NorthShore
Conductor
Well, if you won't, I will: UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY! Certainly, they could do better (even with initial renderings) to find a way to better blend in new development with an historic building.
Ambitious restoration and transformation in the Chicago area
- Thread starter George K
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
The designs are in keeping with what had been originally planned. In fact, by only building along two sides more light will probably be allowed in than if the proposed addition completely surrounded the Great Hall as envisioned way back when.
frequentflyer
Conductor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,170
Interesting that Union Station "bones" can support a 30 story building. I imagine the engineers will be going over those old "bones" with a fine tooth comb to make sure its still capable of supporting that weight.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Compared to what, exactly? Maybe in a perfect world they could keep everything closer to the original design but these days the only industry that is flush with tax money is the US military. This is downtown Chicago where commercial and residential space is at a premium. Amtrak needs all the money they can get and there will be plenty of customers ready to buy any space they can create. All things considered this looks perfectly fine to me.
We can only hope.
neroden
Engineer
The building is designed to support an "overbuild".
This was done with a small historic two-story building where I live, in Ithaca, NY, which is now a five-story building. It looks great. You can't see at at all from nearby (since it's set back a little, from ground level right on the same street as the building, you see only the historic part of the building) and from a distance, it looks cool. It added much-needed office space to downtown. I am totally in favor of construction which adds height to a building without demolishing the old building or seriously changing its appearance.
For reference, the building in Ithaca after:
https://ithacavoice.com/2016/08/carey-building/
and before:
http://www.biotech.cornell.edu/news/ithaca-business-incubator-locate-carey-building
This is just a MUCH better thing to do than tearing down the old building like they did with the concourse of Union Station. It's like having a whole new building next door, but instead of being next door, it's on top
I really want to encourage this concept to completely replace teardowns of old commercial buildings, but I guess not all commercial buildings were designed for the extra weight.
This was done with a small historic two-story building where I live, in Ithaca, NY, which is now a five-story building. It looks great. You can't see at at all from nearby (since it's set back a little, from ground level right on the same street as the building, you see only the historic part of the building) and from a distance, it looks cool. It added much-needed office space to downtown. I am totally in favor of construction which adds height to a building without demolishing the old building or seriously changing its appearance.
For reference, the building in Ithaca after:
https://ithacavoice.com/2016/08/carey-building/
and before:
http://www.biotech.cornell.edu/news/ithaca-business-incubator-locate-carey-building
This is just a MUCH better thing to do than tearing down the old building like they did with the concourse of Union Station. It's like having a whole new building next door, but instead of being next door, it's on top
I really want to encourage this concept to completely replace teardowns of old commercial buildings, but I guess not all commercial buildings were designed for the extra weight.
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden
Engineer
222 Riverside remains a problem. Imagine how great it would be if they'd been thinking this way when they'd built it, and had left the Union Station concourse in place *underneath* a skyscraper.
I really look forward to having a hotel IN Chicago Union Station -- something which works quite wonderfully in Denver -- but I think only 4 floors is actually seriously underestimating the demand which such a hotel will get. It's going to be way more popular than they think, even though it will be really expensive. (I can now afford to, so I would most likely stay there every time I went to Chicago, if they could accomodate my fabric allergies.)
I really look forward to having a hotel IN Chicago Union Station -- something which works quite wonderfully in Denver -- but I think only 4 floors is actually seriously underestimating the demand which such a hotel will get. It's going to be way more popular than they think, even though it will be really expensive. (I can now afford to, so I would most likely stay there every time I went to Chicago, if they could accomodate my fabric allergies.)
MisterUptempo
Lead Service Attendant
There is a hint that additional entrances are in the offing-
Image Source - amtrak.com
This is the Jackson Street side of Union Station, looking east from Clinton. You might notice what appears to be awnings, five flank either side of the current Jackson Street entrance, made accessible via new staircases. I would have to imagine that those additions would signal either additional entrances for the residential/office/hotel portions or some sort of small scale retail. The announcement did mention developing street-facing retail to add a little vibrancy, though it wasn't specific as to where.
Also, the former taxi drive entrance, the large arch on the Clinton side just north of the intersection, appears to be permanently closed off in the rendering, with an "e" visible (perhaps the last letter in "Entrance") over what looks to be new doors.
===========================================================================
The new food hall, which will be located inside the former Harvey House lunch room appears to have three new entries punched out of the facade, to allow access directly off Clinton Street.
Image Source - amtrak.com
The Midwest High Speed Rail Association, in their proposal to improve Union Station, advocated converting the former lunch room into a grand entrance off Clinton. While this is no grand entrance, one can envision Metra commuters using the new doors and cutting through the food hall to get to their trains.
These are just peeks into plans not yet finalized, but it does illustrate the ability to provide new entrances without altering the structure in any way that would jeopardize its landmark status .
Last edited by a moderator:
BoulderCO
Service Attendant
Today's (I think) Chicago Tribune had a big article on this by their architectural critic. While a few aspects of the design got some positive comments, the overall assessment in the review was very negative. The critic seemed to think that many of the new public spaces and plazas would be unpopular and seldom used.
NorthShore
Conductor
I think that the building addition ought to have a more historic styling/appearance which would complement the historic facility rather than a Miesian glass tower atop. Actual construction methods can be modern (and create just as much additional space to sell/lease) without the clash of modernistic over classic. Such wouldn't be terribly difficult for a decent architect. But, it likely has to be specified as desirable.
Last edited by a moderator:
PaulM
Engineer
Apparently this is the only part of the plan that has any thing to do with train travelers.
Sactobob
Train Attendant
Having a hotel within the building will also be very convenient for train travelers.
I'll reserve judgment until it's actually built. I've seen a few "renderings" of buildings that looked strange/hideous, but then the final version was actually pretty nice.
I like the idea of having a hotel at the station. I imagine the rooms will cost a pretty penny, though.
I like the idea of having a hotel at the station. I imagine the rooms will cost a pretty penny, though.
Maybe Amtrak could learn more than a few things from opening and running their first land-based hotel operation! Imagine a First Class, Five-Star hotel Amtrak hotel complete with all the modern amenities, but with a train-centric twist to the decor and styling of the rooms (each floor perhaps being themed on the First Class offerings of the predecessor railroads who turned their operations over on A-Day.) Amtrak owns the building, right? Use it as a means for expressing the very best, then carrying that same attitude and offering to their core transportation product.
But knowing Amtrak, you'd end up mighty disappointed with a fantastic hotel followed by a broken down, malfunctioning and filthy bedroom on your train. Maybe the rooms would be better off themed on the trains Amtrak runs instead. You can even manage to get the malfunctioning toilet system and resulting raw sewer smell as a free amenity! :giggle:
But knowing Amtrak, you'd end up mighty disappointed with a fantastic hotel followed by a broken down, malfunctioning and filthy bedroom on your train. Maybe the rooms would be better off themed on the trains Amtrak runs instead. You can even manage to get the malfunctioning toilet system and resulting raw sewer smell as a free amenity! :giggle:
Must agree here that the design of those two high apartment buildings on top of Union Station are ugly and destroy the look of a historic landmark.. As for the station itself, Amtrak is doing an excellent job of revitalizing the space but like Penn station, the basement train shed ( that is more like a crawl space), just cannot handle the rush hour crowds well. If you've even been there during rush hours people are shoulder to shoulder cramped like sardines in a can. Chicago may eventually need to reopen one of its old RR stations to accommodate the kind of traffic that will increase over time. Whats left of the train shed is inadequate to do the job.
brianpmcdonnell17
Conductor
The only capacity issue is on the south side of the station, where traffic could relatively easily be rerouted to underutilized Lasalle Street Station if necessary. I doubt such a move would even affect Amtrak trains, but instead the south terminal Metra lines. The old railroad stations with the exception of those currently used by Metra have long been built over and are highly unlikely to be reopened.
NorthShore
Conductor
Blair Kamin, architecture critic for the Tribune, repeatedly confused me by referring, inaccurately, to the Great Hall as Union Station's head house. He ought to know better than that, and realize that the original head house was long ago demolished and has been office building-ed over.
George K
Conductor
Best verbing of a noun I've seen in a long time. :giggle:
And, it's the perfect description as well.
ehbowen
Engineer
I believe that is incorrect; the building with waiting, ticketing and offices is properly referred to as the head house while the area which connects the head house with the individual tracks is traditionally known as the "concourse". It is the concourse of Union Station which was demolished in the early 1970s (IIRC). Droege's authoritative Passenger Terminals and Trains does not settle the matter; he uses the "concourse" term numerous times but "head house" only infrequently; his preferred term for what I am calling the head house is "main building."
Wikipedia says in its short article on the subject that a head house is "an enclosed building attached to an open-sided shed." It goes on to say that "Head house is most commonly encountered as an American railroad term for the part of a train station which does not house the tracks and platforms."
NorthShore
Conductor
Why not, simply, call it "Great Hall" or "historic waiting room", like everyone else does?
NorthShore
Conductor
Admittedly, the Union Station website agrees with this assessment:
http://www.chicagounionstation.com/cusfacts.html
http://www.greatamericanstations.com/stations/chicago-il-chi/
Still, I have a hard time considering a building behind the building that fronts it, a "headhouse."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Union_Station_Chicago_1924.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_Union_Station_Plan.jpg
Of course, part of the challenge here is the unusual and unique configuration of CUS as a double stub station, with two buildings rather than one.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Does it really matter what it is called as long as we all agree which part of the built up area we are talking about?
MisterUptempo
Lead Service Attendant
I have a small question, quite trivial, really.
In Amtrak's Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Projects List, there is a line item of $4.5 million for "CHICAGO UNION STA HEAD HOUSE DORM ROOMS". Does anyone know what the status of this project might be? Has it started? Is it finished? Will it be abandoned in light of the new development agreement?
Like I said, trivial, but I'm still curious.
In Amtrak's Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Projects List, there is a line item of $4.5 million for "CHICAGO UNION STA HEAD HOUSE DORM ROOMS". Does anyone know what the status of this project might be? Has it started? Is it finished? Will it be abandoned in light of the new development agreement?
Like I said, trivial, but I'm still curious.
NorthShore
Conductor
I guess it's sort of like watching a movie or tv show, where the locals all scoff and say, "They got that entirely wrong." Or how people not native to an area make references that the locals never would. "Chi-town", for example. It just rings wrong in the ear. Which is all that I was really saying, initially. Keep the ketchup off your hotdog! ;-) Ew!
Last edited by a moderator:
