HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


    1000M in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2015, 5:42 PM
go go white sox go go white sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
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:



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.

Wow cool pic the south loop really needs to bulk up, and it is, in order to balance the skyline. You can almost see that the Sears tower will continue to be the tallest and centerpiece of the skyline on this pic. Looks very uniform.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 1:17 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,093
But a city is not a dance party where partners need to have matched height. A city is not for viewing from a dinner cruise boat out on the lake; a city is for living in. We don't want our historic buildings reduced to mere sidewalk-level decoration. We want historic districts that keep their integrity and are not despoiled by invading giants four times the size of the natives. And in our climate, we want places to sit in the sun in the park in late spring and early fall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 1:28 AM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,041
I don't know about you, but I don't see any shadows on Grant Park in the picture
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 2:14 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,377
Lol, shadows.

I'm sorry, but if you want some sort of scenic nature walk you aren't going to find it here. By the time the sun gets low enough in the sky for this building to cast shadows across the metra tracks it's already well past peak sun and those historic buildings you like so much have already eviscerated any trace of sunlight on Michigan Ave as they have on every sunny day for 150 years.

I hear Park Ridge has a really nice forest preserve, maybe you should move there. Oh wait, those pesky trees cast shadows on all that land and make it totally useless for recreation.

Honestly though, I think the bigger problem we have in this city is a lack of shade, not some 100' wide shadow like a half a mile away from what was the tallest building on earth for 25 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 2:42 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
But a city is not a dance party where partners need to have matched height. A city is not for viewing from a dinner cruise boat out on the lake; a city is for living in. We don't want our historic buildings reduced to mere sidewalk-level decoration. We want historic districts that keep their integrity and are not despoiled by invading giants four times the size of the natives. And in our climate, we want places to sit in the sun in the park in late spring and early fall.
But it is a dance party...

The image below needs to be balanced on the southern skyline in compared to the bulk of the north.



A city isn't just for living, it's also for playing.

The vast metropolis in the image above is still in Chicago, where the densities are lower. The area in question now is downtown, which the South Loop is included in.

Creating new history in historic districts is allowed.

Perhaps we should tear all this shit down and have these discussions in a human scaled Native American teepee.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 2:52 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
I don't know about you, but I don't see any shadows on Grant Park in the picture
To be fair, you can't judge year-round shadows by one photo taken at a particular point in time under certain weather conditions. But we've pretty much heard all of these arguments before when 830 S Michigan was proposed.

Speaking of, when do we get to see what's happening with that? The last report on that mentioned the site was sold to a Pritzker, so hopefully they hire someone better than P/H. And now that the YWCA facade is gone, it will be interesting to see how the building fronts Michigan Avenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 3:01 AM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
To be fair, you can't judge year-round shadows by one photo taken at a particular point in time under certain weather conditions. But we've pretty much heard all of these arguments before when 830 S Michigan was proposed.

Speaking of, when do we get to see what's happening with that? The last report on that mentioned the site was sold to a Pritzker, so hopefully they hire someone better than P/H. And now that the YWCA facade is gone, it will be interesting to see how the building fronts Michigan Avenue.
The P/H proposal for that site was actually really good.
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 3:02 AM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
And in our climate, we want places to sit in the sun in the park in late spring and early fall.
I live on Lake Shore.

All morning long, no shadows. Brilliant, blinding, delightful, delicious, intoxicating sunlight.

Once late afternoon comes and the shadows start to move across the grassy lawns of Lincoln Park, I have two options: move a few metres north or south until I am again in the sun or haul myself a bit further east until I am back in the sun.

Is planetary motion no longer taught in this country? Sorry to be a prick, but most days I don’t go sit in the sun. I admire the shifting shadows from above.

Discounting wonderful additions to our dynamic skyscape based on very temporary conditions which change daily and are caused by our planet's rotation is odd to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 3:17 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchymunch View Post
The P/H proposal for that site was actually really good.
True, it was a pretty good design. I was just thinking that with a Pritzker developing, this could be a rare chance to have someone like Foster, Rogers, Nouvel design something in our city.

Don't think I've seen this one posted yet
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 3:53 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
What's wrong with shadows in parks?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 4:34 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
What's wrong with shadows in parks?
And when are they going to rid the parks of all those trees casting pesky shadows all over the place?

I guess it's a shadow when man made, but shade if its a plant...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 5:02 AM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
True, it was a pretty good design. I was just thinking that with a Pritzker developing, this could be a rare chance to have someone like Foster, Rogers, Nouvel design something in our city.

Don't think I've seen this one posted yet
That would be stellar....but unlikely, sadly. Keep in mind that Foster & Partners (or was it R. Rogers?) did a preliminary design for what eventually became Pei Cobb Freed's Hyatt center. It was a cool looking diagrid design, similar to the Hearst building in NYC, but the Pritzkers rejected it because it was too expensive.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 10:50 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
What's wrong with shadows in parks?
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. The only possible reason not to shift the number of units into three shorter and more efficient towers is naked greed, thinking you can more easily get Chinese investors to park their money in condos with jetliner views out over the park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 1:15 PM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,048
Wow, such a big rally considering there are about 1.6 million people living in Manhattan and this has about 162 Facebook likes.... and 90 protesters.
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 1:55 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Not significantly shadowing public open space is a fundamental tenet of urban design
^ Not living in downtown Chicago is a fundamental tenet of common sense if you don't want to live around tall buildings.

I'm not sayin....I'm just sayin...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 1:55 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
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:



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.
I agree. I live in Portage Park but if I were to move anywhere in Chicago, it would probably be the South Loop. It's close enough to everything without being in the middle of it all.

This picture shows that the South Loop has loads of potential in terms of growth. Big Jahn is needed.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 4:52 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
Do they actually own the land along Wabash? The site plan only shows the tower's podium going from Michigan to the the alley; the Wabash side consists of the little park owned by Columbia, a small existing parking lot which will remain for the Lightner building conversion, and the rest is a surface parking lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 5:50 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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. The only possible reason not to shift the number of units into three shorter and more efficient towers is naked greed, thinking you can more easily get Chinese investors to park their money in condos with jetliner views out over the park.

These developers don't own the property along Wabash. They're only looking at the 1000 S. Michigan property. At the recent meeting, it was mentioned that they'd be getting an easement to widen the driveway access just west of 910 N. Michigan. The landmark district isn't getting any noses thumbed at it, but as mentioned, the zoning on this site is DX-16, which has no height limit. The main purpose of a landmark district is to preserve what's there.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2015, 6:48 PM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
These developers don't own the property along Wabash. They're only looking at the 1000 S. Michigan property. At the recent meeting, it was mentioned that they'd be getting an easement to widen the driveway access just west of 910 N. Michigan. The landmark district isn't getting any noses thumbed at it, but as mentioned, the zoning on this site is DX-16, which has no height limit. The main purpose of a landmark district is to preserve what's there.
It's frustrating how misconstrued that purpose is. Like with a national park or an area protected from deforestation, the intent is to stop what's there from being cut down, not to prohibit taller trees from growing or being planted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2015, 4:38 AM
LJS LJS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: in an ordinary ditch
Posts: 18
One fine day all of Grand Park will be fenced by skyscrapers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:35 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.