BIG Changes in the South Loop Afoot (Chicago, Lincoln: transplants, movers)

[jdiddy]

I love how the strident suburbanite feels the need to lecture everyone else for 12 pages on the proper urban form, all so he can have the same view from Shedd Aquarium once or twice a year.

[18th&BlueIsland]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

I love how the strident suburbanite feels the need to lecture everyone else for 12 pages on the proper urban form, all so he can have the same view from Shedd Aquarium once or twice a year.

To be fair, it's possible he also drives past Grant Park to take his grandkids to the Bubba Gump on Navy Pier when they visit.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by lankyloo

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.

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 --

In Chicago's Near South Community Plan, the 1000 S. Michigan site falls within a zone where building heights are limited to 425 feet, or about 35 stories.

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

vs




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.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by chet everett

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 technology HAS changed.

The Engineering Tricks Behind the World's Super Tall and Super Slender Skyscrapers - How Do They Do That? - Curbed National

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

The technology HAS changed.

The Engineering Tricks Behind the World's Super Tall and Super Slender Skyscrapers - How Do They Do That? - Curbed National

Thanks. Too much misinformation in this thread to read, let alone respond to.

[Lookout Kid]

I will add a few comments, however.

1. Yes, there will be winners and losers with this project. But I fail to see any greater negative impact from the arbitrarily "fifth tallest building in Chicago" (or wherever this proposal fits in the existing height rankings), or just a standard developer-driven 25-story building. Shadows will be cast. Views will be blocked. Neither one is a major concern to the majority of residents in the area. There is nothing magical about this height that is a "game changer" for the area.

2. Additionally, the way the building reacts with the ground and street level will likely be unchanged by the height of the building. Clearly we are not going to get front stoops and three-story walkups at any of these sites, even if they are a better living arrangement for most people. We're not even going to get a nicely detailed seven-story street wall like a typical Parisian street. It's going to be tall buildings, and probably above ground parking--just like the vast majority of new housing in the area. At least Helmut Jahn is more skillful at detailing the dreaded "parking podium" than most, and perhaps he'll come up with a novel solution to improve the pedestrian level.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Thanks. Too much misinformation in this thread to read, let alone respond to.

Care to refute this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/re...-the-wind.html

Dampening systems are not required by the New York City building code, and structural engineers emphasize that this equipment has nothing to do with the integrity of the building.“It’s related to money and how luxurious the place is.”

[Vlajos]

The more certain forumers get upset over these South Loop proposals, the more I love the designs!

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Care to refute this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/re...-the-wind.html

Why exactly? This isn't exactly a new phenomenon. The Sears Tower has a pretty good amount of wind deflection and has developed a certain amount of mythology around it.

I have seen these damper systems before. I was once involved with project that had a "tuned sloshing damper" near its apex, but it was later discovered through wind-tunnel testing that it wouldn't be necessary, so it was eliminated. It was much taller and more slender than any of the projects proposed for the South Loop.

The issue in New York is due to the extremely slender proportions of some of these buildings, which is a product of their unique zoning regulations. The projects in these pictures don't seem to have the same slenderness ratios, but I'm sure the engineers involved are capable and understand the design challenges better than you and I. Either way, it's not exactly my problem or yours, as I don't think either of us will be in line to purchase units.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

The more certain forumers get upset over these South Loop proposals, the more I love the designs!

The worst aspect of this is that the existing zoning is for only a 35 story building. Assuming the city goes along with this lunacy, that would also 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 would likely 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...