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)

Steely Dan Jan 7, 2016 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7291205)
Applicant's attorney.

that's good enough for me.

Steely Dan Jan 7, 2016 6:28 PM

* off topic posts deleted *

guys, please stop with the off topic posts about other cities.

Jibba Jan 7, 2016 8:44 PM

I don't think this would suffer from a height reduction, should the whole thing be scaled down proportionally (I could like it better, as it could border on oppressive at 1000+ feet, given the form). Unfortunately, I don't see the developers sacrificing floor space for the sake of the proportions.

ChiTownWonder Jan 7, 2016 9:57 PM

Ughhh.

Zapatan Jan 7, 2016 9:59 PM

Given Chicago's track record I often just assume 1000+ buildings will never happen or be scaled down so the fact that it's been knocked down to 832 (hopefully the top floor height) means it actually has a good chance of getting built, and in that area it should stick out well. :cheers:

chris08876 Jan 7, 2016 10:00 PM

Its in a great location too where a super tall would add a lot to the park.
A bummer, but... still a solid height.

ChiTownWonder Jan 7, 2016 10:01 PM

That puts it behind Chase Tower and Park Tower. That makes it "one of the taller skyscrapers" in Chicago.

ChiTownWonder Jan 7, 2016 10:02 PM

I suppose height really doesn't matter, but man would it have been impressive.

Steely Dan Jan 7, 2016 10:06 PM

* off topic posts deleted *

guys, please stop with the off topic posts about other cities.

sentinel Jan 8, 2016 12:37 AM

832' is still great.

Domer2019 Jan 8, 2016 2:26 AM

It's laughable to call it a plateau, but it'd be an interesting look to have three ~800ish foot towers in succession in a sparse area there

KevinFromTexas Jan 8, 2016 5:14 AM

The downgrade in height is unfortunate, but I'll just say that I wasn't a big fan of the design right off the bat. I wasn't sure the design warranted it being a supertall. I'm just not a fan of these supertall and super skinny boxes. I did get a kick out of the nickname, though. That area of the skyline deserves something a little more interesting so it'll stand out and anchor that new frontier of skyscrapers on Chicago's skyline. I actually wish I could switch the original supertall height with the Grant Park Tower's height. That building really should be a supertall.

Mr Downtown Jan 8, 2016 2:37 PM

NIMBYs? There hasn't even been a public meeting about it yet. The new height was what the mayors office bullied Landmarks staff into accepting.

SamInTheLoop Jan 8, 2016 2:47 PM

^ Indeed.....that was just looney.....

^^ There was a large public meeting 2-3 months ago (Can't remember if it was Columbia or East-West).....several of us were in attendance.....standing room only......the room had no shortage of rabid NIMBYs....

Tom In Chicago Jan 8, 2016 8:48 PM

[MODERATOR NOTE]This is a second notice regarding off topic discussion. . . we said "please". . . any further disruption will result in disciplinary action. . . [/rhetorical]

. . .

VKChaz Jan 12, 2016 3:24 AM

fyi:
Crains article.
Nothing much additional information - this site is even referenced related to height - but article does mention an updated rendering is forthcoming.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-loops-tallest

SamInTheLoop Feb 1, 2016 3:51 PM

Ald Burns resigning
 
to join airbnb.

Uh, first of all: wtf.

Second: wtf.

Third: wtf!

Implications for this project? Discuss.

Ryanrule Feb 1, 2016 6:34 PM

I imagine its a lobbyist job?

They need to redraw the ward anyway.

Kumdogmillionaire Feb 2, 2016 12:26 AM

It's Chicago. Positions change hands, politics don't. I doubt it means much for this project, if anything it's bad

Mr Downtown Feb 2, 2016 2:53 AM

It could go either way. Uncontrolled development is bound to be a campaign issue among the folks who'll run to replace Burns as alderman. On the other hand, the mayor's office could take advantage of a council vacancy to ram the PD through before a new alderman is seated.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:58 AM.

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