idea.

Yes it snows and it's cold - that's winter for you. Life moves on.

If Chicago is unlivable, then what is New York (the climates aren't terribly different) or the North in general? Someone from the sunbelt could tell you that NYC or Boston or whereever was impossible to live in and that you should pack immediately and head south. And you'd probably laugh at them and think that they knew nothing.

Much like I do whenever someone plays the weather card.

[BrooklynRider]

I love NY, but Chicago is a very impressivecity. I'm sure I've posted this statement on here before, but one more time...

New York is, in my opinion, the best international city in the USA, while I find Chicago to be the best "American City." New York is much more international - Chicago is whitebread. However, I'll grant that after NYC, the Chicago skyline would be the premiere skyline in this country.

I'm partial to old Eastern cities designed with mass transit and pedestrian urban life: NYC, Boston, Phillie, DC. Chicago is the only city outside of the northeast I would ever consider moving to.

[Alonzo-ny]

I'm saying that almost everyone has hometown pride and I'm responding in part to alonzo's "i can easily say NY is a a million times better than chicago"


In case you didnt check my location, Im from Glasgow, Scotland. Not exactly hometown pride, I lived in New York and I love it and plan to live there but i can look objectively. I liked chicago and didnt explore it as much as i would have liked but it didnt have that energy i got from new york the minute i arrived.

[JCMAN320]

I'm saying that almost everyone has hometown pride and I'm responding in part to alonzo's "i can easily say NY is a a million times better than chicago" and kliq6's agreement. I don't particularly care if someone likes or dislikes a city, that's their opinion and that's fine, but I'm also sure you know that you'll get a different response in a different city.

However, what annoyed me was:

There's a difference between living and visiting a city, and making a broad generalization based on visits (assuming he hasn't lived in the city for a while) is never a good idea.

Yes it snows and it's cold - that's winter for you. Life moves on.

If Chicago is unlivable, then what is New York (the climates aren't terribly different) or the North in general? Someone from the sunbelt could tell you that NYC or Boston or whereever was impossible to live in and that you should pack immediately and head south. And you'd probably laugh at them and think that they knew nothing.

Much like I do whenever someone plays the weather card.

Samething about people that come into Jersey they make broad generalizations based on what they see around Newark Airport in our industrial corridor and think the whole state is like that which everybody knows on this forum this is most definately not the case. I have never been to Chi-town but sure I would find it enjoyable.

People please remember this one simple thing; just because something or someplace is different doesn't make it bad, it's just different. Pure and simple. This a whole idea about what is cool or uncool or what climate I perfer does not define a city. What defines a city is it's people. Cities are dynamic and ever changing just like people they have their own personalities moods and thats what makes them different, not bad, but unique and an individual. If every city was like NYC the United States would be boring. I like the different styles of cities because they are not alike and it makes them interesting and it makes me want to know more about the cities and their people and the city's history.

Just because a city is different doesn't make it uncool or bad or unlivable, just makes it unique and that's what I love about cities. They are like people they are unique and there are no two exactly alike.

[kliq6]

Yay, you have been nominated for stupidest post of the day. Congrats!:)

You are on Wired New York. I find it funny that you would not see an obvious bias for city preference, much like you would if you visited a Chicago forum or a Dallas forum or an Atlanta forum.

Dallas is a amazing and independent city. Chicago just wants to be NYC in the worst way, its sad!

[kliq6]

I'm saying that almost everyone has hometown pride and I'm responding in part to alonzo's "i can easily say NY is a a million times better than chicago" and kliq6's agreement. I don't particularly care if someone likes or dislikes a city, that's their opinion and that's fine, but I'm also sure you know that you'll get a different response in a different city.

However, what annoyed me was:

There's a difference between living and visiting a city, and making a broad generalization based on visits (assuming he hasn't lived in the city for a while) is never a good idea.

Yes it snows and it's cold - that's winter for you. Life moves on.

If Chicago is unlivable, then what is New York (the climates aren't terribly different) or the North in general? Someone from the sunbelt could tell you that NYC or Boston or whereever was impossible to live in and that you should pack immediately and head south. And you'd probably laugh at them and think that they knew nothing.

Much like I do whenever someone plays the weather card.

NYC weather sucks as well, in a perfect world NY weather would be like Atlanta, not to hot and not to cold. But having lived in Chicago for 6 months including Jan, Feb and March, nothing and I mean nothing you have ever felt in NY is like that place. It makes Detroit feel warm!

[BVictor1]

Right on, there city will no matter what they build always be the Second City. Why anyone would want to live in Chicago I dont know. Having been there so often thru my job, the winter weather is unlivable!

So true. Ya can't be a "PUSSY" to live in Chicago during the winter months. We actually have four seasons here.

Dallas is a amazing and independent city. Chicago just wants to be NYC in the worst way, its sad!

Yes, it's our goal in life to have uninformed people around every bend.

Chicago isn't trying to be New York, Dallas, San Francisco or any other city for that matter. Sure, there might be aspects of other cities that might be used here in differeny ways like police tactics or traffic management, but Chicago is its own city.

[sfenn1117]

The cold thing is a baseless argument. The two cities have similar weather. Chicago does get colder, and a little more snowfall. But New York can get 2 feet of snow in a day, something which has never happened in Chicago. The heat and humidity is pretty much the same as well. I did see an unreal thunderstorm in Chicago over the summer though, which are not as common in NY in my experience.

Besides, I like the cold and especially the snow. So, Chicago's climate wouldn't be an issue for me.

[kliq6]

The cold thing is a baseless argument. The two cities have similar weather. Chicago does get colder, and a little more snowfall. But New York can get 2 feet of snow in a day, something which has never happened in Chicago. The heat and humidity is pretty much the same as well. I did see an unreal thunderstorm in Chicago over the summer though, which are not as common in NY in my experience.

Besides, I like the cold and especially the snow. So, Chicago's climate wouldn't be an issue for me.

I just stated my opinion thats all, its a free country and peple can live and build where they want. I wouldnt build in Chicago because stuff just goes unnoticed outside on forums like this.

SFENN your in Vermont so that means you could take it easily in CHi or NY.

[spyguy999]

I wouldnt build in Chicago because stuff just goes unnoticed outside on forums like this.

You build because there is a need to, not for grabbing people's attention. But some exceptions to your idea include Chicago Spire, Trump Tower, and Aqua, which I have all seen in articles spanning from the US to Europe to China.

[homeandaway]

Chicago has really tall buildings, probably more than in any other city centre area.
~Alex~

[spyguy999]

76 story building at Lakeshore East along the river. Height will probably be somewhere in the 900s, but you never know.

Quick facts:
-designed by Arquitectonica
-features 20 story void
-224 hotel rooms + 671 condo units

Scan from SSP:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9343/lse1157xq3.png

[Alonzo-ny]

i found architectonica very unprofessional. I met with the vice president of the NY office at the new year hoping for a 1 year internship. I was led to believe i was the best candidate for the job and everything seem to be going in a good direction. I was told to send some images of my work to him when i returned home as i was unable to bring my portfolio to NY. He also asked for a resume and put i writing where the internship fits into my studies. so i got home and sent the stuff to no reply. and this is from the supposed vice president, no courtesy to say sorry we found a better candidate.

[lofter1]

Unfortunately that behavior ^^^ is very much in line with the actions of a lot of NYers.

Everybody thinks they're too busy for courtesies ...

[Alonzo-ny]

I think its pathetic, if you cant at least tell someone they didnt get the job you dont have the skills to be VP. also how can there be a VP of an office with 30 people in it.

Luckily i visited platt byard dovell and white and they are a wonderful bunch of guys who ill be working for beginning august.

worthy of a notable mention polshek were nice but the guy who let me tour the office was fairly low level and i dont think they picked up on the fact i was fishing for a job. (or they didnt want to give me one)

also worthy of mention is frederick schwartz, incapable of any email decorum, one word emails and such.

[sfenn1117]

Incredible new tower. Compare Chicago's Lake Shore East to the ConEd site. Chicago shows NY how to get it done. :(

[Chi2NYC?]

NYC weather sucks as well, in a perfect world NY weather would be like Atlanta, not to hot and not to cold. But having lived in Chicago for 6 months including Jan, Feb and March, nothing and I mean nothing you have ever felt in NY is like that place. It makes Detroit feel warm!

i'll just add that if it weren't for chicago's winter, there would be no way i'd be contemplating paying an extra 100k to go to school in new york. it's just too much for me.

[Chi2NYC?]

I love NY, but Chicago is a very impressivecity. I'm sure I've posted this statement on here before, but one more time...

New York is, in my opinion, the best international city in the USA, while I find Chicago to be the best "American City." New York is much more international - Chicago is whitebread. However, I'll grant that after NYC, the Chicago skyline would be the premiere skyline in this country.


'whitebread' vs. international is too extreme, but i understand you were making this contrast to demonstrate a point that i largely agree with.

but for the record, here's a comparison the population demographics (from sperling's):

Race in New York, NY

42.74% of people are white, 26.12% are black, 11.02% are asian, 0.55% are native american, and 19.58% claim 'Other'.

28.61% of the people in New York, NY, claim hispanic ethnicity (meaning 71.39% are non-hispanic).

Race in Chicago, IL

40.91% of people are white, 36.15% are black, 4.75% are asian, 0.41% are native american, and 17.78% claim 'Other'.

28.37% of the people in Chicago, IL, claim hispanic ethnicity (meaning 71.63% are non-hispanic).


you can also see that chicago is *demographically* an international city in the city landscape, although it's definitely true that these communities are largely segregated like in most u.s. cities (exceptions would be neighborhoods like albany park or rogers park). chicago has sizable chinese, vietnamese, pakistani, korean, indian, mexican, italian, puerto-rican, african (not sure which countries), and polish communities. i know there are some i'm overlooking, including lots of much smaller communities (i think there's about 1,000 tibetan refugees, i've come across little peruvian and croatian enclaves, etc.).

now nyc is definitely *more* of an international finance and media capital than chicago, but chicago is at least on the map.

regardless, the basic point you make that i agree with is that chicago is *more* like other american cities than nyc is.

sorry for helping to derail the thread.

[lbjefferies]

'whitebread' vs. international is too extreme, but i understand you were making this contrast to demonstrate a point that i largely agree with.




I'm sorry but I really do think the diffirence is quite extreme. Sure, much of my evidence is anecdotal but I think it's significant nonetheless.

First, whenever I visit the loop/mag mile/wrigleyville/lincoln park, it is without a shadow of a doubt a much, much, much more homogenous atmosphere than what you see on an average New York street. There just isn't a comparison.

Second, of the ten or so people my wife and I hang out with most often; there are immigrants from Haiti, Hungary, Taiwan and India; first generation Americans of Chinese and Mexican descent; and Americans from upstate NY, Iowa, Chicago and Seattle. And it wasn't until recently that I even noticed how diverse our group of friends were because every group you see in New York is like that. But then I visted a childhood friend who lives in Chicago and went out with a large group of his almost entirely white friends. We had a fine meal then went out to bar after bar on the northside that were on the whole, about 85% white. Now, based on experiences in other midwest cities, going to a bar where 15% of the people are non-white is extremely rare and in relative terms--extremely diverse. But you have to understand new york is just a completely different world.

[Chi2NYC?]

First, whenever I visit the loop/mag mile/wrigleyville/lincoln park, it is without a shadow of a doubt a much, much, much more homogenous atmosphere than what you see on an average New York street. There just isn't a comparison.


the diversity is indeed segregated in chicago, both socially and spatially. again, i don't doubt that the typical nyc neighborhood is more ethnically integrated (but ponder whether that's really a function of cosmopolitanism as much as it is a byproduct of living in an insanely dense area). your neighborhood sampling experience was biased. wrigleyville and lincoln park are largely white, middle-class neighborhoods. downtown and mag mile area are more mixed but still largely black and white. the ethnic communities are in other neighborhoods. this map says as much:

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/3889.html

[CGCG]

Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park and the Loop may be the three Chicago neighborhoods with greatest name recognition and tourist appeal, but anyone who truly knows the city will point you to any of the dozens of other "community areas" for a better demographic sampling. Roger's Park (East and West) is one of the most fascinatingly integrated neighborhoods I've ever been to; traveling down Devon is like taking a trip across the planet's midsection (Latino, Orthodox Jewish, Indo-Pak/Hindu-Muslim, Bangledeshi paths all converge on one street).

It's a similar story with Logan Square, Humboldt Park, Pilsen, Hyde Park... the thing to remember, and the thing lost on most people unfamiliar with the city (often the people who pretend to know it), is that Chicago is not its skyline. You may develop an opinion based on the two or three geographically proximate enclaves you visit, but it certainly will not be an informed one.

[lbjefferies]

Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park and the Loop may be the three Chicago neighborhoods with greatest name recognition and tourist appeal, but anyone who truly knows the city will point you to any of the dozens of other "community areas" for a better demographic sampling. Roger's Park (East and West) is one of the most fascinatingly integrated neighborhoods I've ever been to; traveling down Devon is like taking a trip across the planet's midsection (Latino, Orthodox Jewish, Indo-Pak/Hindu-Muslim, Bangledeshi paths all converge on one street).

It's a similar story with Logan Square, Humboldt Park, Pilsen, Hyde Park... the thing to remember, and the thing lost on most people unfamiliar with the city (often the people who pretend to know it), is that Chicago is not its skyline. You may develop an opinion based on the two or three geographically proximate enclaves you visit, but it certainly will not be an informed one.


Exactly. In Chicago, one really has to know the city to find little melting pots. New York, on the other hand, is one giant melting cauldron.

[Chi2NYC?]

Exactly. In Chicago, one really has to know the city to find little melting pots. New York, on the other hand, is one giant melting cauldron.

fairly true for the most part, especially if you're comparing manhattan to chicago. i've read some nasty things about canarsie from back in the day.

[CGCG]

Exactly. In Chicago, one really has to know the city to find little melting pots. New York, on the other hand, is one giant melting cauldron.

You're right. The Financial District and Upper East Side (more or less New York's counterparts to the neighborhoods you visited in Chicago) are bastions of multi-ethnic interaction.

Sarcasm aside... last time I checked, Manhattan only included a fifth of New York's total population. Unthinkable as it may be, there is a chunk of land just to its south and technically within the city's limits. Staten Island? It's nearly 80% white.

...the truth of the matter is visitors to Chicago stick to the Loop, its Magnificent Mile and the Museum Campus and rarely head out to the myriad other neighborhoods that far better define the city and its inhabitants. In other words, Downtown Chicago is not a microcosm of the city as a whole.

[lbjefferies]

You're right. The Financial District and Upper East Side (more or less New York's counterparts to the neighborhoods you visited in Chicago) are bastions of multi-ethnic interaction..

In terms of socioeconomic diversity the thin strip of land abutting the park is extremely homogenous. But in terms of racial diversity, you would be shocked at how far the area has come from the days of discriminating coop boards and all-WASP buildings. Saudi princesses, Japanese businessmen, Indian maharajas, Brazilian models, Russian oil tycoons; they all have their places on the Upper East Side where they stay half the year. How do I know this? Because my wife works with them every day. And as for the financial district, I know five people who work on Wall Street: an Indian woman, an Indian guy, an Asian guy, an Asian woman and a white guy--and they are all extremely wealthy. It makes me sick. Surely evidence so blatantly anecdotal is close to meaningless, but 'mjust sayin'.


Sarcasm aside... last time I checked, Manhattan only included a fifth of New York's total population. Unthinkable as it may be, there is a chunk of land just to its south and technically within the city's limits. Staten Island? It's nearly 80% white.

And next to Manhattan is Queens, which makes Manhattan look like Augusta National. And then there's Brooklyn, another richly integrated area of the city. New York does it like no other, although more and more Londoners seem to think otherwise.



...the truth of the matter is visitors to Chicago stick to the Loop, its Magnificent Mile and the Museum Campus and rarely head out to the myriad other neighborhoods that far better define the city and its inhabitants. In other words, Downtown Chicago is not a microcosm of the city as a whole


The point is, if diversity is so easily avoided at its hottest spots, then the degree of integration within a city is suspect. I feel like I traveled quite extensively throughout the city and I saw mostly white people. That is a fact. You just can't do that in New York, unless you are willing to travel to Bronxville or Saten Island. Diversity is everywhere, and it is a beautiful thing.

[spyguy999]

Facts, huh.

If you enjoy this New York vs. Chicago BS, please take it to another thread. I think the original purpose of the thread was to show notable Chicago projects, not to discuss perceived levels of segregation or integration in either city.

Anyway...

Incredible new tower. Compare Chicago's Lake Shore East to the ConEd site. Chicago shows NY how to get it done. :(

The developers are quite experienced so they know how to market these towers. However, some of the earlier buildings are pretty ugly because it seems as though the developers cheapened out. Let's hope it is not the same way with Aqua or this new Arquitectonica building.

[spyguy999]

200 North Riverside Plaza - 50 floors - unknown height - 1.2 msf

Another office tower by Hines along the river and designed by Pickard Chilton

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7342/200ncp4.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4804/200n3ex7.jpg
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4468/200n4yj0.jpg

Features:
-office, retail, restaurants, a boat house and public spaces; a 1.5 acre public plaza; and three levels of below-grade parking
-sky terrace perched six hundred feet above the river
-public boat house with kayaks, canoes, and crew boats. The boat house also provides boat storage, locker rooms, a multipurpose gathering space, staff offices and an elevated, covered observation terrace.
-LEED silver

[Viktorkrum77]

Trump Tower May 21st 2007:

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5623/trump1yw2.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9994/trump2mb2.png (http://imageshack.us)

These look better small:

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/209/trump3ao3.png (http://imageshack.us)

I wonder why the glass is so quickly following the construction.

[spyguy999]

I wonder why the glass is so quickly following the construction.

They need to work on the interiors to finish the hotel portion before the end of the year.

[SolarWind]

June 8, 2007

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4351/dsc0154copygm2.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 14, 2007

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9734/dsc0032qt4.jpg

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2111/dsc0029wl4.jpg

[ablarc]

^ Hard to tell in these photos, but the depressed, river-level quays along the Chicago River are really intimate, friendly, Parisian, humane. Lined with cafes, bars, trees. What would it take to get the similarly-sized Harlem River to look like this?

[NewYorkDoc]

^ Hard to tell in these photos, but the depressed, river-level quays along the Chicago River are really intimate, friendly, Parisian, humane. Lined with cafes, bars, trees. What would it take to get the similarly-sized Harlem River to look like this?


A miracle?

[Bob]

Merchandise Mart is looking mighty spiffy. A far cry from the filth clearly displayed on the opening credits of the TV show, Good Times. (I now return you to your regularly scheduled blog topic.)

[SolarWind]

http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/2230/155northwackerpm5.jpg

June 28, 2007

Site prep work for 155 North Wacker:

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4610/dsc0099rr7.jpg

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8783/dsc0087hj2.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2758/dsc0078ln1.jpg

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/1816/dsc0165nc5.jpg

^ demolition of the previous building is just about complete

[Bob]

Wow. 155 North Wacker is sure one handsome devil: a new skyscraper in a well-tailored pinstripe suit. Contrast and compare this good architecture with the junk proposed for WTC Tower 5 in New York.

[lesterp4]

Even the same firms build much better buildings in ChicaGO than here in NYC. Of course Chicago encourages creative development. In NYC they squash and try to destroy creativity.

[SolarWind]

One Museum Park

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2160/omp1jb2xr3.jpg

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/1306/skyline2ho6.jpg

^ One Museum Park is on the left. The second tower (OMP West) is also under construction. Work is currently being done on the foundation. The buildings are 734 ft/65 fl & 620 ft/54 fl, respectively.

[GVNY]

Chicago skyline is the best in the United States. That is just beautiful.

Hopefully Lower Manhattan will recapture some glory with the World Trade towers.

[ablarc]

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8783/dsc0087hj2.jpg
Yikes, Chicago has landscaped parking lots! Thar's bad news. (Means they're there for the long run.)

[SolarWind]

July 6, 2007

One Museum Park
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8402/dsc0404fl4.jpg

[SolarWind]

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/1264/aquasm2zx0.jpg http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3278/popupaqua04rz2.jpg

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/8594/dscn8043lb8.jpg

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8817/dscn8044ob2.jpg
^ Photos of the podium taken by EarlyBuyer at SSP

July 30, 2007 - Aqua

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6665/untitled2yq3.jpg

[SolarWind]

August 8, 2007

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3220/dsc0162hv6.jpg

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/3559/dsc0203df4.jpg

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7809/dscc0188dw9.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/8013/dsc0210sd8.jpg

[Zephyr]

This stuff never gets old.

There is variety and there is solid construction. The only thing I fear is too much density, not the number of buildings or the height. One of the nicest aspects of Chicago buildings is the view you get due to the spacing and sometimes the zoning to create space. That will be challenged in the years to come as the terrace effect and pushing the tallest off from the lake will not last.

So we are getting the first wave of the so-called Vancouver-style slims, but these are supertall slims, which is not the case in Vancouver. Density will probably be greatest along the Chicago River in the near term, based on that proverbial pipeline data. That may also end up being just a misdirection. Chicago Spire may be the watershed for developing slim right on the lake, although now it is seen more often as a quad centre balance at the head of the river, which is a natural bisect of N/S axis.

[spyguy999]

In Today's WSJ:
Waldorf-Astoria Chicago
100 floors
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6569/obaq927podre20070926234gd3.jpg

[antinimby]

Wow

[Alonzo-ny]

What is it these days with selling the name of everything?

[Derek2k3]

so jealous...it looks like the old Alexander's site tower before it was watered down by greed.

[Scraperfannyc]

Droooool.

I love to see true ambition, and it exists in Chicago.

[SilentPandaesq]

^^Glad it exists somewhere. Lord knows that in NYC we can't stack milk crates higher that 4 feet before some Jacobs quoting hippie shows up with a poorly thought out complaint.

[czsz]

It's just that there's a lack of room in Midtown where such towers are otherwise likely to get built. When the West Side yards get decked over, there may be opportunities for buildings like this. I mean, look at how much the Madison Square area is getting redeveloped despite its preexisting fabric/scale. There's clearly just as much if not more momentum in New York...and fewer excuses in Chicago, where there are parking lots every forty feet in some areas abutting the Loop.

[SilentPandaesq]

^^I have 3 words to say to you

Con Ed site

Could have been sweet, but we made it lame....and we are not done with it yet.

[czsz]

The difference being that there are crazy NIMBYs right across the street from that. The West Side is like a terra incognita by comparison.

[antinimby]

While there is potential @ the West side, I highly doubt we'll get anything even remotely close to what the rest of the world is doing.

[czsz]

Certainly not Dubai, but why can't the West Side do what Chicago or even London manages?

(where are the NIMBYs in London, anyway?)

[antinimby]

Elegant or "creative" shapes cost more to build and they don't fill out the site as efficiently as your typical box and as you know in this city, it's all about the bottom line.

If we get lucky, we might get some waviness and cuts and slashes here and there but typically they won't stray too far from the box.

[SolarWind]

September 28, 2007

Here are two panoramic shots from the Waldorf-Astoria site today. Nothing really special, just a parking lot currently.

Looking north-northeast
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2862/59111974tz2.jpg

Looking northwest. Trump Tower is on the far left.
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1052/83756351oo2.jpg

[Scraperfannyc]

The fact that they are planning to build on empty space does not mean this is the reason this is such a big plan.

Trump tore down a historic building along the river to build a 1100+ footer that was applauded, and at the time, it was going to be the tallest residential in the country. Well, maybe for a couple of years. His idea of tallest buildings in the USA has been outgrown in Chicago, whether or not there was a parking lot on the construction site.

[TREPYE]

In Today's WSJ:
Waldorf-Astoria Chicago
100 floors
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6569/obaq927podre20070926234gd3.jpg

so jealous...it looks like the old Alexander's site tower before it was watered down by greed.

You serious??? We could have something like that instead of the half-assed bloomy tower?? Why didnt those plans work out?

[Derek2k3]

Because everything big here takes forever to build, forcing a project to go through many revisions, each one usually more watered down than the last.
This proposal was somewhere over 1,000 feet also.

[spyguy999]

Trump tore down a historic building along the river to build a 1100+ footer that was applauded

What historic building was that again?

[Scraperfannyc]

What historic building was that again?


I remember reading an article like the one below, but I never saw the building. But after googling to find the building, it looked like a POS.

Here is the article claimng it to be an icon.

The Windy City may soon reclaim the honor of possessing the world's tallest building—but at the expense of a downtown icon. Developer Donald Trump announced his plans to redevelop the Chicago Sun-Times Building for a Trump Tower, the New York Times reported Saturday.

Although Trump and Hollinger International, which owns the Sun-Times Building, have not finalized the plans for the new structure, they are considering a design that would exceed the 1,483-foot Petronas Tower in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, built in 1996.

Regardless of the eventual height of the future Trump Tower Chicago, the plan calls for the demolition of the existing Sun-Times Building, a seven-story 1957 black granite International Style structure next to the Chicago River. Designed by the architectural firm Naess & Murphy, it was one of the first riverfront plazas in the city. The newspaper will call the new tower home.

But take a look at the picture of it and judge for yourself:

[malec]

Hmm, definitely looks like a PoS to me

[Alonzo-ny]

There is a gazillion buildings like that around the world and they all suck.

[Zephyr]

...I never saw the building. But after googling to find the building, it looked like a POS.

Here is the article claimng it to be an icon. ...

But take a look at the picture of it and judge for yourself:

Trust me, few have championed this building, even those who worked in it at the Chicago Sun-Times, except for the handful of corporate shills.

I doubt if anyone will really miss what some Chicagoans call the "landlocked barge" (and that is not a term of endearment). Then again, the moment Trump Chicago is finished, there will be those who will complain about their lack of viewing lanes with the arrival of this new supertall.

[SolarWind]

September 28, 2007
http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/3465/dsc0007yd0.jpg

October 3, 2007
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/9082/dsc0052cm2.jpg

[SolarWind]

Renderings courtesy of BVictor1 at SSP

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4929/p1090762ul3.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4018/p1090761jp5.jpg

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7285/p1090760wm1.jpg

[SolarWind]

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2007/10/564220.jpg
Posted by BVictor1 at SSP

Copyrights of the image belong to: © Enterprise Companies

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/Marino33/CentralStation-GrantParkSouthWall.jpg
Posted by Marvel 33 at SSP

From left to right:
One Museum Park - 734'/65 floors - close to topping out
OMPW - 620'/54 floors - foundation under construction
Grant Park 3 - 790'/73 floors - marketing scheduled to start in 2008
Grant Park 4 - 900'/83 floors - massing model released; design not expected until 2009

The buildings will frame the south boundary of Grant Park on Chicago's lakefront.

[Derek2k3]

Talk about embracing the skyscraper...

[sfenn1117]

Chicago is putting NY to shame of late. Long Island City should be getting buildings like that....instead we are getting squat cheap buildings in a prime location.

Grant Park 3 is a great proposal but would work so much better without balconies.

[czsz]

That Grant Park row is quite the Shanghaiesque collection of prima donnas. Worse than Ground Zero in terms of clamboring for attention (thank you, Maki).

[Scraperfannyc]

OMG, chicago is just putting up amazing developments these days. Grant Park 3: wowza wowza wowza!

I hear that the chicago spire is getting a whole lotta interest from purchasers lately too.

One problem that I think exists with development in NYC, besides NYC nimbys, is that many developers are trying to just capitalize on Manhattan itself and not on building an amazing development. Sort of like a great restaurant that has become famous but is serving less and less interesting and less tasteful food to capitalize on past success.

[lofter1]

What do those sites shown above cost -- just the land?

What would comparable sites in NYC (say on the Hudson / East Rivers or along Central Park South) cost?

[lesterp4]

I used to live in Chicago. Land is probably 50-70% cheaper than in New York. You can buy 2-3 bedroom condo in prime areas for $300-400K. Many of these new buildings are built on vacant sites or parking lots. Old bldgs do not have to be torn down to make room for new ones. There is lots of land to build on, unlike New York and Chicago does not have nimbys and Daley is very active in getting big new buildings built. Finally, zoning is entirely different than Manhattan.

[antinimby]

Any of those above, if proposed for the Con Ed site here in New York, would cause massive hysteria and outrage:

"Oh, the neighborhood will be destroyed!", "traffic will be a nightmare!", "oh, the world will come to an end!"

Or imagine the pandemonium if one of those Chicago towers were proposed in place of Gehry's Miss Brooklyn @ Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards.

Ugh.

[investordude]

That would be a perfect anchor to put a cluster of nice buildings and kickstart Hudson Yards.

Antinimby is right though - I think the developers will be forced to make Hudson Yards boxy boring land.

[Citytect]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/Marino33/CentralStation-GrantParkSouthWall.jpg


All three designs are "decent," not particularly good but not terrible enough to complain about. BUT lined up next to each other like that, they make a terrible ensemble - very crass and way too fussy.

[spyguy999]

All three designs are "decent," not particularly good but not terrible enough to complain about. BUT lined up next to each other like that, they make a terrible ensemble - very crass and way too fussy.

I'm not a huge fan of GP3, but OMP (building most to the left) taught me not to judge towers based on mediocre renderings.

Pic by SolarWind
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4561/dsc0114bq4.jpg

[Citytect]

Like I said, I don't have a problem with any of the designs individually. Together, though, they're a mess.

[Alonzo-ny]

Second from right is interesting the rest suck basically, together and apart.

[TREPYE]

All three designs are "decent," not particularly good but not terrible enough to complain about. BUT lined up next to each other like that, they make a terrible ensemble - very crass and way too fussy.

Be that as it may but its a 100 times better than the Queens West waterfront ensemble....

[spyguy999]

The first came late last week. The owners of the Sears Tower are considering building a hotel/office tower on Sear's plaza.
http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/1854/33182317bl2.jpg

The second came yesterday. This proposed office and hotel tower would be located on the parking lot adjacent to 311 South Wacker.

Clean Technology Tower
Building on principles of biomimicry, Clean Technology Tower utilizes advanced technologies and climate-appropriate building systems to foster a symbiotic relationship with its local environment. The tower is sited and formed to harness the power of natural forces at its site- but it refines the conventional methods of capturing those natural forces to significantly increase efficiency. Wind turbines are located at the building’s corners to capture wind at its highest velocity as it accelerates around the tower. The turbines become increasingly dense as the tower ascends and wind speeds increase. At the apex, where wind speeds are at a maximum, a domed double roof cavity captures air, allowing for a large wind farm and the use of negative pressures to ventilate the interior spaces. The dome itself is shaded by photovoltaic cells that capture the southern sun. These systems provide both comfort and energy to the space.

The complex includes over 1.8 million square feet of office space as well as a 300,000 square foot hotel, a spa and street-level retail. Dedicated elevators will provide access for both office and hotel tenants to all of the tower’s amenities.

An adjacent grand plaza and park enhances the tower’s relationship with the surrounding neighborhood and provides a public gathering space for tenants. The plaza also complements an existing adjacent winter garden and strengthens the connection between the existing retail and the new tower.

The tower is easily accessible via both public and private transportation. Hotel and office lobbies have dedicated street entrances and vehicle pick-up and drop-off locations. Service access to the building and parking are available below grade.

The tower affords tenants unparalleled views of the city, the Chicago River and Lake Michigan. Office space will be located on high floors to maximize available views and take advantage of the direct natural daylight. The tower’s domed top offers unrestricted skyward views, creating a truly modern, grand atrium space.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6179/z03lgmo7.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2793/z04lgsq0.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2271/z01lggf9.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9548/z02lgep2.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6017/z05lgww0.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2554/z06lgcd8.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5363/z07lglv7.jpg

[Derek2k3]

Who's the architect? Helmut Jahn? Beats our 50 West St.

[spyguy999]

Adrian Smith (architect of Trump Chicago, Burj Dubai, Jin Mao) + Gordon Gill

[SolarWind]

October 29, 2007

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/7892/dsc0042wn2.jpg

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4499/dsc0022yt6.jpg

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5851/dsc0014hv4.jpg

[SolarWind]

October 30, 2007
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7176/dsc0113rl0.jpg

October 31, 2007
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3181/dsc0106ot2.jpg

[SolarWind]

November 29, 2007

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8946/dscc0051xa5.jpg

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/9844/dsc0056tf8.jpg

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3168/dsc0080hw0.jpg

[spyguy999]

Great rendering of the Waldorf Astoria BVictor posted today
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7144/65572661ze2li5.jpg

[SolarWind]

December 12, 2007

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/3385/dscc0063xz7.jpg

[SolarWind]

February 13, 2008
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4290/dsc0065uc6.jpg

February 15, 2008
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4131/dsc0021jx5.jpg

[BVictor1]

One Museum Park

03/01/08

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/03/597304.jpg

[BrooklynRider]

Chicago always to have interesting projects and pleasing designs. Thanks for the pics.

[BVictor1]

300 N. LaSalle
03/20/08
https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/03/602032.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/03/602033.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/03/602034.jpg

https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/03/602035.jpg

As you can see in this image, the core has shrunk in size and you might also notice the spray-painted number of 569'. We have about 225' more to go.
https://community.emporis.com/images/6/2008/03/602036.jpg

[SolarWind]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1104/chicago2it1.jpg

[SolarWind]

May 12, 2008

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/1383/dsc0292kf9.jpg

[PIZ]

WOW!! Wished I lived back in Chicago, New York smells like a dump!! Chicago's all nice a clean, smells all good, then I come back to New York and have to deal with arm-pitt butthole smell wherever I go, New York city is really stinky:(, thank GOD I'm leaving soon! I honestly think it's the City's population, just soo many people taking poops every day, I think New Yorks sewage system is backed-up. Think about it...These sewage pipes have to handle like 3 million poops a day floating through them, thats a heck of a task for some pipes!

Come July, Chicago here I come!! The greatest City on Earth!:)

[lesterp4]

Chicago is the greatest city in Illinois. Those pics look very sterile and cold (which Chicago is). Where are the people?

[kliq6]

WOW!! Wished I lived back in Chicago, New York smells like a dump!! Chicago's all nice a clean, smells all good, then I come back to New York and have to deal with arm-pitt butthole smell wherever I go, New York city is really stinky:(, thank GOD I'm leaving soon! I honestly think it's the City's population, just soo many people taking poops every day, I think New Yorks sewage system is backed-up. Think about it...These sewage pipes have to handle like 3 million poops a day floating through them, thats a heck of a task for some pipes!

Come July, Chicago here I come!! The greatest City on Earth!:)

So long!

[rkrause]

The first came late last week. The owners of the Sears Tower are considering building a hotel/office tower on Sear's plaza.
http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/1854/33182317bl2.jpg

The second came yesterday. This proposed office and hotel tower would be located on the parking lot adjacent to 311 South Wacker.
I'll admit that something in the way of improvement to the existing plaza would be greatly welcome, but I really am not fond of this proposal for a second skyscraper on the Sears Tower site. In particular, the such sharp juxtaposition of designs just looks unpleasant. Also, it destroys a perfectly good (and quite common) street-level vantage point of Sears Tower. I think I'd need to see some other renerings before making a final judgment of its aesthetic merits however.

--Randall

[rkrause]

I'm not a huge fan of GP3, but OMP (building most to the left) taught me not to judge towers based on mediocre renderings.

Pic by SolarWind
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4561/dsc0114bq4.jpg

I've been watching OMP go up steadily over the course of the past year, and I have to say I'm really impressed with the design. I'm always blown away by its sheer height -- probably due to the lack of any comparable skyscrapers in the vicinity. From certain viewpoints, it actually gives the impression of being much taller than it really is (I swear, at times it seems to break the 1000 foot mark).

I do have to agree with Citytect, however. These four buildings side-by-side don't really make for a particularly appealing ensemble, IMHO.

--Randall

[MidtownGuy]

Gee that post by PIZ sounds insane. We get all types around here, don't we. Some kind of olfactory fixation on feces. Gross and disturbed. 100 bucks says the weirdo doesn't even live here.

Anyway, lookin' good Chicago!

[NoyokA]

I doubt he's any older than 15. If he is he makes the Chicago education system look really bad.

[Horace718]

The Chicago education system is really bad.

[pianoman11686]

Wasn't PIZ supposed to be the part-time magician?

[antinimby]

100 bucks says the weirdo doesn't even live here.You've just won $100. PIZ isn't from NY.

I checked his posting history (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1893900) and he is a Chicago fan/defender that got embittered because some of the folks here that were talking disparagingly of Chicago really pushed him to the edge.

He actually started out pretty enthusiastic and jovial. Here's PIZ's first post:

Hello everyone! This is my first post, decided there is no better building being devoloped right now to comment on in the world then this one, I love it!!!
I been reading these forums for about 2 years now, finally decided to join. I look forward to engadging in some interesting discussions with you New Yorkers.
From Chicago to you all...
MERRY X-MAS New York!

Then he became caught up in the bitter Chicago vs. New York arguments:

ok if you took that second toilet comment seriously then something is obviously wrong with your humor. My room mate is from new York and has told me many times that new york cannot match the beauty that Chicago brings. I myself have never been to new York, but look forward to going one day. On my iPod touch, not the greatest to type on. And for mr. Moderator with the ape pic, I see no fact in your little diagram, it looks like a 5 year old put that thing together, show me some stats brother?

It kind of went down hill for him from there.

What can I say other than to say to PIZ to not let other people's opinions drive you so angry as to say something like that.

Just know that most people from both cities have no ill feelings toward each other's city and those that do are in a very, very small minority. ;)

[BVictor1]

They couldn't sell an entire townhouse in 80 South Street for $35 million and they expect to sell a penthouse in the Spire for $40 million, in Chicago no less, I think not...

They have sold nearly 400 units in an ultra-luxury building in just a little over 4 months, while not a single unit was sold in 80 South Street "PERIOD".

You may think not, and that actually may be the case, you aren't thnking. I'm not trying to make it a personal attack on you, but New York isn't the center of the world to everyone. Chicago and other cities do have appeal.

Please give the developer and the City of Chicago some credit.

[PIZ]

BINGO!! Antinnimby owes ya $100 bucks!

Of-course I'm not from New York, I was kidding guys.. :) Just busting some New York balls, as us Chicagoans love to do from time ta time! :)

And yes, I am part time magician, full time Hotel Manager.

New York is a great City, take no offence by my 15 year old humor.lol... I'm 26, act 15, theres is a difference.

[NoyokA]

They have sold nearly 400 units in an ultra-luxury building in just a little over 4 months, while not a single unit was sold in 80 South Street "PERIOD".

You may think not, and that actually may be the case, you aren't thnking. I'm not trying to make it a personal attack on you, but New York isn't the center of the world to everyone. Chicago and other cities do have appeal.

Please give the developer and the City of Chicago some credit.

Think. And read my post. I said they will have a hard time selling the $40 million penthouse which they haven't. The 400 units they supposendly sold were not $40 million and were not the penthouse.

Each and everyunit in 80 South Street was a 4 storey townhouse.

[ASchwarz]

I can't believe people are still discussing this. They have not sold any units in the Spire. Some people have put down (refundable) deposits, though they will not release the list.

They will never get financing. Ask any veteran Chicago-based broker or commercial lender. If you do not believe me, I can PM you a Chicago-based contact in commercial R.E., and you can ask him anything about this bldg. Admittedly, he is not an "insider" on this project, but he knows the financing market better than anyone at Wired New York, and he well acquainted with the site, the previous owner and current developer.

They could have deposits on 100% of the building. It isn't nearly enough to get financed, especially in this market.

The only way this could be built is if some billionaire agreed to spend his money on a monument to himself. No bank on earth will finance something like this, and in this market (where very few conventional condos can be financed), even entertaining the thought is a joke.

Oh, and Kelleher is a carpenter from Dublin. He is a C-list developer who claims he can build a $3.5 billion residential project in a market where nothing over $50 million (excepting a handful of properties in locations like London, NYC and HK) is getting financed.

And those handful of properties that are getting financed? They require BIG money down, like $1 billion down on a $3.5 billion project. Kelleher couldn't put down $50 million, to say nothing of $1 billion.

Kelleher will eventualy sell the site with a completed foundation. Something, big, tall and impressive will eventually be built, but nothing remotely close to 2,000 feet, and no Calatrava. Somthing like a 900 footer from Lucien LaGrange will rise in the next real estate cycle.

Next, please.

[antinimby]

So is $3.5 billion the cost to construct the Spire?

[NoyokA]

BINGO!! Antinnimby owes ya $100 bucks!

Of-course I'm not from New York, I was kidding guys.. :) Just busting some New York balls, as us Chicagoans love to do from time ta time! :)

And yes, I am part time magician, full time Hotel Manager.

New York is a great City, take no offence by my 15 year old humor.lol... I'm 26, act 15, theres is a difference.

So, in otherwords you're a troll.

[BVictor1]

I can't believe people are still discussing this. They have not sold any units in the Spire. Some people have put down (refundable) deposits, though they will not release the list.

They will never get financing. Ask any veteran Chicago-based broker or commercial lender. If you do not believe me, I can PM you a Chicago-based contact in commercial R.E., and you can ask him anything about this bldg. Admittedly, he is not an "insider" on this project, but he knows the financing market better than anyone at Wired New York, and he well acquainted with the site, the previous owner and current developer.

They could have deposits on 100% of the building. It isn't nearly enough to get financed, especially in this market.

The only way this could be built is if some billionaire agreed to spend his money on a monument to himself. No bank on earth will finance something like this, and in this market (where very few conventional condos can be financed), even entertaining the thought is a joke.

Oh, and Kelleher is a carpenter from Dublin. He is a C-list developer who claims he can build a $3.5 billion residential project in a market where nothing over $50 million (excepting a handful of properties in locations like London, NYC and HK) is getting financed.

And those handful of properties that are getting financed? They require BIG money down, like $1 billion down on a $3.5 billion project. Kelleher couldn't put down $50 million, to say nothing of $1 billion.

Kelleher will eventualy sell the site with a completed foundation. Something, big, tall and impressive will eventually be built, but nothing remotely close to 2,000 feet, and no Calatrava. Somthing like a 900 footer from Lucien LaGrange will rise in the next real estate cycle.

Next, please.

Stop talking because you attempt at an intellectual statement has come off as a sense of cluelessness.

Any Chicago-based broker is just that a broker not a developer.

Kelleher's money is coming from overseas and the exchange rate is quite good.

It'll be built

[MidtownGuy]

There's a good article about Chicago in this month's Fast Company magazine (awesome mag).
It names Chicago the US city of the year in 2008, part of a list of "Fast Cities", in company with London and Barcelona.

A few points it makes:

Chicago is rated 7th in estimated 2007 population growth, the only non-Sun Belt city in the top 10.

1.9%....Estimated growth rate of Chicago's economy- faster than NY or LA

29%...Proportion of downtown residents with graduate degrees, 3.3 times the national average

#1....Chicago's rank among US cities for business investment and expansion in 2008...according to Site Selection magazine- a title the city as held for six of the seven past years

30...Number of Fortune 500 companies based in metro Chicago, more than any other US city except New York.

______________________________
I am not trying to promote Chicage, in fact I have never been there, but it seems to me Chicago is doing very well. The tone of the article was extremely complimentary and talks about many of the ways Chicago is improving itself.

[Alonzo-ny]

How is the 'L' for getting around? Is it easy to go around carless?

[kliq6]

There's a good article about Chicago in this month's Fast Company magazine (awesome mag).
It names Chicago the US city of the year in 2008, part of a list of "Fast Cities", in company with London and Barcelona.

A few points it makes:

Chicago is rated 7th in estimated 2007 population growth, the only non-Sun Belt city in the top 10.

1.9%....Estimated growth rate of Chicago's economy- faster than NY or LA

29%...Proportion of downtown residents with graduate degrees, 3.3 times the national average

#1....Chicago's rank among US cities for business investment and expansion in 2008...according to Site Selection magazine- a title the city as held for six of the seven past years

30...Number of Fortune 500 companies based in metro Chicago, more than any other US city except New York.

______________________________
I am not trying to promote Chicage, in fact I have never been there, but it seems to me Chicago is doing very well. The tone of the article was extremely complimentary and talks about many of the ways Chicago is improving itself.

Good list, only thing id bring up is that unlike NY where most of the regions Fortune 500 are based in Manhattan, most of Chicago's are not and the largest firm on the list thats in Chicago is Boeing that only has 200-300 employees actually in the city and most of them are from Seattle

[kliq6]

How is the 'L' for getting around? Is it easy to go around carless?

Ill admit I think there system is rather good and easy to manuever. Chicago's biggest concern has to be the rapid spike in crime over the last 6 months within city limits.

[pianoman11686]

It is fairly easy to get around carless, yes. I visited for the first time about a month ago. Stayed in a hotel in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, about 10 minutes north of the downtown area. We didn't need to use a car for the entire stay, relied on buses and the L to move around. Unfortunately we had some problems with the red line as they were doing construction on some part of it, otherwise it seemed very slow.

The one thing that consistently struck me as unique about Chicago while I was there was its feeling of openness. There's hardly any part of the city that feels claustrophobic and dark - streets are wide and there's much more sunlight at street level than in New York. That said, I was also struck at how small the downtown area was. It took us no more than 20 minutes to walk from the beginning of the Magnificent Mile all the way down to Millenium Park, and then no more than 15 minutes to walk all the way crosstown. It is much, much smaller than Manhattan.

[stache]

Transit in Chicago is spotty at night. The fun areas can be pretty far north, which can be quite a hike if you live closer to the downtown area. It's more spread out/ less concentrated than here.

[Horace718]

I've been told by firemen and cops out here that a reason for the recent spike in violence is largely due to turf wars from relocating people in subsidized housing. The tearing down of places like Cabrini and relocation is creating new territorial disputes. Most of the violence in Chicago is gang related and are gang members killing each other.

[antinimby]

^ Addition by subtraction (or something like that)?

[SolarWind]

June 5, 2008
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6018/dsc0120cw0.jpg

June 19, 2008
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3566/dsc0100wa1.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6951/dsc0003kd6.jpg

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6858/dsc0020tr4.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 19, 2008

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/983/dsc0051oy2.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 10, 2008
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/508/dsc0224rq4.jpg

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/2152/dsc0214ph2.jpg

June 17, 2008
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1883/dsc0040vc3.jpg

Picture by hawkeye view and Legacy render added by Ryan81 at SSP
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7169/legacy4fn8.jpg

[BVictor1]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/06/new-study-chica.html



Chicago ranks first in architecture and design, according to study

I don't put much stock in studies, but this one is hard to ignore: It rates Chicago the top U.S. city for architecture and design.
The survey comes from the North American division of a worldwide architecural firm--the division is based in New York--so it's hard to say the fix was in for Chicago.


http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/images/2008/06/27/chicago_skyline.jpg

The study includes a Zogby poll, which found that 87 percent of the Chicago residents surveyed rated the architecture of their city as excellent or good.
Guess they haven't seen any of our hideous three-flat condos.
A spokeswoman for the firm that did the study, RMJM Hillier, denied in an interview that the survey is an attention-getting stunt. "We wanted to do something to spark a dialogue," she said. "It's quite serious."
The firm does not have a Chicago office.
Here's a news release about the study:
New York, NY (June 26, 2008) — Chicago is the best city for architecture and design according to an independent study conducted by one of the world’s leading architectural practices.
Looking at ten criteria including architecture awards, “green” design and public transit systems, RMJM Hillier, the North American division of the worldwide architecture firm RMJM, selected 10 cities leading the way in design policy and practice. Then the firm commissioned public opinion and research firm Zogby International to interview over 1000 residents of those cities on architecture and design issues and incorporated those results into the research to determine the final rankings.
Chicago came out on top with New York and Boston taking second and third place respectively.
Eighty-seven percent of Chicago residents polled think that the architecture in their city is excellent or good, versus 63% of New Yorkers and 64% of Bostonians, according to the Zogby poll which was one of the factors that determined rankings.
The Top Ten Cities for Design:
1. Chicago, IL
2. New York, NY
3. Boston, MA
4. Los Angeles, CA
5. Portland, OR
6. San Francisco, CA
7. Seattle, WA
8. Denver, CO
9. Philadelphia, PA
10. Washington, D.C.
“Good design makes better communities by boosting the economy, creating jobs, and, particularly today, sponsoring environmental strategies,” said Peter Schubert, AIA, design director of RMJM Hillier. “We conducted this study to see which cities are the most forward-thinking in their planning and development strategies and to applaud those that are doing it right.”
"Architecture and design are such significant parts of Chicago's business and cultural communities; walking down the street, you hear people talking about buildings just as often as you hear them talking about the Cubs or Sox," said Zurich Esposito, executive vice president of AIA Chicago. "Studies like this compel us to learn more about what people are doing in other cities - across the country or around the globe. It's all part of learning from each other and creating an international design dialogue."
The study also names three “Cities to Watch:” Minneapolis, Minnesota; Baltimore, Maryland; and Phoenix, Arizona.
To read the study, click here:
Download americas_best_cities_for_design___rmjm_hillier.pdf (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/files/americas_best_cities_for_design___rmjm_hillier.pdf )

[NYatKNIGHT]

So, in your face, New York!

[kliq6]

Philadelphia and Washington are on the top 10? Whats special in those places?

[antinimby]

Sly Stallone and Dick Cheney, respectively. ;)

[stache]

They ran out of American cities.

[lbjefferies]

I don't put much stock in studies, but this one is hard to ignore: It rates Chicago the top U.S. city for architecture and design.





Does it make you feel good?