why no super tall's in the Loop (Chicago, Elmwood Park: neighborhood, zoning)

[edsg25]

There is this little oddity I've noiced: there is not a single super tall building in the traditional Loop (Lake, Wabash, Van Buren, Wells). the downtown area has four super tall structures (JHC, Trump, Aon, Sears) and none is within the tracks of the Loop elevated. even new buildings that are announced (i.e. Wanda) and announced but cancelled (Spire& old PO development) are outside the Loop.

I can only think of two super tall's that were even planned in the Loop over the last 30 years….the very narrow 7 south dearborn and the also narrow Miglin Beitler Skyneedle.

this may just be a coincidence (no super tall's in the Loop) and have no meaning, but if there is meaning there, why do you think that all these gigantic buildings go up in downtown, but parts of it not the Loop?

[oakparkdude]

No available lots.

[chet everett]

There are folks that own parking garages and such "low value" parcels that would sell to a developer only for a VERY high price if they find out that the goal was some "signature" super tall. The other factor is the various restrictions that the city puts on the zoning / land use for supertalls is really hard to pull off in the core of the Loop -- you can argue that there is little value added to the community by having the sort of plazas and such that even Sears (Willis) Tower but that is how the zoning code is written. Even out by Aon or the Hancock the plaza / shopping / dining courts are strike me as largely unneeded. I mean in NYC the Empire State Building has nothing like that and it does seem to suffer...

Maybe the developers will convince the city to rethink the requirements and the various parking garages will be replaced by supertalls.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by chet everett

There are folks that own parking garages and such "low value" parcels that would sell to a developer only for a VERY high price if they find out that the goal was some "signature" super tall. The other factor is the various restrictions that the city puts on the zoning / land use for supertalls is really hard to pull off in the core of the Loop -- you can argue that there is little value added to the community by having the sort of plazas and such that even Sears (Willis) Tower but that is how the zoning code is written. Even out by Aon or the Hancock the plaza / shopping / dining courts are strike me as largely unneeded. I mean in NYC the Empire State Building has nothing like that and it does seem to suffer...

Maybe the developers will convince the city to rethink the requirements and the various parking garages will be replaced by supertalls.

Well The Empire State Building was another era. NYC already required set-backs after a certain level, perhaps then already? But that is what did strike me on my first visit to the building. IT IS NOT ON A MAIN STREET AND IT'S A PRETTY NARROW ONE. YOU CAN'T GET GOOD VIEWS AT GROUND LEVEL BEFORE OTHER BUILDINGS OBSTRUCT THE VIEW. I don't see that as preferred? No frontage to the palace? The World Trade Center old and new DO have a plaza.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by steeps

IT IS NOT ON A MAIN STREET AND IT'S A PRETTY NARROW ONE.

So the Empire State Building, at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and 34th Street, two of the most iconic streets on the planet is now "not on a main street".

Maybe if the ESB were built in the Jersey swamps instead of on the highest point of Fifth Ave. and at one of the grandest intersections anywhere, it would be more of a "main street" type of feel?

One learns many "facts" from steeps. Who knew?

[Lookout Kid]

Seven South Dearborn was planned to be a 2000+ foot Loop super-tall in 1999, and was to be designed by SOM. But the plan was scrapped, and the new building became the smaller One South Dearborn by DeStefano + Partners. That was the last time I heard plans for a Loop super tall.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

So the Empire State Building, at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and 34th Street, two of the most iconic streets on the planet is now "not on a main street".

lol....that's pretty debatable. Broadway around Times Square is much more iconic. Besides the ESB, there's really nothing in that area minus a Macy's on the next block over that is iconic at all (and most people couldn't ID that building as Macy's without the big Macy's sign on the side of the building) unless you want to count random 5 story buildings holding Korean and Irish bars as "iconic" instead of Times Square.

[emathias]

It's not just a lack of available lots, but a lack of available large lots.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by marothisu

lol....that's pretty debatable.

Uh, no it isn't. Only on C-D would people seriously make such absurd claims. "Forget the Eiffel Tower, hon, that's not iconic. Johnny's Beef in Elmwood Park, now THAT is truly globally iconic."

Originally Posted by marothisu

Broadway around Times Square is much more iconic.

Total logical reasoning fail. There is only one iconic location on the planet? Big Ben isn't iconic because the Pyramids of Giza are even more iconic?

It may be true that Times Square is even more iconic than Fifth Avenue, but that doesn't mean that Fifth Ave. isn't about the most iconic shopping avenue anywhere on earth.

But your claim is even sillier. The claim was that the ESB, on Fifth Avenue, is "not on a main street". If the most famous retail street on earth is "not a main street", then there are no main streets anywhere? Huh?

Originally Posted by marothisu

Besides the ESB, there's really nothing in that area minus a Macy's on the next block over that is iconic at all (and most people couldn't ID that building as Macy's without the big Macy's sign on the side of the building)

Besides the most famous tower in the history of the world, there are no other iconic buildings at that intersection, that is true.

So using your ridiculous logic, there is "nothing in that area" anywhere on earth. The whole planet is "nothing" because the iconic locations on earth are not all arrayed around an intersection. Until the Great Wall and Coliseum are moved across the street from ESB, then the area can't be iconic.

Originally Posted by marothisu

unless you want to count random 5 story buildings holding Korean and Irish bars as "iconic" instead of Times Square.

And obviously you have never been to this part of Midtown Manhattan. There are almost no "random five story buildings" in the neighborhood (95%+ of the building stock is midrise/highrise). And there are very few bars in the neighborhood, and certainly no concentration of "Korean (!) and Irish bars."

"Hon, let's check out Fifth Avenue! You know, the street with its collection of world-renowned Korean beer halls in random five floor buildings! I miss Busan's renowned Octoberfest!"

[tjasse]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

And obviously you have never been to this part of Midtown Manhattan. There are almost no "random five story buildings" in the neighborhood (95%+ of the building stock is midrise/highrise). And there are very few bars in the neighborhood, and certainly no concentration of "Korean (!) and Irish bars."

"Hon, let's check out Fifth Avenue! You know, the street with its collection of world-renowned Korean beer halls in random five floor buildings! I miss Busan's renowned Octoberfest!"

Well, 32nd is Koreatown. I'd guess there's about 15-20 korean bars there. Then Murray Hill starts at 34th and Madison. There are a lot of crappy Irish Bars over there, and 4 story residences. I worked at 2 Park Ave (2 blocks from ESB) for many years, and always got stuck going to a crappy korean or irish bar after work. My memory is foggy, but I think there are 3 Irish bars right across the street from ESB, on 33rd.

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Besides the most famous tower in the history of the world, there are no other iconic buildings at that intersection, that is true.

This literally made me LOL, soda out the nose. Haha.
The Empire State Building? Big whoop! Sometimes the Chicago homers take it too far. Not as bad as in the Minneapolis forum, though.