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
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2015, 6:40 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer2019 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2015, 6:53 AM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2015, 2:10 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 777
Contextual Sensitivity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2015, 9:45 PM
JK47 JK47 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 329
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.

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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2015, 10:07 PM
Swicago Swi Sox's Avatar
Swicago Swi Sox Swicago Swi Sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK47 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2015, 9:21 PM
wahoo9518 wahoo9518 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 10
‏@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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2015, 9:53 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,041
^ 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=
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2015, 1:34 AM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,634
^ Yes Kamin needs to read first then post. Height hasn't changed according to the document RandomGuy34 posted
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2015, 4:12 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,450
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.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2015, 5:14 AM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
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'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2015, 7:01 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
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.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2015, 5:02 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,314
Hmmm I wouldn't really mind a slight height reduction

Last edited by r18tdi; Jan 11, 2016 at 2:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2016, 5:35 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,091
Height now 832 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2016, 5:50 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Height now 832 feet.
To the top of the structure or to the underside of the uppermost occupied floor?
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2016, 6:42 AM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 264
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)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2016, 3:42 PM
XIII's Avatar
XIII XIII is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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?
__________________
"Chicago would do big things. Any fool could see that." - Ernest Hemingway
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2016, 3:44 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Height now 832 feet.
source?
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2016, 4:38 PM
Hudson11's Avatar
Hudson11 Hudson11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,104
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.
__________________
click here too see hunser's list of the many supertall skyscrapers of New York City!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2016, 4:52 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,314
Pretty lame news if true.

800+ feet will be a nice peak, but 1000 would have been jaw-dropping.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2016, 5:40 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
source?
Applicant's attorney.
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 7:36 AM.

     

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