Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Ambitious Restoration and Redevelopment at Chicago Union Station


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#21 Larry H.

Larry H.

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 25 May 2017 - 04:53 PM

Here's a link to a live stream of the panel. 

 

I've often thought Amtrak may be better at being a landlord than an operator of passenger rail service.

 

Boy your right there. Its often very irratating to see them go so lavish on off the rails projects and when you pay the big fare your riding in substandard equipment at the best.  How about like in the past the lounges onboard are as inviting as the ones at the stations?  Someone is dropping ball  somewhere.  Granted its most likely a money issue but Amtrak it self has never really acted like a first class operation.  At least never for long. 



#22 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2017 - 04:49 AM

Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?

I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?

Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?

Edited by cirdan, 26 May 2017 - 04:51 AM.


#23 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 26 May 2017 - 05:34 AM

Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?

I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?

Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?


My guess is that the design with two towers on the North and south side of the clear roof was created to maximize sunlight. As long as this is true and no part of the structure is destroyed, I actually like the design presented in the posted images.
Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS MIA-NYP

#24 MisterUptempo

MisterUptempo

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 26 May 2017 - 05:50 AM

Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?

I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?

Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?

 

The station is designated as a Chicago Landmark. As such, any additions or alterations require the approval of The Commission on Chicago Landmarks.



#25 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:00 AM

Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?

I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?

Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?


My guess is that the design with two towers on the North and south side of the clear roof was created to maximize sunlight. As long as this is true and no part of the structure is destroyed, I actually like the design presented in the posted images.


I guess some part of the structure will certainly have to be destroyed as there will need to be separate entrances and elevators and stairwells amd whatnot. But as long as they only tear out some of the more tatty bits away from the parts the public see, and espcially leave the main hall and the facades alone, I guess this doesn't matter much.

Edited by cirdan, 26 May 2017 - 06:01 AM.


#26 NorthShore

NorthShore

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:48 AM

Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.
 


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.

#27 Eric S

Eric S

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milwaukee

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:17 AM

Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?

I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?

Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?

 

 

As the article points out, the original architects intended in the original 1920s plans for Union Station that a taller building would be "stuck on top". As can be seen here: https://chicagology....skyscrapers044/

 

 

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.



#28 frequentflyer

frequentflyer

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2017 - 09:17 AM

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.



#29 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,999 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2017 - 09:44 AM

 

Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.
 


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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

We can only hope.


.


#30 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,699 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 26 May 2017 - 10:12 AM

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....carey-building/

 

and before:

http://www.biotech.c...-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.


Edited by neroden, 26 May 2017 - 10:34 AM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#31 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,699 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 26 May 2017 - 10:19 AM

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.)


--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#32 MisterUptempo

MisterUptempo

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 26 May 2017 - 02:28 PM

 

 

Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?

I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?

Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?


My guess is that the design with two towers on the North and south side of the clear roof was created to maximize sunlight. As long as this is true and no part of the structure is destroyed, I actually like the design presented in the posted images.

 


I guess some part of the structure will certainly have to be destroyed as there will need to be separate entrances and elevators and stairwells amd whatnot. But as long as they only tear out some of the more tatty bits away from the parts the public see, and espcially leave the main hall and the facades alone, I guess this doesn't matter much.

 

 

There is a hint that additional entrances are in the offing-

 

bIeiUSY.jpg

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.

 

1GAMkkx.jpg

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 .


Edited by MisterUptempo, 26 May 2017 - 03:04 PM.


#33 BoulderCO

BoulderCO

    Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Longmont Colorado

Posted 26 May 2017 - 03:44 PM

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.



#34 NorthShore

NorthShore

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:20 PM


 

Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.
 

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.
 
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.
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.

Edited by NorthShore, 26 May 2017 - 06:22 PM.


#35 PaulM

PaulM

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quincy, IL
  • Interests:Bicycling, computer programming, website development, concert band, train travel

Posted 27 May 2017 - 12:39 PM

Phase One involves developing 110,000 square feet of retail in unused space adjacent to the Great Hall. Included would be a food hall, to be located where the Harvey House Restaurant once stood until it was destroyed in a fire decades ago.

 

Apparently this is the only part of the plan that has any thing to do with train travelers.



#36 Sactobob

Sactobob

    Train Attendant

  • Training
  • Pip
  • 34 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 02:32 PM

Having a hotel within the building will also be very convenient for train travelers.



#37 SarahZ

SarahZ

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,451 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Michigan
  • Interests:Writing, reading, baking, trivia, adventures, historic preservation

Posted 27 May 2017 - 03:57 PM

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.


Amtrak Miles: 48,312
 
Amtrak Routes: Blue Water, California Zephyr, Capitol Limited, Carl Sandburg, City of New Orleans, Coast Starlight, Crescent, Empire Builder, Hiawatha, Illinois Zephyr, Lincoln Service, Southwest Chief, Texas Eagle, Wolverine
 
Metropolitan Rail: Chicago Metra, Chicago L, Dallas TRE, Detroit People Mover, New Orleans RTA, San Francisco MUNI, Seattle Monorail, South Shore Line (NICTD), Toronto Subway & RT, Washington DC Metro

#38 Blackwolf

Blackwolf

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,491 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CIC
  • Interests:Public Safety, passenger rail, travel, hunting, fishing

Posted 27 May 2017 - 06:51 PM

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: 


Amtrak
Capitol Corridor (too many times to count!); Coast Starlight (x21); California Zephyr (x7); Empire Builder (x2); Lake Shore Limited (x4); Maple Leaf (x1); Adirondack (x2); Cascades (x1); Pacific Surfliner (x6); San Joaquin (x8); Capitol Limited (x1); Cardinal (x2); Acela (x1)
VIA Rail
Ocean (x4); Windsor Corridor (x2); The Canadian (x1)


#39 dlagrua

dlagrua

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hillsborough, NJ
  • Interests:Car collecting, Train Travel, Model RR, Visiting Historical sights, Cooking, Antiques, but above all love for friends and family.

Posted 27 May 2017 - 10:46 PM

 

Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.
 


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.

 

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.



#40 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 27 May 2017 - 11:52 PM

 

Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.
 

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.
 
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.

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.
Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS MIA-NYP




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users