yarabundi

http://kollectif.net/vous-souvenez-vous-de-toutes-ces-propositions-pour-le-silo-no-5/?fbclid=IwAR0xHukd5ly-ecGyxcli-zkRVRCLUDimuQa_Tt8s7LJwbC7ewA8ef23OMmE http://kollectif.net/vous-souvenez-vous-de-ces-propositions-pour-le-silo-no-5-la-suite/

The new class of skyscrapers that will forever change the Chicago skyline 28 Chicago is soaring to new heights By Jay Koziarz Updated Dec 18, 2018, 2:33pm CST A rendering showing the under construction Vista Tower (right) and the proposed supertall addition to Tribune tower (left). Rendering courtesy of Golub & Co./CIM Group As the birthplace of the skyscraper and home to one of the world’s greatest skylines, Chicago is in the midst of reinventing itself with new batch of very tall, high-profile towers. While Chicago hasn’t completed an 800-footer since 2010, that’s about to change and in a very big way. Four projects exceeding that mark are already under construction with more patiently waiting in the wings. With big name designers like Jahn, Viñoly, Stern, Pelli, Gang, Childs, Goettsch, Smith, and Gill involved, the newest generation of tall towers is raising the bar both literally and architecturally. Here’s a look at new class of skyscrapers that will redefine Chicago’s iconic skyline. Under construction projects are listed first followed by green-lit and finally still-pending and on-hold proposals. This article was originally published on October 5, 2015 and has been updated to reflect the latest news. Magellan Development Group Vista Tower Status: Under Construction Currently rising along Chicago River’s main branch, the 1,198-foot Vista Tower is certainly hard to miss. Its angular design from Chicago architecture firm Studio Gang is made up of three stacks of geometric “frustums” wrapped in eight different shades of glass that emphasize its undulating form. The supertall skyscraper will contain 406 luxury condos, a 192-room five-star hotel, and impressive amenities. Vista Tower is poised to become the city’s third tallest building and second highest roof when it opens in 2020. It is the tallest building under construction in the United States outside of New York. NEMA Chicago Rafael Viñoly Architects NEMA Chicago Status: Under Construction Formerly known as One Grant Park, this 76-story tower is climbing skyward at the southern edge of Chicago’s skyline at the corner of Roosevelt and Indiana and brings some serious height to the South Loop. Developed by Crescent Heights and designed by Rafael Viñoly Architects with a nod to the Willis Tower’s “bundled tube” layout, the 800-unit luxury rental tower broke ground in early 2017 and will open in 2019. Rising 896 feet, NEMA Chicago comes up a little short of the official supertall definition set by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. That being said, the project’s second phase does call for a taller twin tower which may exceed the magic 984-foot threshold. One Bennett Park. Related Midwest One Bennett Park Status: Under Construction After breaking ground in Chicago’s Streeterville neighborhood in 2016, the 70-story One Bennett Park project recently welcomed residents to its 279 high-end rental apartments. Work continues to its 69 ultra-luxe upper level condominiums which are expected to open in the spring of 2019. Developer Related Midwest selected New York’s Robert A.M. Stern Architects to design the 836-foot-tall building with numerous setbacks and facade variations to echo the Art Deco residential towers of the early 20th century. The high-rise will be joined by a new park from Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, the firm that designed Chicago’s Maggie Daley Park and 606 trail. The tower—located at 451 E. Grand Avenue—and its adjacent green space both get their name from architect Edward H. Bennett who co-authored the influential 1909 Plan of Chicago with legendary urban planner Daniel Burnham. 110 N. Wacker Goettsch Partners Bank of America Tower Status: Under Construction Located at 110 N. Wacker, this Bank of America-anchored office tower is approved to soar 55 stories and 820 feet along the Chicago River. Designed by Goettsch Partners and co-developed by the Howard Hughes Corp. and Riverside Investment and Development, it features a 45-foot-wide riverwalk, a public pocket park, a soaring lobby, and a serrated western facade designed to maximize water views. Now under construction, the high-rise replaces the midcentury low-rise General Growth building. Bank of America Tower is the tallest new office building to rise in Chicago since the Two Prudential Plaza opened in 1990. It is expected to open in 2020. One Chicago Square. Goettsch Partners/Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture One Chicago Square Status: Approved Proposed to replace a block-sized parking lot across from Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral at the corner of State Street and Chicago Avenue, this mixed-use project from JDL Development and Sterling Bay calls for a pair of towers rising 49 and 76 stories atop a shared podium. According to the latest information from the developer, the taller of the two will top out at 1,011 feet. One Chicago Square is a design collaboration between Goettsch Partners and Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture. It will contain a Whole Foods store, a Life Time Athletic club, restaurant space, commercial offices, 1,090 parking stalls, and a mix of 869 rental and condo units. Work is expected to begin in early 2019 and wrap up in 2022. 1000M. JAHN 1000M Status: Approved This Helmut Jahn-created condo building at 1000 S. Michigan Avenue will make a sizable impact on Chicago’s southern skyline when it eventually soars 832-feet over Grant Park. The glassy 74-story skyscraper will replace a surface parking lot with 323 luxury condominiums with interiors designed by Kara Mann. Project developers Time Equities, Oaks Capital, and JK Equities are currently pre-sales mode and have listed a number of units including a South Loop record-shattering $8.1 million penthouse. Provided pre-construction sales are strong, 1000M could break ground in 2019. “Parcel I.” bKL Architecture Lakeshore East ‘Parcel I’ Status: Approved Across the river from 400 N. Lake Shore Drive and east of Vista Tower, this 85-story condo tower is slated for for “Parcel I” within Lakeshore East’s alphabetical master plan. Designed by bKL Architecture the glassy skyscraper will rise 950 feet above it parking podium. The 600-unit tower was approved by the Chicago Plan Commission in October of 2018. Before work on the “Parcel I” high-rise begins, developer Magellan Group and LendLease will first complete two shorter sibling towers: a 40-story rental building at “Parcel K/L” and a 50-story condo tower at “Parcel J.” The developers expect construction on the three-tower project to take between five and seven years. Salesforce Tower. Rendering by Steelblue Salesforce Tower Status: Approved The final piece of the three-building Wolf Point development, Salesforce Tower will rise 813 feet above the junction of the Chicago River’s north, south, and main branches. Anchored by its namesake tenant, the 60-story skyscraper is on track to break ground in 2020 and open in early 2023. The glass Pelli Clarke Pelli-design office building will slot between the 490-foot Wolf Point West high-rise and the 660-foot under-construction Wolf Point East building. Developers Hines Interests and Joseph P. Kennedy Enterprises have zoning already in place to build a 950-foot-tall tower at the prominent riverfront site. BMO Tower. Goettsch Partners BMO Tower Status: Approved Another Goettsch and Riverside collaboration, this BMO Financial Group-anchored office tower will rise next to Chicago’s Union Station. The 50-story, 700-foot building will include a 1.5-acre publicly accessible park at its base above a 400-stall garage. A key part of Union Station’s multiphase master redevelopment plan, the transit-oriented project replaces an existing Amtrak-owned parking structure. BMO Tower is on track to break ground in 2019. It will be the city’s tallest building west of Canal Street when it opens in 2022. 725 W. Randolph. Roger Ferris + Partners 725 W. Randolph Status: Approved While a height of “just” 615 feet puts this tower well out of the running for the city’s tallest, the project headed to 725 W. Randolph Street will nonetheless make a big impact given its location in the mostly mid-rise Fulton Market District. The 52-story development is slated to become Chicago’s tallest building west of the Kennedy Expressway—eclipsing the 495-foot apartment tower at nearby 727 W. Madison Street. Designed by Connecticut-based Roger Ferris + Partners, 725 W. Randolph will feature 370 rental apartments, ground floor retail space, an Equinox fitness club, and a 165-room Equinox-branded hotel. Related Midwest received zoning approval for the project in the summer of 2018 and hopes to break ground on the skyline-extending tower in early 2019. Golub & Co./CIM Group Tribune Tower East Status: Proposed At 1,422 feet, this proposed addition to Chicago’s neo-gothic Tribune Tower is gunning for the title of Chicago’s second tallest building. Slated to replace a parking lot just east of its historic neighbor, the yet-to-be-named skyscraper will contain a 200-key luxury hotel, 439 rental apartments, 125 condominiums, and 430 parking spaces. The design from hometown architecture firm of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill is quite slender by Chicago standards—partly due to a protected view corridor requiring Tribune Tower to remain visible from the Ogden Slip to the east. While co-developers CIM Group and Golub & Co. continue to seek city approval for their new supertall, the team is moving ahead with a conversion of the landmarked 1925 Tribune office building into luxury condominiums. SOM 400 N. Lake Shore Drive Status: Stalled pending design change After years of rumors and speculation, Related Midwest unveiled its design for the site of the failed 2,000-foot Chicago Spire in in May. The plan called for a pair of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill-designed towers containing a combined 550 rental apartments, 300 condo units, and 175 hotel rooms. The duo would rise 1,100 and 850 feet atop a shared podium. In October, downtown Alderman Brendan Reilly rejected the proposal and placed the project on hold until the Related “addressed legitimate concerns” raise by neighbors. Issues included a desire to remove the hotel component, reduce bulk of the podium, and restrict public access to the site and neighboring DuSable Park. Related has yet present an updated design for 400 N. Lake Shore Drive. The developer was originally hoping to break ground on the towers in the summer of 2019 ahead of a 2023 delivery date. It’s unclear how the alderman’s rejection will affect the proposed timeline. “The 78.” Rendering by ICON, master planning by SOM, architectural contributions from ASGG and SOM The 78 Status: Master plan approved, design subject to change While the final design of the ambitious megaproject known as “The 78” will change as potential users are identified, the multiphase plan allows for skyscrapers as tall as 950 feet—serious height considering the site’s Near South Side location between the South Loop and Chinatown. Developed by Related Midwest and master planned by architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, The 78 received initial zoning approval from the Chicago Plan Commission in November. Although the site reportedly came very close to landing Amazon’s HQ2 campus, work on the 62-acre mixed-use development will likely need to secure some other big corporate tenant before vertical construction kicks into high gear. Credit for this story idea and headline goes to former Curbed Chicago editor AJ LaTrace. Chicago’s 47 high-rises under construction, mapped [Curbed Chicago] Have Chicago builders gotten over their fear of heights? [Curbed Chicago] Chicago Development News [Curbed Chicago] https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/3/16/17121148/chicago-supertall-skyscraper-architecture?fbclid=IwAR2a39bw7Yfx30YPyZAgVMb4nga3QZK-310f5ytno6BCWI27eXDooGT1cdM

7 Iconic Buildings Reimagined in Different Architectural Styleserest save Architectural styles derive their uniqueness by demonstrating the construction techniques, political movements, and social changes that make up the zeitgeist of a place in a particular moment of time. Whether it was the rebirth of art and culture with Renaissance architecture, or the steel skyscrapers that emerged in the post-war movement, each stylistic change tells us something different about the transitions of architectural history. But what if architecture rejected a critical regionalist approach, and buildings took on the characteristics of another place? These seven images made for Expedia by NeoMam and Thisisrender provide a glimpse into what some of our favorite architectural icons would look like if they were built in a different style. Sydney Opera House in Tudor style Courtesy of Expedia Fallingwater in Classical style Courtesy of Expedia CN Tower in Ancient Egyptian style Courtesy of Expedia The Louvre in Brutalist style Courtesy of Expedia Buckingham Palace in Bauhaus style Courtesy of Expedia Petronas Towers in Gothic style Courtesy of Expedia Niterói Contemporary Art Museum in Sustainable style https://www.archdaily.com/892658/7-iconic-buildings-reimagined-in-different-architectural-styles?fbclid=IwAR3eIl9p4_CPzeruLB9j3LrhGDS-K8nbWvPIEyCWPNZlgqmHVHuaYMsr8Vs

Nous sommes en année électorale.

Ouais, bon !! je ne partage pas ta perception idyllique de la relation clients/entreprises. La satisfaction de la clientèle n'est qu'un aspect de cette relation. Si les compagnies pouvaient fourrer les clients sans qu'ils s'en rendent compte -pourvu que le profit soit au rendez-vous, ils le feraient. Que dis-je ? Ça se fait toujours !! Mais bon, je ne souhaite pas démarrer une digression qui n'apportera absolument rien à cette discussion. Qu'il suffise de dire que je ne crois en aucun cas que les promoteurs de ce projet aient à cœur le bien-être des Montréalais. Ils doivent être les premiers à trouver toute cette opposition extrêmement chiante !!

Ils comblent surtout les besoins des actionnaires et de la famille Walton !!

Ce n'est pas vraiment une nouvelle construction mais en même temps, ça l'est !! C'est une rénovation mais en même temps c'est plus que ça. J'ai très hâte de voir le résultat final.

J'espère que quelqu'un a pensé à récupérer les lampadaires au lieu de les envoyer à la casse !!

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/grand-montreal/201901/28/01-5212646-rapport-du-big-un-entrepreneur-exigeait-une-cote-des-sous-traitants.php Rapport du BIG: un entrepreneur exigeait une cote des sous-traitants Agrandir La bibliothèque de Pierrefonds, lorsque celle-ci était encore sur la planche à dessin. Des sous-traitants ont été obligés de verser une cote de 5 à 15 % à l'entrepreneur général Les Constructions Lavacon inc. pour certains travaux effectués lors de l'agrandissement de la bibliothèque de Pierrefonds. C'est ce que révèle une enquête du Bureau de l'inspecteur général de Montréal qui conclut à des gestes suffisamment graves et répréhensibles pour transmettre le dossier à l'Unité permanente anticorruption (UPAC) ainsi qu'à l'Autorité des marchés publics (AMP). Selon le rapport d'enquête du Bureau de l'inspecteur général (BIG) qui vient d'être déposé à la séance du conseil municipal de Montréal, « les moyens utilisés par Les Constructions Lavacon inc. constituent une manoeuvre frauduleuse ». L'inspectrice générale Brigitte Bishop recommande donc aux élus montréalais d'exclure Lavacon de tout contrat ou sous-contrat public pour une période de cinq ans. Me Bishop recommande également à la Ville de prendre des mesures de contrôles supplémentaires dans les documents d'appel d'offres afin d'assurer l'intégrité et la transparence de la facturation. Il s'agit de contrer des façons de faire similaires, car « l'inspectrice générale croit que Les Constructions Lavacon inc. n'est pas la seule entreprise qui pourrait utiliser le stratagème mis à jour par son enquête ». Le BIG souligne que l'entrepreneur a tiré profit de la situation au détriment de la Ville. Lavacon ne payait pas « la véritable valeur des travaux exécutés par les sous-[traitants] tout en demandant le plein paiement à la Ville de Montréal ». « Lavacon s'est placé dans une situation de conflit entre ses propres intérêts et ceux de la Ville de Montréal puisqu'il a retiré des avantages financiers à ce que les travaux des sous-traitants soient faits au coût le plus élevé possible ». Concrètement, Lavacon a conclu des ententes de « partage des frais » avec ses sous-traitants qui se sont engagés à lui remettre un escompte, c'est-à-dire une cote de 5 à 15 % de la valeur des travaux effectués pour chaque directive de changement, communément appelés des extra. Ainsi, lors d'une directive de changement, le sous-traitant remettait son estimation des coûts des travaux à Lavacon qui les transmettait à la Ville pour autoriser la dépense. Le bon de commande alors envoyé au sous-traitant était « coupé d'un montant correspondant à l'escompte inclus dans l'entente ». « À aucun moment, les responsables du projet pour la Ville de Montréal n'ont été mis au courant d'une telle entente et il leur aurait été impossible d'en connaître l'existence puisque les sous-traitants relevaient de la responsabilité de l'entrepreneur général », peut-on lire dans le rapport du BIG. L'enquête administrative a été déclenchée à la suite d'une dénonciation. Les enquêteurs ont analysé plus de 50 directives de changements émises entre août 2017 et mai 2018. Ils ont rencontré 10 des 30 sous-traitants de Lavacon. L'entrepreneur a obtenu le contrat de 20,3 millions lors d'un second appel d'offres public lancé en janvier 2017. Neuf autres entreprises avaient déposé une soumission. Le chantier de construction de la bibliothèque de Pierrefonds est terminé depuis la fin de l'automne. Il reste quelques ajustements à apporter ce qui devrait mener à l'ouverture officielle au printemps. Le projet a bénéficié d'une aide financière du gouvernement du Québec de 4 millions. Les Constructions Lavacon est une entreprise dirigée par Luigi Pallotta depuis sa création en 1988.

Only minutes from the Loop, the 54.5-acre Lincoln Yards property was once the site of a steel mill and other industrial companies. Now developers want to construct a dense cluster of office and residential towers along a bend in the Chicago River. A great urban place is more than a motley collection of tall buildings and open spaces. It has lively streets, pulsing gathering spots and buildings that talk to one another rather than sing the architectural equivalent of a shrill solo. Daley Plaza, with its enigmatic Picasso sculpture and powerful county courts high-rise, is a great urban place. So is the North Side’s Armitage Avenue, lined with delightful Victorian storefronts. The latest plan for the $5 billion-plus Lincoln Yards megadevelopment, which would transform 54.5 acres of former industrial land along the Chicago River into offices, apartments, shops and entertainment venues including a 20,000-seat soccer stadium, doesn’t measure up. Source: Lincoln Yards master plan proposal (Kyle Bentle/Chicago Tribune) It would be dramatically out of scale with its surroundings, piercing the delicate urban fabric of the city’s North Side with a swath of downtown height and bulk. It also would be out of character with its environs, more Anytown than Our Town. And that’s what the debate over Lincoln Yards is really about — not just the zoning change the developers seek, which would reclassify their land from a manufacturing district to a mixed-use waterfront zone, but urban character. What kind of city are we building? Who is it for? Does it have room for the small and the granular as well as the muscular and the monumental? Turrets decorate colorful Victorian buildings along West Armitage Avenue in Chicago's Lincoln Park community area. The Lincoln Yards project would loom over the North Side neighborhood. Three- and four-story buildings line West Armitage Avenue, seen at Sheffield Avenue. Proposed for nearby Lincoln Yards: nine buildings more than 400 feet tall, with the tallest rising to 650 feet. (Erin Hooley/Chicago Tribune photos) These questions have simmered as Chicago allows high-rises to expand far beyond the historic confines of the Loop. Lincoln Yards brings them to full boil. To be sure, the Lincoln Yards plan is not without good strokes — most notably, proposed public spaces that draw inspiration from the area’s hard-edged industrial past. But these are sweeteners. The core issue is density and what the public gets in return for allowing developers to build tall. In October, I examined a cautionary tale: Cityfront Center, a 60-acre riverfront spread of office and residential high-rises between North Michigan Avenue and Navy Pier that was Chicago’s biggest project of the 1980s. Cityfront Center’s developers got to erect more square footage than previous zoning allowed on land that once contained factories and warehouses. But more than 30 years later, the city is still stuck with its mediocre architecture and public spaces that are unfinished, underperforming and largely disjointed. Cityfront Center holds a lesson for Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his successor. Even the best-laid plans can go awry. Yet the mayor and his city planners appear intent upon rushing Lincoln Yards through to approval around the time city voters elect the mayor’s successor next April. Memo to the mayor: Slow down. Rethink. There’s a chance to do that as your urban planners negotiate with Lincoln Yards’ developers over further changes to the plan that are likely to be unveiled next year. Memo to Ald. Brian Hopkins, 2nd, in whose ward Lincoln Yards would be built: Press for fundamental changes before giving this flawed proposal your blessing. The high, bird’s-eye view perspective used by developer Sterling Bay de-emphasizes the height of planned Lincoln Yards buildings and draws attention to proposed green spaces like parks and a riverwalk. Some of these green spaces, like planted roofs, are unlikely to be open to the public. (Lincoln Yards master plan proposal) A lower view of Lincoln Yards, made by open-space advocates, depicts the sharp change in height and bulk the development would bring to west Lincoln Park. This view looks southwest over DePaul University’s Lincoln Park campus to the proposed Lincoln Yards high-rises. (North Branch Park & Nature Preserve) ubscribe LOOMING TOWERS In a crucial way, Lincoln Yards is an even more complex undertaking than Cityfront Center. Its long row of high-rises, which the developers estimate would house more than 24,000 workers and 5,000 residential units, would be sandwiched between two low-rise, historic neighborhoods, Lincoln Park to the east and Bucktown to the west. That proximity has bred contempt. When Lincoln Yards’ developer, Chicago-based Sterling Bay, unveiled the latest version of its plan at a Nov. 29 community meeting, many neighbors were not impressed by the company’s decision to give a rather meaningless haircut to the proposed high-rises. The tallest of them would rise to 650 feet instead of the gasp-inducing 818 feet that the firm and its architects, the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, proposed in July. The neighbors have every reason to be concerned. A 650-foot tower wouldn’t just loom menacingly over the little shops of the Armitage retail strip. It even would be out of scale with Lincoln Park’s tall buildings, which line the western edge of the park from which the neighborhood takes its name. The skyline: Taller and thicker Proposed skyscrapers in Lincoln Yards would exceed the height and bulk of high-rises along Lincoln Park. The difference is evident in the contrast between the Lincoln Yards plan, which calls for 20 buildings, and a half-mile stretch of 14 buildings that line Lakeview Avenue across from Lincoln Park. Sources: Lincoln Yards master plan proposal; Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat; Emporis. (Jemal R. Brinson/Chicago Tribune) Consider the stretch of North Lakeview Avenue between Fullerton Avenue and Diversey Parkway. Typical building heights there range from 110 to 384 feet. The tallest building, Lincoln Park 2550, tops out at 477 feet. Lincoln Yards would have nine buildings in excess of 400 feet. One of them, a 596-footer at the project’s eastern edge, would be 12 feet taller than the twin corncobs of Marina City. This isn’t the gradual shift between Lincoln Yards and surrounding neighborhoods that Skidmore, Owings & Merrill has talked up. It’s an excessive leap in height, which cannot be properly understood without reference to its urban context. The 600-foot towers that line South Wacker Drive barely make an impression because they exist in the shadow of the 1,451-foot Willis Tower. Alongside Armitage and the rest of west Lincoln Park, a tower of that size is a monster. Cities need to grow and change, but this is the sort of incongruous Dodge City growth you expect in Houston, a city infamous for its lack of zoning. And it could have lasting consequences, likely worsening the traffic congestion that already plagues streets like Clybourn and North avenues. What’s the alternative? The draconian solution would be to force the developers to radically shrink their plan. Another route, less severe, would have them rearrange buildings to create a better fit with surrounding areas. A third course would prod them to explore different types of buildings — not just towers with setbacks, but a mix of low-rises and high-rises, like the beautifully decorated, block-shaped buildings along the west edge of Lincoln Park. During the post-Recession building boom, architects in Chicago have justified the construction of tall, slender buildings by arguing that they have better proportions than short, squat ones and leave more room for open space. That is Skidmore, Owings & Merrill’s rationale for Lincoln Yards. But as the architects’ proposal shows, that way of thinking can produce severe shortcomings, especially when it comes to making a sense of place. PROMISED PUBLIC SPACES Flawed in the sky, Lincoln Yards is more promising at ground level, though there is cause for concern there too. On the plus side, the plan calls for extending new roads, bridges, public transit and public spaces, including an extension of The 606 bike-pedestrian trail, through the now-isolated site. These steps, priced by city officials at $800 million, would be backed by controversial tax increment financing. It would reimburse the developers, who would bear the upfront costs of the new infrastructure. Critics call such financing a form of corporate welfare because it would use the added property tax revenue generated by Lincoln Yards to pay for the planned infrastructure rather than conveying those funds to taxing bodies like the city of Chicago and Chicago Public Schools. The footprint: Towers, new infrastructure The 54.5 acres along the North Branch of the Chicago River would include a cluster of tall buildings, new road and pedestrian ways, parks and more. Here are the main features of the proposal. Source: Lincoln Yards master plan proposal (Kyle Bentle/Chicago Tribune) But Planning and Development Commissioner David Reifman persuasively argues that by improving access to the site, the new infrastructure would unlock the economic potential of long-dormant land next to vibrant neighborhoods and near downtown. The TIF wouldn’t just benefit Sterling Bay, he says. Another positive is the open space plan crafted by New York-based James Corner Field Operations, co-designers of Manhattan’s High Line. It calls for more than 20 acres of parks and plazas, plus a milelong riverwalk, up from 13 acres in July. Field Operations compellingly ties these elements together by treating the former industrial site as a kind of artifact, a “found object.” Russet-colored gateways would frame views and harmonize with the industrial-era bridges that span the river. A promenade would incorporate railroad spurs that once led to factories like the old A. Finkl & Sons steel plant. A “foundry playground” would also allude to the industrial past with its tube-shaped slides. Lincoln Yards’ public spaces would draw inspiration from the site’s industrial past, including a riverfront overlook, above, and a “slide hill.” City officials want to accelerate the schedule for such improvements to avoid pitfalls like the still-unfinished riverwalk at Cityfront Center, which has been delayed by the lack of progress at the former Chicago Spire site, below, at 400 N. Lake Shore Drive. (Lincoln Yards master plan proposal) (Antonio Perez/Chicago Tribune) Here, at least, Lincoln Yards looks authentic rather than imposed on its site. When might this tantalizing vision materialize? Certainly not all at once. Only a quarter-mile stretch of riverwalk would be built in Lincoln Yards’ first phase, which calls for three office buildings along the river. Having witnessed the failures of Cityfront Center, where the riverwalk remains unfinished, City Hall wants to create an accelerated schedule for the new parkland. When almost half the project’s buildable area is completed, the city would require Sterling Bay to finish all the open space. That’s an improvement over Cityfront Center, but it still leaves the proposed public space vulnerable to real estate recessions, a growing concern given the stock market’s recent volatility. Public space advocates and some North Side aldermen also question whether Lincoln Yards’ open space will be enough for families in the surrounding neighborhood. They back the creation of a 24-acre North Branch Park and Nature Preserve, which would be built on the scruffy General Iron scrap yard site next to Lincoln Yards. They urge the city to use some of the TIF funds to help buy the General Iron land and turn it into a park. It’s a good idea. The park would prevent more high-rises from clogging the riverfront and begin to fill a nearly 5-mile gap between publicly owned parks on the river’s North Branch. Last but hardly least on the list of ground-level issues is the need to fill Lincoln Yards with lively streets. With all the excitement over the downtown riverwalk, it’s easy to forget that such streets, framed by visually enticing storefronts and outfitted with pedestrian-friendly features like trees and benches, are the real building blocks of cities. Yet the vagueness of the designers’ language — the streets are supposed to be “safe and welcoming” and have an “active retail edge” — is troubling. The guidelines need to be fleshed out if Lincoln Yards is to avoid Cityfront Center’s bland sidewalks and hulking storefronts. If Lincoln Yards doesn’t have good streets, it will never become a great urban place. Vaguely worded design guidelines call for Lincoln Yards, above, to have an “active retail edge,” but they need to be more specific to prevent the development’s buildings from repeating the hulking, pedestrian-unfriendly streetscape of Cityfront Center, below. (Lincoln Yards master plan proposal) (Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune) AUTHENTIC OR GENERIC? The social and cultural architecture of Lincoln Yards is as important as its physical architecture. A vital district, after all, is inseparable from the activities that occur within it. As is true in other cities, development in Chicago is often a relentless process of gentrification, with rising rents near new public works and high-rises near transit stations pushing out many longtime residents. While the city requires developers of projects getting public monies or a zoning change to reserve 20 percent of their residential units for affordable housing, developers often get around the requirement by paying into a citywide affordable housing fund. In contrast, Reifman says that at least a quarter of the required units at Lincoln Yards may be affordable, while at least another quarter could be built within 2 miles of the development. That would avoid the embarrassing irony of residences on former industrial land that working people could not afford. How Chicago answers a related question also will affect Lincoln Yards’ character: Will proposed entertainment venues backed by big corporate outfits like Live Nation be allowed to overpower beloved small music venues like The Hideout, in the 1300 block of West Wabansia Avenue? Supporters of The Hideout, in the 1300 block of West Wabansia Avenue, fear the venue could drown in a sea of generic urbanism brought on by the Lincoln Yards project. (Courtney Pedroza/Chicago Tribune) Chicago poet, activist and educator Kevin Coval reads a poem onstage Feb. 21, 2017, at The Hideout. The Lincoln Yards development's plans for new Live Nation-run concert halls concern supporters of The Hideout. (Ting Shen/for the Chicago Tribune) Sterling Bay says it wants The Hideout to remain a neighbor, allowing Lincoln Yards to benefit from the venue’s authenticity. Still, the risk is that The Hideout would drown in a sea of generic urbanism. As Tribune music critic Greg Kot has written, “With each sell-out of its small but essential indie institutions, Chicago diminishes itself and blurs its essence not just as a metropolis made up of big buildings but a beehive of communities that make and share their creativity.” Music and cities both benefit from a variety of voices, not the dull monotone of the safe and predictable. As the great urbanologist Jane Jacobs once wrote, “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” Does Sterling Bay get that? The developers seek an enormous power: A green light to shape an entire swath of the Chicago’s North Side. Yet the zoning change it seeks is a privilege, not a right. The company still has to earn that privilege by demonstrating it can deliver the great urban place that Chicago deserves. Until then, City Hall’s message to Sterling Bay should be simple and direct: “Do better.” Blair Kamin is a Tribune critic. bkamin@chicagotribune.com Twitter @BlairKamin http://graphics.chicagotribune.com/lincoln-yards-reaction-kamin/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1S0NuocOoAQW18yV8lLgFDuIUz0jswV50bZjhyQ2qibPxcA8n1rPuQYyI

Ce serait assez difficile de moderniser un édifice qui mériterait d'être protégé sans lui ôter son aspect vieillot !! C'est ce qui fait son charme !!

C'est bel et bien mon habitude mais je doute que le résultat final dans ce cas-çi soit très éloigné des évocations. Ne t'en fais pas pour les votes négatifs. Je te crois si tu me le dis. Cela étant établi, je n'en ai absolument rien à foutre d'avoir des votes négatifs. Je ne participe pas à ce forum pour gagner un concours de popularité. And I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you guys !!

Nous savons tout de même de quoi elle aura l'air et franchement ce n'est pas très impressionnant !!

Je suis d'accord !! La BN a raté l'occasion de donner à Montréal une tour signature. Nous l'attendons toujours...

Et moi (évidemment) j'espère que ce projet ne verra jamais le jour. C'est vraiment un projet dont l'ensemble de la région métropolitaine n'a absolument pas besoin. Ce projet n'a de sens que pour les promoteurs et les élus de cette minuscule municipalité qui a grandement besoin des taxes municipales que ce projet va engendrer.

Finalement c'est un mur d'escalade déguisé en oeuvre d'art...ou le contraire ???

Eh bien j'espère au moins que ceux qui sont sur ce chantier savent ce qu'ils font !!

...qui se trouve à faire face au square Phillips et qui en porte même le nom !!

Excellente nouvelle !!

J'aime bien les appartements Dorchester mais je n'irai pas jusqu'à qualifier le projet de "belle oeuvre architecturale". C'est bien, tout au plus.

Excusez mon ignorance mais ça vient d'où ce nom ?? "Queen Aliz" ?? OK : j'ai ma réponse. En fait le projet s'appelle Queen Alix et non pas Aliz :

J'aime bien la nouvelle mouture : de style international, ça me fait un peu penser à la tour CIBC, à l'hôtel Omni et la tour voisine sur le même site, la Place Sherbrooke. Je dirais même que c'est l'édifice existant qui ressemble le plus à ce projet : accentuation de l'horizontalité avec une fenestration rectangulaire. Ça va trancher avec toutes les autres tours environnantes -tant dans le choix des matériaux que des couleurs.

C'est une question de goût je suppose. Je ne qualifierais jamais une édifice sommes toutes assez banal d'oeuvre architecturale. Les architectes ne se sont pas fendu en quatre pour nous concocter un édifice assez convenu.

Question de goût j'imagine !!

Merci de le faire : j'ai cherché sur trois pages mais je ne suis pas allé plus loin dans ma recherche.