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)

Mr Downtown Nov 13, 2015 6:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domer2019 (Post 7232908)
the intent is to stop what's there from being cut down, not to prohibit taller trees from growing or being planted.

That was the understanding of historic preservation circa 1970 in Chicago: don't tear down beautiful buildings that have somehow survived, but noncontributing lots or structures are a free-fire zone subject only to zoning controls.

But most folks today—including the language in Chicago's preservation ordinance and regulations—think preservation of a district means that the toute ensemble has been deemed worthy of protection, including protection from insensitive new development of a vastly different scale. I challenge anyone to explain how a 1003-foot tower in this location, shooting straight up from the sidewalk with no setbacks, can be thought of as sensitive to its context.

Domer2019 Nov 13, 2015 6:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7233750)
That was the understanding of historic preservation circa 1970 in Chicago: don't tear down beautiful buildings that have somehow survived, but noncontributing lots or structures are a free-fire zone subject only to zoning controls.

But most folks today—including the language in Chicago's preservation ordinance and regulations—think preservation of a district means that the toute ensemble has been deemed worthy of protection, including protection from insensitive new development of a vastly different scale. I challenge anyone to explain how a 1003-foot tower in this location, shooting straight up from the sidewalk with no setbacks, can be thought of as sensitive to its context.


I think that works when there is cohesiveness and interaction for a greater design (e.g. all of downtown Paris especially with the height limits). But here, it ends up being more a claim to a museum display (somehow exerting priority over urban growth), fighting off attempts to put a Ferrari in a chariot race exhibit. And all this in the midst of a skyscraper city. If the aversion to Big Jahn is for its imposing stature, then there should be a height limit to preserve the integrity of the district, not a zoning that lets it be wildly tall. And I fail to see how setbacks all the sudden redeem a building that would be still incredibly out of scale. At least there is reference to the streetwall in the cantilever's beginning.

Edit: Its "context" is, bluntly, the city of Chicago

pilsenarch Nov 13, 2015 2:10 PM

Contextual Sensitivity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7233750)
I challenge anyone to explain how a 1003-foot tower in this location, shooting straight up from the sidewalk with no setbacks, can be thought of as sensitive to its context.

OK, I'll take the bait and propose an argument for it being respectful and complementary to its context...
  • this particular site is only about 100' from the southern boundary of the district - the proposed tower helps to transition the district to the neighboring skyscrapers, all without set backs, that border the park both on Michigan Avenue and Roosevelt Road.
  • as someone has already mentioned, the 'context' of this historic district is indeed the entire loop behind it and the buildings surrounding Grant Park... no one has ever perceived the historic Michigan Avenue street wall in isolation... it has always been pictured in context with tall towers immediately surrounding it... this tower adds to that rich, historic complexity that already defines the district...
  • this building does have a setback that respects it's immediate neighbor... this will establish a continuity with the district, particularly perceived by pedestrians immediately in front of the historic 'wall'...
  • as far as the depth of the setback or the overall height of the tower, a viewer needs to move far enough into the park or out to the lakefront to really observe it, at which point the entire city tableau comes into play as noted earlier...

JK47 Nov 13, 2015 9:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7232441)
You could ask the New Yorkers who brought their black umbrellas to Central Park last Sunday for the big Stand Against the Shadows rally.

Not significantly shadowing public open space is a fundamental tenet of urban design in a climate like Chicago's. It's in the first chapter of any textbook on the subject. You only put shorter towers right at the edge of the park's southern and western border, and shift the bulk into buildings 200 to 300 feet away from the edge. Particularly galling in this case is wasting the huge T-shaped parcel that runs along Wabash on some parking podium, while not only harming the city's premier public space but also thumbing your nose at the landmark district.


Given the location of the tower relative to the park it likely would only pose a major shadow issue in the late Fall and Winter when the Sun is setting in the Southwest or at least passing at a lower angle as it traverses through the Southwest sky. Given the height of the sun in August (when I was fervently praying for shade) I doubt this would even pose a shadow issue for Hutchinson Field which is directly adjacent to this site (I remember the sun cruising pretty high in the sky over that corner of the park).

Swicago Swi Sox Nov 13, 2015 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK47 (Post 7234658)
Given the location of the tower relative to the park it likely would only pose a major shadow issue in the late Fall and Winter when the Sun is setting in the Southwest or at least passing at a lower angle as it traverses through the Southwest sky. Given the height of the sun in August (when I was fervently praying for shade) I doubt this would even pose a shadow issue for Hutchinson Field which is directly adjacent to this site (I remember the sun cruising pretty high in the sky over that corner of the park).

I anecdotally agree. I play softball on lower and upper hutchinson. The sun usually sets over the Hilton Hotel in the Summer from thsoe fields (it is notbale because we always fighting the shadows in late games). This tower would cast its shadow more over the new skate park and roosevelt road...but really only for the last minutes (more?) of the day compared to other buidlings. It is not like this tower is going to block all sun all day. Actually towers like the new MILA or newish Legacy probably do more harm, casting shadows on more popular millenium park.

Using the web site SunCalc.net you can get an idea of whre the sun will set relative to a position on a map. It is not as good as a 3-d sun study, but pretty interesting.

wahoo9518 Nov 16, 2015 9:21 PM

‏@BlairKamin:
Height of Jahn's 1000 S. Michigan tower has been cut to 933 feet from 1,001 feet, according to City Council zoning committee agenda for tmrw

Randomguy34 Nov 16, 2015 9:53 PM

^ I think that might be a typo he made. It reads for the document tomorrow that it would have a max residential height of 993 feet. That doesn't include the mechanical height, which would be 1030 feet.
https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...tions=&Search=

rlw777 Nov 17, 2015 1:34 AM

^ Yes Kamin needs to read first then post. Height hasn't changed according to the document RandomGuy34 posted

BVictor1 Nov 17, 2015 4:12 AM

We'll see. Landmarks my have sought a reduction in height. I just emailed Blair and he replied that his sources stated the 933'. That still may be to the underside of the top floor or it may be the building height. It's not too bad of a snip.

rlw777 Nov 17, 2015 5:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7238039)
We'll see. Landmarks my have sought a reduction in height. I just emailed Blair and he replied that his sources stated the 933'. That still may be to the underside of the top floor or it may be the building height. It's not too bad of a snip.

I see what's going on. Blair isn't responsible for the typo but it is a typo just follow the references.

Bottom of page 7 Zoning Agenda says 933' but clearly references document #02015-6394 filed on September 24th which is this document which has the height at 993' minus mechanical or 1030'

BVictor1 Nov 17, 2015 7:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7238090)
I see what's going on. Blair isn't responsible for the typo but it is a typo just follow the references.

Bottom of page 7 Zoning Agenda says 933' but clearly references document #02015-6394 filed on September 24th which is this document which has the height at 993' minus mechanical or 1030'

Correct... But Kamin also said his sources stated a reduction. The height may have come down, we'll have to see as the height for the Essex in the document says 48-stories while at the meeting a floor count of 54 was given. Once these projects actually come before the commission, we'll have a better guesstimate.

r18tdi Nov 17, 2015 5:02 PM

Hmmm I wouldn't really mind a slight height reduction

Mr Downtown Jan 7, 2016 5:35 AM

Height now 832 feet.

BVictor1 Jan 7, 2016 5:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7290743)
Height now 832 feet.

To the top of the structure or to the underside of the uppermost occupied floor?

Domer2019 Jan 7, 2016 6:42 AM

If it's true, that sucks, but at least it would be more feasible to finance. I'll take better odds on having anything significant near that corner of the wall (but height would also be nice)

XIII Jan 7, 2016 3:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7290743)
Height now 832 feet.

Did they just announce this so that they can mutilate it publicly? Why even spend the time on the released design if it is just going to get hacked to death?

Steely Dan Jan 7, 2016 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7290743)
Height now 832 feet.

source?

Hudson11 Jan 7, 2016 4:38 PM

I really hope that isn't true. Chicago needs new towers to have significant heights, otherwise they'll be just another brick in the wall.

r18tdi Jan 7, 2016 4:52 PM

Pretty lame news if true.

800+ feet will be a nice peak, but 1000 would have been jaw-dropping.

Mr Downtown Jan 7, 2016 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 7291026)
source?

Applicant's attorney.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:05 AM.

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