Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hard to read thru this...but I don’t think Chicago is slipping any more than other places and it’s GDP is growing. It’s a great city that’s easy to navigate, easy to get to and affordable. Keep doing what you’re doing. Be happy with that. The problem is it keeps being compared here to a city three times it’s size and comes up short. It has the proper amount of tall buildings and interesting points of interest for a city it’s size and scope, more than a smaller city would have and less than a larger one. It will never have as many structures and buildings, nor have as many transit riders or GDP as NYC, I don’t know why this point has to be argued ad infinitum.
Hard to read thru this...but I don’t think Chicago is slipping any more than other places and it’s GDP is growing. It’s a great city that’s easy to navigate, easy to get to and affordable. Keep doing what you’re doing. Be happy with that. The problem is it keeps being compared here to a city three times it’s size and comes up short. It has the proper amount of tall buildings and interesting points of interest for a city it’s size and scope, more than a smaller city would have and less than a larger one. It will never have as many structures and buildings, nor have as many transit riders or GDP as NYC, I don’t know why this point has to be argued ad infinitum.
Looks like a moot point anyway from what I see going on right now in the city. Looks like it is being destroyed so none of this will matter anymore
All this boohooing over this twin-tower downsized and double-podium lost. Heck that is a good thing. I personally rather see the tallest supertalls off the shore. This bellyaching it is downsized to a tiny 800= footer and another smaller is no big deal to me.
Losing the double-podium +1
Parking now under-ground.
Still gonna look sleek and tall.
I read it still will have its exterior in terracotta be it accents as I read.
It is approved now to build.
Here's the link to the presentation to the city council and they detail building materials. You have bad information, at one point they were going to use limited terra-cotta vertically but not horizontally across the windows.
They are absolutely not incorporating terra-cotta anywhere in the design anymore. It will be aluminum and painted metal accents. If I have to explain the differences in quality, appearance and percpetions between aluminum and terra-cotta comprising the exterior of a building then I don't think you appreciate those differences in the first place.
Reducing the building's height is not only about its physical stature but the design worked much better in tandem with the original proportions. 1,100' would have provided a much greater impact and another soaring reference point for the city as a whole is a win. At 875' this building is barely taller than One Bennett Park. It will not come to dominate and redefine it's surroundings anymore, which also pushes future development to another level if they are to make a bold impact. It now simply adds to an established plataeu. Look at what Vista did for Lakeshore East compared to the 800' blue wall that has been erected around the river confluence to understand the difference.
With the removal of the terra-cotta and inclusion of aluminum the building's visual presence will offer drastically less contrast and visual stimulation. You can see it in renderings even. The metal will blend with the glass and fall into the background as glass becomes the predominate feature. Only certain angles and lighting will highlight any detailing and from a far it will appear to be a blue-glass box like all the other recent towers with fins and aluminum mullions.
From 110 N. Wacker, to One Chicago, to 150 N. Riverside to 300 N. Lasalle etc. They are all glass and metal blends that appear as all glass structures until certain angles, lighting and distances play a role to highlight there is some other element. Compare them to NEMA's pop from having white painted concrete vertcially and horizontally. That is the sort of clarity and distinguishment these buildings would have had but with a natural material that is such a vital contibutor to many of Chicago's masterpieces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHyping
Apparently accents all along anyway. Look at booming Toronto. No suprtall yet, but sooner or later. Parking there has to be below-ground. Still practically ALL glass exteriors. It still boast it will soon be seen as second to NYC in the near future in N.A. It is already in the city alone, 60% immigrants. Canada's merit system gains them Professional immigrants make it more a Asian city in N.A. Even the whole Golden triangle will be majority immigrants in this decade. Chicago will not be getting them. Even not the level of unskilled Mexicans as it was. I read 20% of the Hispanic 1/3 of Chicago are undocumented and illegal. Canada does not have the same issues. Nor a Dubai or a Tokyo or even Hong Kong. Chicago will not gentrify as fast as the mighty Coastal Elite cities.
Canada is an entirely different nation and Toronto has an entirely separate history from Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHyping
This size alone matters and no parking ... will not make Chicago NYC. So get over it. Chi does not need to be. Chicago finally getting 3 supertalls in a 5-yr period (late 60s early 70s) took over a century after NYC had a few. Then took another 30 years for the next. Also a bit downsized from 9 11. Then the crash or 07 08 killed planned ones and the Spire. IF ONLY THE 07 CRASH DID NOT OCCUR? Chicago might have more the level of supertalls you long for. I remember the one on Wacker by Dearborn St? Was what .... 20-stories up and stopped. It was Japanese money the crash killed and took almost a decade to be completed as a 50 story one.
Do you actually know why Chicago didn't have a supertall until the 1970's? It's because they imposed a height restriction of 150' in 1893 and then bumped it up to 260' in the 1920's that wasn't lifted until late in the 1960's. Only uninhabitable crowns, spires, clock-towers or decorative elements could rise above the restricted limits. Floor limits were enforced so only a couple buildings were ever allowed to exceed the restrictions but not by much.
Do you realize that Chicago was the fastest growing city in the world and at 1.1 million Chicago was only 400,000 people behind NYC and on pace to surpass them until New York annexed Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island to reach a population of 3 million out of fear of Chicago's rapid growth? It was Chicago that banned tenements and people living in mid & high-rises. New York embraced vertical housing and the difference of how the two cities approached urbanization is quite apparent. New York was allowed to innovate, reach unthought of heights and densify without any competition becuase Chicago pulled the pin and went in the exact opposite direction of city-building.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHyping
You want Chi to be Dubai? Not gonna happen without its oil money. You want it to be Hong Kong? Not gonna happen Hong Kong is a bay city walled in with a boundary that forced it up and international money for decades outta da wazzo. Tokyo? No of course. The densest Island Nation and its largest city.
You are clearly misinterpreting my position. I don't want Chicago to be New York, Hong Kong or Tokyo. What I want is for arbitrary restrictions and NIMBY culture with a corrupt system to fail and for visionary leaders to allow Chicago to ascend to being the most innovative, urbanized, intense and dense version of Chicago.
Do you not understand this premise? I don't care about how many tech start ups this region has or billionaire's that one has, it's irrelevant how many immigrants this city has or how many tourists that one has. Chicago limits itself and always has. It's a city where once someone gets their's they work to stop anyone else from getting any and politicians whom cave to the demands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHyping
If Chicago was in a warmer climate? East or West Coast .... it would yeah be booming more despite its issues. Winters and Midwest Location does not help it in this era at all. Maybe in 30 yrs the Midwest will be Da goto region? Today no. Even China now put a damper on Supertalls and no mega-talls. They see no need.
Chicago is not going to become this super-modern new world-city to go head to head against cities who had glory money-lossing super-towers build to glorify themselves and Nation. All built is for-profit and pricepoints that limit the most bold and sleep mega-tall monsters that are built for glory.
These two will be just fine. Vista was originally all Chinese money till that Nation clamped down and it was built but sold before finished. The next Supertall is under-construction as - One Chicago Square.
The Tribune Supertall addition is also now approved. It seems likely to get built too and hopefully all mentioned here in their entirety.
Chicago does not overbuild like a Miami by international monies and speculation that has lead to over 1/2 empty towers. Chicago can be proud of what it has gotten. Just this Chicago in this current era to be thee US city that keeps building supertalls and even megatall? Most likely will have limits for sure. Even NYC may have a bit of a slower period now?
Most sunbelt cities are happy with glass boxes and jobs coming their way. This current boom period downtown Chicago has had, was not without its mark of great buildings even if not some innovative award winning one of a kind beauty. It did not do too bad at all. As you and all the doomsayers know. The city and state has its issues and getting a additional megatall or supertall changes none of that. What might happen like a default. Might be better sooner then later? The city will go on, but it cannot change the fact it has REAL winters most American hate and want to get away from.
As I believe I noted in another thread on Toronto as if you there lessened Chicago's protecting SFH neighborhoods and assumed Toronto did not?? I gave you its many links. (look up Toronto's yellowbelt). IT SURELY DOES and Many other US cities. - Toronto protects 70% of it restricting new development in residential areas. In 2018, 78% of Los Angeles, 42% of Portland, and 57% of Seattle remains blanketed in yellowbelts by another name, and gripped by similar housing affordability problems.
So this Chicago twarts itself as if has not enough land zoned for Tall babies? Or just able to build 5-8 stories? It is not alone by far. So no running out of land for the sky is the limit like a Manhattan. At least it had its Hudson Yards that is the last area unless it rips down existing even dense areas.
The USA in general does not build the grandest towers anymore. Again, cost limits have architects needing to limit most. Same Architects can do much more in say a Dubai. The current tallest was designed by Chicago's SOM and the new tallest will be also I believe where they can do much much more with the money available.
You want to see a limited city by NIMBYISM? Look to SF. It might look like Hong Kong today otherwise. Better? Well that is certainly subjective.
All you are offering is excuses and justifications. Weather? Immigration? Nation-funded skyscrapers? All of that is irrelevant to my argument. You are mixing in results of economic downturns etc.
I'll try to make you understand the problems with Chicago's short-sighted, small-minded ways.
1000 S. Michigan was proposed at 1,030'. The building had at least a different take on being a box with cantilevered edges and tapering vertically to a wider form. The alderman gave approval but being on the way out of office he never showed up to argue on the building's behalf so the Landmark's Commision ruled that it; "Doesn't respect the historic Michigan Ave. Streetwall" So after another two year waiting period for another forced redesign like Related's Spire site proposal the building resurfaces without even resembling the original design and is 200' shorter.
Again, the market in Chicago would dictate demand for JK Equities to build a supertall but arbitrary interference reduced the scale and design significantly. What logical rationale would claim that 832' is "respectable" but 1,030' is not? The building is still comically out of scale with it's neighbors so no goal was accomplished other than to again lose the city status, a redefining tower for a growing area that would have had stunning appeal and provide a greater amount of tax revenue as well as more density.
At 42 E. Superior Alderman Reilly rejected a 725' tower with the proposal having never left his desk. He said too much congestion would ruin the area and when Symmetry appealed he moved to have the greystones on the lot moved to "protected landmark" status. So here again an Alderman denies a hotel and hundreds of residential units arbitrarily because he possesses the power to do so. This is further gross underutilization of valuable land in what is supposed to be a skyscraper and architectual capital.
At 1130 N. State Alderman Hopkins denied a 425' tower in the Gold Coast for being "Too Tall" and "Ugly". There's a building that is 125' taller a block away!!! This would have added hundreds of rentral units and created a nice impact on Viagra Triangle. It's a much more intense urban land use to have a high-rise residential tower with active uses at the base than a two-story Barnes & Noble building.
All of this is to say that pointing to pension debt, weather, geography, crime, jobs, poverty, etc. etc, or pointing to what other cities situations are in terms of development and political environments may be is irrelevant to what Chicago chooses to value and where its priorities are moving forward.
This is not about having wet-dream megatalls looming over the city for an arms race with Dubai, NY or Hong Kong. This is simply about Chicago being in it's own way and limiting itself from reaching its true potentials in urbanization and elevating the cityscape.
I realize Chicago's limitations and that coastal bias is a real thing. I realize that sun belt cities are booming. I realize Chicago will never outbuild New York or have the Bay Area's wealth..... With all those realities posing real weaknesses for Chicago's own expansion wouldn't you think a pre-war northern city with cold weather and violence would embrace the investments when they come on a platter? Longer lines, more congestion, overwhelming density, diversity and architectual innovations are all things that enhance an urban experience. Dense corridors that intergrate well with the street and invite the public is always preferable from an urban quality of life perspective than shutting people out with blank walls, podiums, garages, curb cuts, surface lots and gated parks.
Achieving new heights in new territory with world class design that activates and elevates an area of the city that is lacking in traffic or status is a good thing. Public spaces, connective street-grids, pedestrian traffic, public transit and cohesive streetwalls are more vibrant and urban than towers-in-a-park mega-projects.
Chicago has the investment, the land, the talent, the demand and the attention of the world to elevate it's global appeal and status. None of these wants are fantasy, it simply requires looking long-term planing for the city as a whole and not about appeasing any one micro-community of residents to remain in office or keep the negative emails from flowing in. Supertall proposals with world class designs were offered up this cycle but requiring a developer drop a hotel from their plan to appease donors in low-rises is a problem that should never exist because alderman should never have dictatorships and low-rise tow-homes should never exist in the downtown of the self-professing world's-arhcitectual-birthplace next to the lakefront. That in itself was small-minded, short-sighted planning to allow for low-rise town-homes and not see the value of the land back in the 1980's. Who could have ever imagined lakefront adjacent property in close proximity to the Loop and Grant Park could possibly have value some day?
Chicago has the opporunities to urbanize and shift priorities, mandating parking underground doesn't turn your city into Manhattan I agree but it defenitely ends massive podiums with lifeless walls that facilitate low desnity gaps in the street wall and skyline to accomodate automobiles. Investing in more rail-lines and subways doean't make you Tokyo either but it would defenitely increase ridership, connectivity and create many more high-paying blue-collar jobs. Lifting single-family zoning and 4 story limits on multi-family buildings in much of the city's outer neighborhoods doesn't turn them into Soho but it would no doubt lead to taller structures, more density and vibrancy in the streets...etc. etc.
Last edited by IronWright; 05-30-2020 at 08:59 PM..
Looks like a moot point anyway from what I see going on right now in the city. Looks like it is being destroyed so none of this will matter anymore
You mean like every single city in the U.S. and most in the world??? (yes, even New York, which you seem to continue acting like is the model Chicago ought to be going after....)
It's sad to see small businesses being destroyed, but Chase Bank, Walgreens, and McDonald's can repair and rebuild overnight just fine. Contrary to the hyperbole so many use, entire cities do not burn down.
Once Trump is kicked out and we accept immigrants again, America will be the most popular country in the world again and many millions of people are going to move here and Chicago is going to see rapid expansion from all the people who want a cheaper, not so overwhelming alternative to New York with all the amenities.
You mean like every single city in the U.S. and most in the world??? (yes, even New York, which you seem to continue acting like is the model Chicago ought to be going after....)
It's sad to see small businesses being destroyed, but Chase Bank, Walgreens, and McDonald's can repair and rebuild overnight just fine. Contrary to the hyperbole so many use, entire cities do not burn down.
Yes, it's every city. Philadelphia has been on CNN and every major network all day. Philadelphia has made the most media headlines with the amount of protests and destruction in major cities. Although, all major cities and even smaller cities have had some level of destruction.
You mean like every single city in the U.S. and most in the world??? (yes, even New York, which you seem to continue acting like is the model Chicago ought to be going after....)
It's sad to see small businesses being destroyed, but Chase Bank, Walgreens, and McDonald's can repair and rebuild overnight just fine. Contrary to the hyperbole so many use, entire cities do not burn down.
It's not just due to riots. Riots, panhandling, crime, taxes, traffic, nanny state behavior from local politicians, even covid's influence on densely populated areas. If I'm able to work remotely, why bother with the city? Why should I continue operating a business there when I can do it in the far burbs and not have to deal with this nonsense? Why should I deal with a 10% sales tax? Why am I continuing to vote the same way yet keep getting the same results that don't benefit me?
Not everyone has these POVs obviously, but there is a sizable element who does. These riots which happen every few years may be the straw that broke the camel's back for this element. Unless you have a mayor and local officials do a complete 180 on how they run things...
It's not just due to riots. Riots, panhandling, crime, taxes, traffic, nanny state behavior from local politicians, even covid's influence on densely populated areas. If I'm able to work remotely, why bother with the city? Why should I continue operating a business there when I can do it in the far burbs and not have to deal with this nonsense? Why should I deal with a 10% sales tax? Why am I continuing to vote the same way yet keep getting the same results that don't benefit me?
Not everyone has these POVs obviously, but there is a sizable element who does. These riots which happen every few years may be the straw that broke the camel's back for this element. Unless you have a mayor and local officials do a complete 180 on how they run things...
Cities offer a life experience that suburbs and rural comunites can't and never will. The vast majority of people are attracted to those characteristics no matter what modern injustice is perceived or plague arises. Paris has survived centuries of wars, dictators, plagues, taxes, foreign occupation, terroist attacks and even today there's damn near annual riots over scoial issues and it remains a hyper-dense thriving city with urban ammenities on a tier most other global cities will never attain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
