SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S. Michigan) | 832 FT | 76 FLOORS (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=218947)

the urban politician Nov 7, 2015 2:02 PM

The NIMBYs won't block this. I wouldnt worry. Mr D will pull out his dusty old shadow studies from 2005, people will whine and bitch and moan, a floor or two will come off, some behind the scenes wheeling and dealing will happen, someone will write a check, and WAM! Approved.

If we have to have this bullshit community approval process over every goddamned highrise planned in the city these days, then fuck transparency. I want corruption in its most heinous, third-world form. Bring in the back room deals and campaign contributions. I'll take that over the alternative: PDNA's dream of a downtown full of "responsible" gated townhouse communities with 3 parking spaces per household.

chris08876 Nov 7, 2015 2:42 PM

^^^^

I could understand a design committee, but yes, the community should have less of a say in what a developer builds on a site dimension and height wise. Instead of criticizing the height, they should focus on the design and architecture. They bought the parcel, thus, they can do what they want with it. But at least Chicago isn't as bad as Miami Beach where the community votes and denies 12 floor structures. Too tall I guess. :( As long as these peons don't start to vote down 10 floor structures in chi city, then all is well. If it comes to that point... :machinegun:

Mr Downtown Nov 9, 2015 2:56 PM

I'm curious why no one ever mentions that this is proposed for the Michigan Boulevard Historic District. New structures in historic districts are required to be compatible in materials and massing with the existing structures. The prevailing cornice line for the historic district is 262 feet.

SamInTheLoop Nov 9, 2015 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7224525)
Shame that the NIMBYS are complaining about this. They should move to Lagos, Nigeria and live in mud huts. Ungrateful bastards. They don't realize that its an honor for a city to receive a super tall. Even in a time of unprecedented super tall growth, its still a rarity for a city to get one when we factor in every city. Hopefully this will happen, and at its current specifications. On a side note, its great to see Chicago continuing the super tall trend. Hopefully Wolf Point gives the city another one. Then there's that LSD site which looks like it has enough air rights for a super tall. :fingerscrossed:


Isn't there some sort of catch-all supertall blackhole thread to vacuum up you guys into so we can keep things at a more sophisticated level here?

SamInTheLoop Nov 9, 2015 3:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7228725)
I'm curious why no one ever mentions that this is proposed for the Michigan Boulevard Historic District. New structures in historic districts are required to be compatible in materials and massing with the existing structures. The prevailing cornice line for the historic district is 262 feet.


Perhaps because we have the Spertus as evidence of the extreme folly of either that language, or its literal interpretation..........(oh, wait - that's right, you argued, in very misguided fashion, against the brilliant addition of the Spertus into the historic streetwall!)

braun06 Nov 9, 2015 4:46 PM

I cannot wait to see someone make something compatible with the Best Western...

rlw777 Nov 9, 2015 8:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7228725)
I'm curious why no one ever mentions that this is proposed for the Michigan Boulevard Historic District. New structures in historic districts are required to be compatible in materials and massing with the existing structures. The prevailing cornice line for the historic district is 262 feet.

Probably because that's not actually a requirement.

You should read the new construction guidelines without bias sometime.

Mr Downtown Nov 10, 2015 12:38 AM

^Sure it is. See page 40 of the Commission's rules:

a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the property or district.

marothisu Nov 10, 2015 1:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7229560)
^Sure it is. See page 40 of the Commission's rules:

a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the property or district.

That has absolutely nothing to do with materials used. You can use 100 different materials to make the same type of shit.

LouisVanDerWright Nov 10, 2015 1:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7229560)
^Sure it is. See page 40 of the Commission's rules:

a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the property or district.

If you are going to roll out the facts and cite sources then you better bet people are going to research the entire context of what you are quoting:

Quote:

5. Criteria for New Construction, Additions, and Alterations to
Non-Contributing Buildings

Permit applications for new construction, additions, and
alterations to non-contributing buildings are reviewed to ensure that they
are compatible with and complement existing significant historical or
architectural features and qualities. The intent is to encourage excellence
in contemporary design that does not imitate, but rather complements,

existing architectural and environmental characteristics of the subject
property or district.


The following criteria shall be considered in evaluating
permit applications for new construction, additions, and alterations to
non-contributing buildings:

a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape,
and scale of the features associated with the property or district.

b. The site plan exhibits the general site characteristics
associated with the property or district.

c. The design respects the general historic and
architectural characteristics associated with the property or
district in general character, color, and texture.

d. The materials are compatible with the existing
structures in the district in general character, color, and texture.

e. In the case of additions, the addition is so connected
to the property that it does not adversely alter, change, obscure,
damage, or destroy any significant critical features.

f. In the case of minor alterations to non-contributing
buildings, minor alterations compatible with the architectural
character of the existing building shall be deemed to not have an
adverse effect on the significant historical or architectural features
of the landmark.
So the problem with you bandying about your "knowledge" of the Landmarks ordinance and rules is that not only are you wrong, but the rules literally state the exact opposite of what you claim. The commission is not trying to encourage similar materials, size, style, etc, they are trying to encourage buildings that complement with contemporary materials and design. I would say the sexy cantilever here (hmmm, cantilever over a landmark, what a crazy idea, sounds familiar?) qualifies as an excellent means of suspending a much larger building over the historic district while putting as little of that density directly adjacent to the historic buildings as possible.

rlw777 Nov 10, 2015 2:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7229560)
^Sure it is. See page 40 of the Commission's rules:

a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the property or district.

OK take the bias goggles off.

Do you notice how the language is very open there and doesn't use words like REQUIRED. Instead they intentionally use words that are open for interpretation like CONSIDERED and GENERAL.

If you read the design guidelines for the Historic Michigan Avenue Boulevard you will notice the rules prefaced with this

Quote:

Designers of new buildings in the district should look to the historic buildings in the district for design context. No set of guidelines can take the place of a design professional's judgement and expertise in developing a building design which will meet a functional program as well as being compatible and appropriate to the district. The following criteria, as
identified in the Commission's rules and regulations should be considered...
Again open language and obvious intent to rely on the designer over a set of rules. As for materials

Quote:

As noted in both the Chicago Landmarks designation report and these guidelines, the predominant building material of this district is masonry. There is a wide variety of masonry, including terra cotta, stone and brick, all in various colors. These materials are used in a variety of sizes, with a range from simplistic to elaborate detailing. Materials for new construction are encouraged to be compatible with the existing range of materials. Compatibility may be achieved through a combination of color, texture, unit size or detailing, depending on the materials chosen.
Again open language... materials are "encouraged to be compatible" not "required to be compatible" and even goes on to say that compatibility may be achieved through several other means.

VKChaz Nov 10, 2015 2:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7229677)
Again open language and obvious intent to rely on the designer over a set of rules. As for materials

Again open language... materials are "encouraged to be compatible" not "required to be compatible" and even goes on to say that compatibility may be achieved through several other means.

But, to be fair, if we are only 'encouraging' then what is the point?
Without taking any sides (and not being familiar with the rules), I think it is appropriate to ask what was intended as the 'spirit' of the guidelines that should be followed.

rlw777 Nov 10, 2015 2:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKChaz (Post 7229691)
But, to be fair, if we are only 'encouraging' then what is the point?
Without taking any sides, I think it is appropriate to ask what was intended as the 'spirit' of the guidelines that should be followed.

Yes we should absolutely be interpreting these guidelines and considering whether or not this design is appropriate. However we should not be acting like the intention here is for all new buildings to be stone clad and no taller than the cornice line.

aaron38 Nov 10, 2015 4:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7228725)
The prevailing cornice line for the historic district is 262 feet.

There are 400 and 500 ft buildings on Mich Ave just one block south. I think that ship has sailed. And again, this buildling is replacing a parking lot. Time to make some history.

BVictor1 Nov 10, 2015 5:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7228725)
I'm curious why no one ever mentions that this is proposed for the Michigan Boulevard Historic District. New structures in historic districts are required to be compatible in materials and massing with the existing structures. The prevailing cornice line for the historic district is 262 feet.

In all honesty Mr. D, it's because most of us could give two-shits about this being proposed within a historic district in downtown Chicago, as nothing is being disturbed or destroyed by this proposal. The districts language is as LWDW has fully quoted. This tower would "compliment" the character by not having setbacks from Michigan Avenue and would have an accent to compliment the cornice line of the building to the north.

What's wrong with creating historic and architectural landmarks for the future in the present?

You know what else? The site is still zoned DX-16, and as we know, downtown zoning has no height limit.

Mr Downtown Nov 10, 2015 10:06 AM

My focus is on massing, not materials. I haven't yet seen any renderings detailed enough to know anything about materials. So the question is how we can allow one tower that goes 1002 feet straight up in a district where nothing else goes up more than 425 feet and claim with a straight face that it "exhibits the general size and shape ... associated with the property or district."

LouisVanDerWright Nov 10, 2015 4:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7229976)
My focus is on massing, not materials. I haven't yet seen any renderings detailed enough to know anything about materials. So the question is how we can allow one tower that goes 1002 feet straight up in a district where nothing else goes up more than 425 feet and claim with a straight face that it "exhibits the general size and shape ... associated with the property or district."

It also says " the following criteria shall be considered" when introducing the list we are debating. It does not say "the following is a strictly enforced list of rules for these districts" as you seem to presenting it.

VKChaz Nov 10, 2015 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 7230270)
It also says " the following criteria shall be considered" when introducing the list we are debating. It does not say "the following is a strictly enforced list of rules for these districts" as you seem to presenting it.

Seems it has been established that the language provides flexibility. But I am curious what the developer and Jahn have explained regarding 'looking to the historical buildings for context' and how this is "a building design which will meet a functional program as well as being compatible and appropriate to the district?"

BVictor1 Nov 10, 2015 6:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7229976)
My focus is on massing, not materials. I haven't yet seen any renderings detailed enough to know anything about materials. So the question is how we can allow one tower that goes 1002 feet straight up in a district where nothing else goes up more than 425 feet and claim with a straight face that it "exhibits the general size and shape ... associated with the property or district."

Because we have different zoning codes now. There were height limitations with zoning and this was the biggest factor when it came to tall building in Chicago. When the zoning changed, you got taller towers along Michigan Avenue like Willoughby tower.

ithakas Nov 10, 2015 6:22 PM

I had some apprehensions when we first got the height figure for Jahn's tower and how it would fit into the Michigan Ave. street tower – not because of typical 'contextual' NIMBY arguments, but because of how Michigan Avenue's streetwall is critical to our skyline's cascading effect from the lakefront. My thinking was that we should build forward-thinking designs like Spertus at the general scale of the existing streetwall and use Wabash as an escape valve to build much taller.

However, seeing how Grant Park is framed on the NW versus SW corner in this photo changed my opinion, along with the revealed design of the Jahn tower, which I hope is my destiny to someday live in:

http://i.imgur.com/3MWnhTQ.jpg

I agree with a lot of what is said here in framing the skyline with clusters at either corner of Grant Park with additional height:
http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-ar...l-as-designed/

To me, this tower is the southern half of Grant Park's Legacy.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.