posted
PS: I just saw that I have THREE unread messages! I'm so sorry!! I will respond as soon as I can. So sorry....did not see them there.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
If you scroll down to the link, in blue, by architect Kamin, that is also interesting. I kind of agree. The 330 room hotel is ok, but an apartment complex seems excessive.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, here is what was proposed when the station was designed. The structure atop the existing eight floors of now largely unoccupied office space was to be a hotel.
From first hand knowledge, I learned that cassions sufficient to hold the twenty five story structure were laid. However, within a city where "politics is everything", the owners of The Midland ("W"), LaSalle (razed), Morrison (razed), Palmer House (Hilton), Stevens (Conrad Hilton), Bismarck (Allegro), whoever, were "not happy" over someone having a hotel back then analogous to the one (Hilton, for the moment) within the O'Hare terminals.
And that was that.
But with cassions laid to support a structure much higher than the seven floors proposed, why not go for it? The West Loop is "where it's at" Today.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original design that GBN links certainly fits better architecturally than the glass box now,proposed. But at least at 7 stories it’s not overwhelming and natural light can still enter the great hall. I wonder if the plans include development over the approach tracks to the station, as in Washington and maybe Philadelphia.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by palmland: I wonder if the plans include development over the approach tracks to the station, as in Washington and maybe Philadelphia.
As in 10, 120, 222, and 300 S Riverside Plaza?
BTW, anyone notice how there is an esplanade out to River's edge by 10, 120,222 but not 300? Well that's because PRR (and successors) own the track closest to the River and not CUSCO. 300 was not built until after C-Day, and Conrail and the developers could not come together over those air rights. So, no handshakes, no esplanade. I've pointed that out to several "visiting firemen", but I guess you and Miss. Mary were not amongst such.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
