Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2015, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,523 posts, read 13,888,388 times
Reputation: 3906

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett View Post
The worst aspect of this is that the existing zoning is for only a 35 story building. The would set a precedent that the owners of the block due north of this -- currently the site of the detestable Essex Inn, a parking garage, the for profit "store front" of East-West U and other buildings that likely would soon skyrocket in value. If those get bulldozed I would not miss them a bit, but if the precedent means that the replacements would be even taller than 86 stories that really would like launch an ugly arms race to turn S. Michigan into a canyon. Far better to try to confine that sort of structure to an area where it won't cast shadows over Grant Park...
There is already a proposal out for a high-rise on the Essex Inn garage site.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...o-essex-inn-in
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2015, 02:08 PM
 
11,973 posts, read 31,635,920 times
Reputation: 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett View Post
If those get bulldozed I would not miss them a bit, but if the precedent means that the replacements would be even taller than 86 stories that really would like launch an ugly arms race to turn S. Michigan into a canyon. Far better to try to confine that sort of structure to an area where it won't cast shadows over Grant Park...
That would be a lot of units to sell! Perhaps if the market for condos heated up like 2004, but I don't think we'll see enough demand in coming years to create a wall of super-talls there. I'm skeptical that the projects discussed here will all see fruition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 02:11 PM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,256,485 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett View Post
While it is almost a certainly a positive that there is interest in adding the number of units, proposals that are outsized for the site can have numerous negative effects that really need to be considered.

To begin with, the current zoning on the 1000 S. Michigan site is far different than what is proposed -- When making such a radical proposal, more the double the existing limit, caution should be the watchword.

Among the concerns that should be part of any discussion is study of how exceedingly tall skyscrapers cast a literal dark shadow across similar settings. Here is a highly relevant article highlighting the negatives of such buildings near NYC's Central Park -- REPORT: New Skyscrapers Will Cast Dark Shadows Over Much Of Central Park - Business Insider

There are practical concerns too. The cost of creating a super tall building rises EXPONTIALLY over a mere "high rise". Determining Optimal Building Height - ResearchGate Everything from the safety or workers and passers-by during construction to the concerns about safe evacuation of residents during an emergency, to wind loading https://www.wbdg.org/resources/env_wind.php and seismic concerns make taller builders much larger risk for the developers. Developers have previously failed, and the negatives of having a partially finished ghost looming over Grant Park cannot be ignored.

There is an important factor that even "urbanists" are just beginning to acknowledge: often the BEST building is NOT the tallest building. The relative Floor Area Ratio is important -- Thoughts About Density The proposal includes a mind-numbering ELEVEN STORIES OF PARKING to serve the whims of the elite that want someplace to access their vehicles, that means a whole lot of essentially old-fashioned "car warehouses" baked into a structure when the thinging among futurists is more toward autonomous vehicles / shared automobiles rather than cars that spend most of their time unused and then collectively lead to back-ups and congestion...

So to is it important to really understand how much the proposal truly "contributes" the sorts of things that are a positive force for city living -- if the building is too "self contained" it may very well result in less vibrancy than a much smaller building that <i> overtly relies</i> upon a functional relationship with other buildings to provide retail and similar amenities for tenants / owners -- From the Shard to the Kingdom Tower, are 'vertical villages' bad for cities? | Cities | The Guardian

Finally, given the unique location of the 1000 S. Michigan site, there is little reason to argue that extra height is a good thing. To begin with, there is no concern that a "higher building will take away the view" when there is unobstructed access to the water front across Grant Park. Quite the opposite, the relative sightlines from existing residential buildings along Lake Shore Drive show that buildings of modest height often have superior variety of views to those "in the clouds". Going too high makes the view primarily of the often featureless Lake Michigan rather the much more interesting parks and beaches. These shots clearly shows the relatively excellent views from an apartment near LSD overlooking Lincoln Park vs the encased in clouds views common from Hancock apartments

BTW I don't have grandkids and I find the food options at Navy Pier a rather sad statement of what happens when the concessions are doled out to clueless monied interests instead of awarded in a way that would honor the hard working chef and restaurateurs that do so much to keep the food scene in Chicago so vibrant.
Nice Picture Chet. Though posted to be NEGATIVE.... ITS A POSITIVE TO MOST

Really Chet Tallness is based on DEMAND. If a location has the Skyline and/or Lake views. People LOVE TO ENJOY.... It is in DEMAND. You need to realize Chet. IN NYC and CHICAGO. SKY IS THE LIMIT....

Do you really Believe Chet.... The John Hancock Building, WAS NOT given some heat in negatives, before it was built???? On being sooooo.... higher in scale then anything there. Right near Oak St. Beach and the Lake.

North Michigan Ave. then, was a LOT Lower scale. When completed it did sort of .... STAND OUT. I BELIEVE WATER TOWER PLACE BUILDING. Helped Smooth its off scale out a bit. Now it is FULLY PART OF THE CITY'S BIG SHOULDERS.
BIG JOHN ON THE NORTH. TRUMP IN THE MIDDLE, AON ON THE EAST AND WILLIS (SEARS) ON THE SOUTHWEST.

Nothing wrong with these NEW Super-Talls to anchor on the Southeast Loop.... ... It is not taking Parkland, and IT'S CHICAGO. BIG WAS NEVER A CANNOT DO. I think they will NOT HAVE BARRIERS TO STOP IT and get city approval. Then if the investors can carry out the plan to build..... it ADDS DENSITY and more residents in the South Loop. That Townhomes behind it can't. 800 Apartments on a small footing adds density.

CHET ALSO TO MOCK the ELITE of Chicago. When they are the movers and shakers THAT MADE THE DOWNTOWN is UNWARRANTED. Many might be NEW TRANSPLANTS And Young Urban Professionals. YOU ALSO MOCK IN THREADS...

They do add to DENSITY and CHET.... does not mean THEY WON'T WALK OR BIKE TO THE OFFICE. BUT DESIRE A CAR TO TRAVEL TO THE BURBS BY YOU....LOL. OR A FERARRI TO BE FOR A NICE SUNDAY DRIVE.

Also CHET... No one goes to Navy Pier for a Fine Dining meal at its finest...LOL. Maybe a Dining Cruise works for that?
They cater to Tourist and locals as a AMUSEMENT RESORT. It is to be SEEN AS THAT CHET.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Chicago
4,688 posts, read 10,062,651 times
Reputation: 3202
Legacy at Millennium Park already casts the dreaded shadow, and over a part of the park people actually use. Not surprisingly, I've never heard anyone complain about this. If you are bothered by the building shadow while you stand in the Grant Park skate park, (which you have never done and never will do) move five feet to the left. Now you are in the sun, and you feel satisfied for proactively finding a solution to a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,523 posts, read 13,888,388 times
Reputation: 3906
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdiddy View Post
Legacy at Millennium Park already casts the dreaded shadow, and over a part of the park people actually use. Not surprisingly, I've never heard anyone complain about this. If you are bothered by the building shadow while you stand in the Grant Park skate park, (which you have never done and never will do) move five feet to the left. Now you are in the sun, and you feel satisfied for proactively finding a solution to a problem.
Also, tall and slim buildings tend to be better than short and squat in terms of the shadows they generate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,760,614 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
Also, tall and slim buildings tend to be better than short and squat in terms of the shadows they generate.

…which leads me to ask my fellow forumers:

how would you feel about buildings akin to the billionaire's row on manhattan's W. 57th St.? I personally think they look dreadful, totally out-of-scale and are destroying nyc's skyline. and if shadows are not a concern for grant park, they certainly appear to be in central park, where the southern end seems to have moved permanently into them.

we talk NIMBY, but personally I think Manhattan is destroying itself with so many tall structures (not just the pencil thin condo buildings south of central park. i know others would disagree, but i would absolutely hate to see something like that happen in chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 03:21 PM
 
11,973 posts, read 31,635,920 times
Reputation: 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
…which leads me to ask my fellow forumers:

how would you feel about buildings akin to the billionaire's row on manhattan's W. 57th St.? I personally think they look dreadful, totally out-of-scale and are destroying nyc's skyline. and if shadows are not a concern for grant park, they certainly appear to be in central park, where the southern end seems to have moved permanently into them.

we talk NIMBY, but personally I think Manhattan is destroying itself with so many tall structures (not just the pencil thin condo buildings south of central park. i know others would disagree, but i would absolutely hate to see something like that happen in chicago.
I'm a little more freaked out by how many of these new glassy condo developments are zombie buildings full of empty units owned by international billionaires and corporations who rarely occupy the units. The New York I knew is getting bulldozed and replaced with empty high-end condo buildings. I'm not even sure I'd want to live there any more, and I have always loved New York. These days I am finding the outer Burroughs more appealing.

We have a less extreme version of that phenomenon here in Chicago, but we are much more downmarket compared to the Manhattan housing market. Chicago still feels a lot more accessible, thanks to our colder winters, midwestern location, and reputation for crime and corruption. But some of us still know this is an incredible city with a lot to offer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,760,614 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookout Kid View Post
I'm a little more freaked out by how many of these new glassy condo developments are zombie buildings full of empty units owned by international billionaires and corporations who rarely occupy the units. The New York I knew is getting bulldozed and replaced with empty high-end condo buildings. I'm not even sure I'd want to live there any more, and I have always loved New York. These days I am finding the outer Burroughs more appealing.

We have a less extreme version of that phenomenon here in Chicago, but we are much more downmarket compared to the Manhattan housing market. Chicago still feels a lot more accessible, thanks to our colder winters, midwestern location, and reputation for crime and corruption. But some of us still know this is an incredible city with a lot to offer.
my sentiments indeed. some of these units are occupied maybe 2-3 weeks a year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Lincoln Park, Chicago
498 posts, read 718,727 times
Reputation: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
my sentiments indeed. some of these units are occupied maybe 2-3 weeks a year.
That happens in condo buildings, not apartment buildings (which most of these units are). Nobody parks their wealth in an apartment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 08:33 PM
 
410 posts, read 488,071 times
Reputation: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSunshineKid View Post
I don't see much of an issue with chett's posts. Do you want everyone to fall in line with "OMGODZ AMAZING! BUIIILLDDD BUIILLLDD!" The guy's critical of the architecture, the place where it might be built and how its overall existence will impact the skyline. That's all normal and reasonable complaints when this stuff happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly View Post
you are speaking NIMBY

I'm not sure how on earth my post implied/translated into NIMBY. All my post was saying that that complaints about this building can be reasonable. And even if I did support the NIMBY for this building I don't see how that would be a negative thing in it of itself.

"Oh noes there are NIMBY people!"

NIMBY card. Get over yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top