The single-family home at 1625 N Wolcott Ave, which is part of the Urban Sandbox development, took the grand prize in the Midwest region at the Best in American Living Awards, a national contest in residential design, according to today’s Tribune.
The winners were announced in Las Vegas on January 19, so the news isn’t exactly traveling at light speed, but that shouldn’t detract from the winners. As one of the judges told the Trib, “The winners are the best of the best of the best of the best across the country.”
Urban Sandbox consists of four single-family homes developed by JODI Development and one larger multi-unit building at 1615 N Wolcott Ave developed by Ranquist Development. This 5,000 square-foot single-family home was designed by Osterhous McCarthy Architects. All of these photos come courtesy of the architect’s Web site.
NewHomeNotebook:
• Rate and review Urban Sandbox single-family homes
• Rate and review Urban Sandbox mid-rise
sorry to kind of be repeating a post…but does anyone know how well ranquist’s stuff holds up? i’ a fan, but last time i saw those buildings on division, the awnings were crumbling on them…is that status quo for ranquist stuff?
that would be dissapointing if their stuff is shoddily built, aesthetically i like their buildings…
r.
Well deserved.
How much did this project costs including land?
The project architecture looks cool, but I wonder if the cost justifies the design.
After looking at the remainder of their portfolio though, other than the 1230 N. Hoyne project, all the others look incredibly cheap. The material specifications, especially the block structure,
do not appear to be durable or long lasting.
Being Green & modern is overrated if you have to tear the place down and start again in 20 years. Makes one wonder, if modern materials for architecture are so good, how come they don’t last like material that wears for generations.
Jeff,
Construction defects have often been the evil twin of modern architecture dating back 100 years or more.
Lots of Wright projects were plagued by leaks. Mies made many a mess. Etc.
It’s like the comment your or Mr. Askins made a few pages back about some of the modern glass buildings, while looking great on the renderings, when reality sits in and people put up multiple blinds, curtins, etc. It looks kind of blaahhh.
With some of these designs, conditions have to be just perfect. But these materials look exponentially bad with some slight aging, where as some of the older designs, when stonework and masonary were great (aaaarrrrrgggggg aaarrrrggghhh), they aged gracefully.
In your good examples cited, Mies (nor Wright) did not really skimp on material quality or fall for the value engineering shtick. As I said before, much of this modern stuff today, many of the designs used are more about hiding the fact they use crappy material and windows, while trying to self proclaim “progressive” design. Reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skits with Mike Meyers plaining the German TV Disco show host showing off all kinds of cheesy gadgets.
I don’t anyone will be confusing the CMK stuff with Mies, nor will you see any of that stuff built in LAkeshore East or Central Station…
The great attraction of Mies for developer Herb Greenwald, apart from the architectural excitement. was (and I’m quoting from memory) “I can build his stuff $2 a square foot cheaper.”
At the time when 860-880 was built construction costs were $10 a square foot and $2 was an enormous saving.
860-880 was an ergonomic disaster. Mies didn’t have a clue as to how people actually would live in his spaces – if he even cared.
If my recollection is correct, 860-880 lacked garbage chutes and air-conditioning, and the heating units couldn’t handle the winter loads. People broiled in the summer, had hallways that reeked of garbage, and froze in the winter. That’s not skimping?