Since July, we’ve been waiting impatiently to see what 550 St Clair will look like sheathed in glass. At last, we’re in luck – almost all of the windows were in place earlier this week when we stopped by the Streeterville tower, designed by Brininstool + Lynch. It’s a good example of the firm’s signature look – minimal, almost weightless. Eventually, the glass will extend a little way past the roofline, adding to the effect of glass floating on top of the building’s concrete skeleton.
The glassy, transparent tower is one of Streeterville’s more modern buildings, and it makes for an interesting contrast with the vintage brick structures immediately to the north and south. But we’re less sold on the garage base, which looks a little imposing from street level.
That raises the ubiquitous parking question – especially in Streeterville, where parking is in short supply, how do you design buildings that aren’t dominated by their garages? There may be a good reason that Brininstool and Sutherland Pearsall Development Corp decided to mask the parking inside a concrete block. But garages and glass can mix beautifully – at least the Germans seem to think so, according to an article last year in Architecture Week.
Speaking of Germans, one wonders what 550 St Clair would look like if the glass extended to the ground level, like Helmut Jahn’s 600 North Fairbanks, another modern Streeterville tower (Jahn is no stranger to glass parking structures – check out his FKB Parkhaus 2 & 3, for Cologne / Bonn airport in Germany).
I like the fact that the parking base is in proportion to the building, not 200% of the floor space relative to the residential floors (unlike many other new buildings). That being said, the base looks likes sh*t. I agree with the author that they should have extended the glass down to the street.
This has to be the same architect that designed the same garbage in the South Loop for CMK, including the port windows and “optimized” use of material…
Why do you waste so many posts about this hideous building? Anyone walking through the area can tell you that it does not belong. I feel bad for any investors or future owners, but worse, I feel bad for local residents forced to share space with this mess.
Take away the base, and this building wouldn’t be so bad looking. The clear glass is a much better alternative to the mirrored or tinted stuff we usually see. I hope they have curtains, though!
I just saw that this was designed by Brininstool and Lynch… These guys are good architects, but haven’t found a good way to deal with the ubiquitous “parking podium” in any of their large-scale housing projects. For a great example of their work, check out the Racine Art Museum in Racine, WI. It’s a really great building done on a minimal budget, and it’s received all kinds of accolades.
I’m having a hard time believing that anyone with two eyes would consider anything positive about this brutish assault of a building. The base is not to be believed. As for this architect’s work, take a look at the gulag they foisted upon the city of Evanston recently. Sheer dreck. None of their work inspires one to look in wonder and utter: “delightful.”
The “screened” parking is required by the city; I believe that the last “open” parking garage was the one at North Bridge with the canted metal panels (where Big Bowl is). The intent was to reduce the garages’ visual impact, but obviously it isn’t working.
As for concrete vs. glass, well, concrete’s cheaper.
The parking podiums typically fill the entire space from +15′ above grade to at least +85′ — the height of a Parisian midrise building, and well beyond the maximum height one can see without craning one’s neck. Having first-floor retail only does so much to rescue their deadening impact on the street.
The only ways to reduce the podiums’ visual impact are to add liner buildings around the parking (possible only on those rare larger sites), to put parking underground (very expensive, especially near the lake where the water table is high), or to get rid of the parking.