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.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,280,624 times
Reputation: 1483
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
If you grew up in a hellish beige place where everyone scurries away to the split levels on dead-end cul d'sacs, afraid to engage with their neighbors, it makes perfect sense that a 86 story tall seems like an acceptable built environment for a site that is part of the iconic front lawn of Chicago. You might also try to argue that a building that disrespects its location is a good thing because your ultimate expression of neighborliness is chillin'. Of course you'd be completely wrong, and you'd fail to understand that so massive a proposal ultimately degrades the ability of planning and zoning professionals to shape the overall path of development in a positive way.
A more sensitive development approach would instead enforce a coherent plan that has a building more inline with the existing structures in scale and character. Ideally, if and when the adjacent buildings are reconstructed / modified, the developers would see the value in having a streetscape that builds upon the unified visual appearance of this structures and also provides for the kind of street level commercial uses that encourages interactions. While Irish Tom's ideal of residents hanging out in stoops is probably not achievable or desirable for S. Michigan Ave, the sorts of tenants / homeowners that might more into a nice residential building half the height of this thing likely would be far different than the imbeciles attracted to a structure of globally headline grabbing heights. The sort of idiotic "security conscious" person that would be part of the target market of this kind of ironic "statement" building would necessitate a street level lobby that excludes all but the "credentialed" and subsequent developments nearby will similarly need to follow such a pattern of "being for the exclusive use of residents and their approved guests". This is ultimately not a "neighborhood addition" but the super tall manifestation of a "gated enclave" that rightly is scorned by even community minded surbanites.
Of course for those placeless nouveau-elites that don't care if they're in Singapore or Hong Kong as long as they got there in First Class sleeper seat and are ferried to their residence in a black windowed armored limousine, such criticisms will fall on deaf ears. They'll applaud the alleged "density" this sort of all-wrong-for-the-location structure imposes upon Chicago's front law until the heartless scum that live among the clouds run literally head-on into Divy riding hipsters and create a whole new twist on Bonfires of The Vanities...
OH and CHET YOU KEEP GETTING ANGRIER??? WHERE DID YOU SAY YOU LIVED??????. Another RANT..... EVEN HATE TOWARD Young Urban Professionals you have......
Maybe you can tell us WHAT PARTS OF DOWNTOWN YOU LIKE AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT PASS YOUR CRITERIA??
That Near South 76-story twin tower. Will have 800 Apartments. That alone ADDS MORE IN THAT LOCATION IN PEOPLE. THEN A MUCH LOWER BUILDINGS.
I Clearly believe it ADDS and INCREASES VITALITY THERE. We don't know what the ground floors will offer. A Miami Developer will build it. THE MORE PEOPLE Living in the South Loop. The more Restaurants can come in. WHY YOU THINK IT HURTS GRANT PARK? I SURELY DO NOT KNOW???
AND Chet if falls on deft ears..... because you say little on positives? I don't know..... what exactly you even like? When you commented on the Willis and Hancock buildings? It floored me.... really a decent plaza and Cheesecake Factory chain restaurant and some retail in the Hancock and parking garage around it. Willis (Sears) has a rather quite plaza Tourist don't even enter the front lobby anymore. They do on the side. Wacker Dr has little retail street level. The Grassy plaza..... just South of the Willis building is nice. You won't see that in Manhattan. Perhaps that building you see takes away from the Willis (Sears)?
I will say I BELIEVE I MUCH PREFERED THE OLDER RODEO DR. LOOK OF THIS BUILDING IN THE CENTER.... On N. Michigan Ave. TO THE NEWER UNFINISHED LOOK IT MIGHT BE TAKEN ON? But I am certainly going to accept it. As i did with the Black Glass new Burberry store. That one certainly offered a different styles to the Street and the New Under-Armor store nearby. Seems Black in exterior look is in now..... Just shows NOTHING REMAINS THE SAME.....
2013 https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8987...2!8i6656?hl=en
2015 https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8986...2!8i6656?hl=en
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
The super-talls are along Grant Park - having guaranteed views that include the lake encourages developers to maximize the number of units because that's a rare thing, and a thing you don't really get in River North.
I'm pretty sure there is a more-or-less coherent plan for the south part of Grant Park, you just don't happen to agree with it. The plan is for the south end to have enclosure that is less out of balance with the north end. Given the height at the north end, height is required on the south end to achieve that balance. Given the proximity to the Museum Campus and Soldier Field and Grant Park, that area will never be a normal neighborhood because it will always be half overrun with tourists and sports fans and people going to events in the park. Trying to build a normal neighborhood there would make no one happy.
Clearly the developers are not interested in logic, and that fits with the majority view here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
The super-talls are along Grant Park - having guaranteed views that include the lake encourages developers to maximize the number of units because that's a rare thing, and a thing you don't really get in River North. As far as number of buildings go, though, River North has had, and continues to have, a lot of development. I mean here's a breakdown of under construction, prepping, or proposed projects by central neighborhood:
South Loop+Near South: 16 (although I think the list I used doesn't include some of the River South buildings)
Near North, other than River North and Streeterville: 18 River North (strictly south of Chicago Ave, west of Michigan, north of the river): 18 Streeterville: 8 Loopish not on other lists: 11
West Loop+River West: 15 Outside of the central area: 17
If you add up all the Near North areas, i.e. River North, Streeterville, and "other," you end up with 44 buildings vs 16 for the Near South Side all the way to McCormick. Even accounting for not all of the River South buildings being separately listed yet, the spurt of proposals for the South Loop this week doesn't even come close to matching what's going on in the Near North community area, and the two regions comparable in land area. I'm quite sure the height of the ones in the south are mostly due to unobstructed views along the park.
I'm pretty sure there is a more-or-less coherent plan for the south part of Grant Park, you just don't happen to agree with it. The plan is for the south end to have enclosure that is less out of balance with the north end. Given the height at the north end, height is required on the south end to achieve that balance. Given the proximity to the Museum Campus and Soldier Field and Grant Park, that area will never be a normal neighborhood because it will always be half overrun with tourists and sports fans and people going to events in the park. Trying to build a normal neighborhood there would make no one happy.
The way that Randolph is decked over the old IC tracks north of Grant Park gives that end of the "room" an entirely different streetscape that the south end. The degree to which Millwnium Park and Maggie Daley Park moderate the transition from the main part of Grant Park will always be totally different than the way that the south end of Grant Park is framed by the Field Museum.
Really, if don't see those differences you are quite literally blind and/or willfully ignorant.
The degree to which a building of this height might actually make sense in perhaps a part of Chicago that could integrate it into the surrounding uses is tricky but the obvious choices would be the southeastern corner of Streeterville where isolated towers are already present and perhaps the portion of River North that is home to things like Trump's namesake. In a way, if something like this was also much closer to McCormick Place that could also make sense with the lower floors devoted to hotel uses and the upper part having the "cloud view" high value units.
None of those sites would be out of place as the proposed location.
The way that Randolph is decked over the old IC tracks north of Grant Park gives that end of the "room" an entirely different streetscape that the south end. The degree to which Millwnium Park and Maggie Daley Park moderate the transition from the main part of Grant Park will always be totally different than the way that the south end of Grant Park is framed by the Field Museum.
Really, if don't see those differences you are quite literally blind and/or willfully ignorant.
The degree to which a building of this height might actually make sense in perhaps a part of Chicago that could integrate it into the surrounding uses is tricky but the obvious choices would be the southeastern corner of Streeterville where isolated towers are already present and perhaps the portion of River North that is home to things like Trump's namesake. In a way, if something like this was also much closer to McCormick Place that could also make sense with the lower floors devoted to hotel uses and the upper part having the "cloud view" high value units.
None of those sites would be out of place as the proposed location.
Are you upset about 1000 S. Michigan specifically or all the towers proposed for the South Loop?
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,280,624 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
The way that Randolph is decked over the old IC tracks north of Grant Park gives that end of the "room" an entirely different streetscape that the south end. The degree to which Millwnium Park and Maggie Daley Park moderate the transition from the main part of Grant Park will always be totally different than the way that the south end of Grant Park is framed by the Field Museum.
Really, if don't see those differences you are quite literally blind and/or willfully ignorant.
The degree to which a building of this height might actually make sense in perhaps a part of Chicago that could integrate it into the surrounding uses is tricky but the obvious choices would be the southeastern corner of Streeterville where isolated towers are already present and perhaps the portion of River North that is home to things like Trump's namesake. In a way, if something like this was also much closer to McCormick Place that could also make sense with the lower floors devoted to hotel uses and the upper part having the "cloud view" high value units.
None of those sites would be out of place as the proposed location.
Chet not everyone agrees with you. They see just fine as not agreeing with you and hope they get built. Super-Talls still add esteem and stature to most cities. Houston and Dallas still salivate to gain some....Not every design is going to be a favorite.... But in the end. These are for living in. To the tenants needs. We merely admire what man can build in a ALREADY AWESOME CITY AND SKYLINE that CHICAGO has....that continues to evolve. If these buildings are meant to be? They will get built. Becoming part of Chicago. Grant Park loses nothing. But additional life increases in living Downtown Residents..... like in the South Loop and Near South more residents in these buildings help to increase.....
Are you upset about 1000 S. Michigan specifically or all the towers proposed for the South Loop?
The awfulness of having a grotesquely out a scale supertall on such a tiny site, with such a prominent effect on the iconic Grant Park front law is very troubling.
The developers truly must be among the least clued-in oafs ever to luck into owning such a site.
I stated several times that there is nothing good that can come from this tall a building on this site. The relative return that such a building could bring to its investors on sites even a few blocks away should be used to reject the scale of this development on this site. Chicago has a very spotty record on making zoning / planning decisions that are good for the overall development of the city. Too often insiders with political clout get something approved by the alderman when the professional staff see that it is not the right proposal. In contrast, when more thoughtful developers work with the staff, the result can be a positive.
The lunacy that assumes "anything built anywhere is good" is exactly what leads to hideously unlovable city centers like Houston or LA. If the morons that can't see that applies to absolute height too I really pity what sorts of third-world level of chaos will overtake Chicago's most prominent public assets...
The awfulness of having a grotesquely out a scale supertall on such a tiny site, with such a prominent effect on the iconic Grant Park front law is very troubling.
The developers truly must be among the least clued-in oafs ever to luck into owning such a site.
I stated several times that there is nothing good that can come from this tall a building on this site. The relative return that such a building could bring to its investors on sites even a few blocks away should be used to reject the scale of this development on this site. Chicago has a very spotty record on making zoning / planning decisions that are good for the overall development of the city. Too often insiders with political clout get something approved by the alderman when the professional staff see that it is not the right proposal. In contrast, when more thoughtful developers work with the staff, the result can be a positive.
The lunacy that assumes "anything built anywhere is good" is exactly what leads to hideously unlovable city centers like Houston or LA. If the morons that can't see that applies to absolute height too I really pity what sorts of third-world level of chaos will overtake Chicago's most prominent public assets...
I truly don't understand your qualms about tall buildings on small lots. Tall and skinny buildings are being built now because the technology now allows for it. There are tall buildings existing and proposed at Michigan and Roosevelt, two blocks away. I don't believe that new buildings have to be exact replicas of the surrounding buildings, either, as cityscapes are meant to grow and evolve over time. I am receptive to the idea that corrupt/inept government is screwing everything up, but I just don't see any evidence of that in this particular instance. Is the city giving away TIF money to subsidize this project? Also I wouldn't be surprised if this gets chopped down 20 stories by the time it gets to final approval.
I truly don't understand your qualms about tall buildings on small lots. Tall and skinny buildings are being built now because the technology now allows for it. There are tall buildings proposed at Michigan and Roosevelt, two blocks away. I'm receptive to the idea that corrupt/inept government is screwing everything up, but I just don't see any evidence of that in this particular instance.
The engineering that enables super talls to be exceedingly thin is essentially the same as that which has existed for about 50 years -- stressed steel exoskeleton.
Combine with minimal concrete that is the recipe that the old World Trade Center relied on.
My issue is that this particular site is a very poor place for such a Goliath. The relative damage to the "room" that currently has S. Michigan as the west wall is an iconic part of the public space for the extended Grant Park and should be carefully managed.
The way that Randolph is decked over the old IC tracks north of Grant Park gives that end of the "room" an entirely different streetscape that the south end. The degree to which Millwnium Park and Maggie Daley Park moderate the transition from the main part of Grant Park will always be totally different than the way that the south end of Grant Park is framed by the Field Museum.
Really, if don't see those differences you are quite literally blind and/or willfully ignorant.
The degree to which a building of this height might actually make sense in perhaps a part of Chicago that could integrate it into the surrounding uses is tricky but the obvious choices would be the southeastern corner of Streeterville where isolated towers are already present and perhaps the portion of River North that is home to things like Trump's namesake. In a way, if something like this was also much closer to McCormick Place that could also make sense with the lower floors devoted to hotel uses and the upper part having the "cloud view" high value units.
None of those sites would be out of place as the proposed location.
The thing is, if the street-level entrances are handled appropriately, then people who are in the area will barely notice the height. It's not like people normally walk around staring straight up, at street level the difference between a 10 story building and a 100 story building is minimal except for somewhat more foot traffic. And this isn't the Sears Tower with 10,000 workers coming and going every day, it will have 500 units, so based on typical downtown occupancy, no more than 1,000 and probably more like 750 people plus maybe a dozen staff. And for a high-profile building like that a higher-than average number of units would be held by non-residents, so it seems likely that the actual number of people coming in and out of the building on an average day might be 600, and if 90% of them are coming and going during a given day, that's a little over 500 people coming and going not counting visitors. for a 2-hour long rush hour if there were 600 people coming and going you'd be looking at 1 person every 12 seconds. That's not really high traffic for that area where you could have tens of thousands walking around for a typical event.
The only thing I can think of is some additional shadows on the park during late afternoon, but it's 1 building over about a 1/2 mile. The biggest impact the building will have is from a distance, helping frame the park exactly as "Chicago's front yard."
As a South Loop resident who plans on being here for a long while, I'm very excited about these new developments. More people in the area will be a big boost to retail and development, and help fill in some of the empty lots or surface parking lots that dot the neighborhood. Also, as someone who is in Grant Park all the time, I think these buildings will look great, and add a lot to the skyline. I'd be a little bit worried if I was thinking of selling my place soon, since I'm not sure there is the demand for all of the new inventory, but that's a separate issue.
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.
. Another RANT..... EVEN HATE TOWARD Young Urban Professionals you have......
Clearly the developers are not interested in logic, and that fits with the majority view here...
