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

    1000M in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 3:37 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,432
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...30-column.html

Proposed South Michigan Avenue towers appealing but need to strike balance

10/30/15


The Helmut Jahn-designed tower proposed for 1000 South Michigan would be Chicago’s seventh-tallest at 1,001 feet if another planned for East Wacker Drive also is built. (Jahn Architects)

BY: Blair KaminContact Reporter
Cityscapes

Quote:
After years of milquetoast midrise apartment towers, Chicago is finally seeing skyscraper plans that strive for height and aesthetic distinction. Yet as beguiling as these proposals are, they raise vexing questions about whether new growth is overscaled and infrastructure is becoming overburdened.

The answers will have an enormous impact on one of the nation's most significant urban ensembles, the officially protected stretch of historic skyscrapers along Michigan Avenue.

Two of the skyscraper plans, presented at a packed public meeting Thursday night at 816 S. Michigan, are among a rash of recently proposed high-rises that, if approved and financed, could add thousands of residential units to the southern edge of Grant Park and significantly alter the Chicago skyline.

The concerns transcend ordinary, not-in-my-backyard cries about blocked views. They speak to the wider issue of how Chicago should strike a balance between supercharged economic growth and civilized historic preservation. Residents are right to ask city officials and the local alderman, William Burns, 4th, to assess the cumulative impact of the planned skyscrapers on everything from traffic to shadows. Real estate bromides about building to "the highest and best use" are meaningless.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 4:00 AM
killaviews's Avatar
killaviews killaviews is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 467
That article is some real BS.

A 1000 footer absolutely belongs there. Filling in the street wall gaps with diverse styles is key. He's crazy for questioning whether it fits in. It looks perfect there.

And how can you questions whether the infrastructure can handle these new developments? Residents of Michigan Ave aren't the ones clogging up downtown streets with cars. Most of the busiest cta stations are north of Madison. The South Loop feels like a ghost town compared to River North.

Complaining about density when the city just past a huge tax increase is insane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 1:33 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,782
Quote:
The concerns transcend ordinary, not-in-my-backyard cries about blocked views. They speak to the wider issue of how Chicago should strike a balance between supercharged economic growth and civilized historic preservation.
Which is exactly what these recent proposals do. Striking a balance means building tall where empty lot and parking garages now stand, so that the historic buildings everyone loves don't get torn down.
In what world does building on an empty lot count against preservation? They want to preserve dirty trash strewn lots? For their asthetic value?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 2:28 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,733
Another meh Kamin piece that lends too much credence to NIMBY talking points. The argument about the historic district is about the only truly valid point of contention. Since it's not displacing anything historic on the streetwall I think there is sufficient ground for an exception to be made.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 2:58 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
So weird to hear Blair utter the word "milquetoast"; an epithet I have long applied to him.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 4:24 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,630
As long as Dearborn Park exists in it's current form the south loop is not allowed to complain about traffic or density. That is unless it's to say we need to connect the east west roads through Dearborn Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 4:27 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
As long as Dearborn Park exists in it's current form the south loop is not allowed to complain about traffic or density. That is unless it's to say we need to connect the east west roads through Dearborn Park.
100% agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 5:42 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,841
A rather meaningless article from Blair, as usual. If he wants to improve upon the designs, fair enough, but his other points are less than solid.

Quote:
Density alone is not the issue. The issue is how to make density livable. While the proposed South Michigan skyscrapers are appealing on many levels, much work still needs to be done before they strike the proper balance between finance and form, building and city, past and future.
I don't know what he's asking for here. Less density, more parking, wider streets, lower heights, less striking designs? None of these sound like winners for the city or the skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 5:53 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,592
So much watery talk in that article....and I just love how he completely takes off the table "highest and best use"' let alone property and zoning rights...like they don't matter. Eff that's annoying.

Long live the YIMBY and free market capitalism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 5:53 PM
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,648
Ugh such a smarmy little sycophant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 6:25 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 776
Yes!, THAT^
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 6:33 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,033
I could barely even finish that article it was so bad.......has Kamin changed over the years? I seem to remember, like maybe 10-15 years ago (while certainly disagreeing with him in cases....uh, Soldier Field), that I respected him much more than I do today..........have I evolved in the intervening years, has Kamin devolved, or is it some combination of the two?
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 6:42 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 776
^I think it's kinda some of both Sam. He's always been sorta ignorant about architectural polemics and therefore has never been very good at translating those for his readers, but I also think his readers (of the Tribune) have evolved (or devolved) over the years and he has been going out of his way to cater to them...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2015, 6:54 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,592
Public outcry sells much better than profit motive...unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 6:31 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...30-column.html

Proposed South Michigan Avenue towers appealing but need to strike balance

10/30/15


The Helmut Jahn-designed tower proposed for 1000 South Michigan would be Chicago’s seventh-tallest at 1,001 feet if another planned for East Wacker Drive also is built. (Jahn Architects)

BY: Blair KaminContact Reporter
Cityscapes



Quote:
Residents are right to ask city officials and the local alderman, William Burns, 4th, to assess the cumulative impact of the planned skyscrapers on everything from traffic to shadows.
I see that fucking ass-clown, NIMBY-elite, Blair (out-of-touch) Kamin hard at work being an idiot again...


Quote:
If there's a problem here, it's the lack of a graceful transition between the tower's finely grained base, which echoes the historic district's gridded facades, and its skyline-scaled top. Unlike with another building that grows outward as it rises, Walter Netsch's University Hall at the University of Illinois at Chicago, they resemble two separate structures, one stacked awkwardly on the other. With the design at an early stage, that shortcoming can be fixed.
Jesus. The arrogance of this guy is limitless.

Quote:
Yet there are potential negatives. According to architect Jim Plunkard, landmarks officials want the architects to de-emphasize the expressed bracing, which represents a marked departure from the historic district's more delicately scaled facades. More parking also would help. Neighbors howled Thursday night at the prospect of just 155 spots for the 454 apartments.
This city is so fucking stuck in the past and stupid it sometimes makes me wonder if we're living in some kind of sick Twilight Zone nightmare. It shouldn't be any wonder why New Yorkers and LAers view Chicago as fly-over territory. This bizarrely traditionalist, anti-modern, anti-sophisticated design mindset seems so deeply entrenched within the zeitgeist of this city, it's as if actually noteworthy architecture returning to Chicago is nothing more than a far-fetched fantasy. Fucking shame.

I bet if the John Hancock Center were proposed today it'd be roll over by stupid... which is what I assume will happen with these two (potential gem) towers.

Quote:
No one is being a NIMBY in insisting that roads, public transit and other infrastructure keep pace with the new projects. City officials should independently assess everything from the shadows the towers will cast to their effect on traffic. Another issue: Will these towers open the floodgates for developers to erect even more high-rises behind preserved facades of small Streetwall buildings.
Oh, jeez. God forbid!

Quote:
Density alone is not the issue. The issue is how to make density livable.
No Blair, you idiot. Density alone is exactly the single issue that has nimby idiots like you so uptight about new development. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise you delusional hack.

Traffic is an issue concerning our failing infrastructure and the boorish ineptitude of cdot; it has nothing to do with tall buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 6:36 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
I could barely even finish that article it was so bad.......has Kamin changed over the years? I seem to remember, like maybe 10-15 years ago (while certainly disagreeing with him in cases....uh, Soldier Field), that I respected him much more than I do today..........have I evolved in the intervening years, has Kamin devolved, or is it some combination of the two?
No. He's always been a tool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777 View Post
As long as Dearborn Park exists in it's current form the south loop is not allowed to complain about traffic or density. That is unless it's to say we need to connect the east west roads through Dearborn Park.
I grew up over in that suburban pit. Dearborn Park can fuck off and die for all I care. It and Sandburg Village are an absolute cancer to the urban landscape of this city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 12:00 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,782
Quote:
Neighbors howled Thursday night at the prospect of just 155 spots for the 454 apartments.
I've reached the point in my life where I no longer want to instruct the ignorant, I just want to neuter them of any power. Anyone who complains about traffic impact then howls for 300 more spots is beyond redemption.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2015, 4:26 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,592
And then they will wonder why it isn't more affordable...go away nimbies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 12:43 AM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
I see that fucking ass-clown, NIMBY-elite, Blair (out-of-touch) Kamin hard at work being an idiot again...
Oh my fucking god. What's the best way to send this little shit some well-reasoned hate mail? Or should I take to twitter?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2015, 2:21 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,955
I don't mind NIMBY's being idiots in their own right as long as they have no real say or effect on the project. If it goes up it'll just make them mad
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 10:26 AM.

     

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