HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive

    

740 North Rush in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 2:53 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,706
People who, of their very own free will, CHOOSE to live right in the very middle of the largest, densest, and busiest urban metropolis in the interior of the entire freaking continent and then proceed to complain about traffic and congestion are some of the most bewildering people in the history of our human race.
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 3:02 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
People who, of their very own free will, CHOOSE to live right in the very middle of the largest, densest, and busiest urban metropolis in the interior of the entire freaking continent and then proceed to complain about traffic and congestion are some of the most bewildering people in the history of our human race.


Exactly
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 3:05 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
That community meeting will be packed with residents of the Fordham, 30 E. Huron, and others that will be negatively impacted.
I'm sure blocked views have nothing to do with it.
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 3:19 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 8,449
March and April of 2014












__________________
Harry C --- Chicago rep for SkyRise Cities ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 4:18 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
stylusx, why do you bother? You have been an occasional NIMBY presence on these threads since 2007 and have consistently spewed the most ignorant opinions which have never been well received and have been consistently, and repeatedly, knocked down...

clearly you live in this neighborhood because you have never contributed to a discussion in any other... the NIMBY trolling is just so tiresome
I do not see this as an ignorant opinion in this case. What they are proposing is much worse than what is there now. Just because it is a skyscraper that adds density does not mean it is better in any way. The city is better off having what is there now than this proposed garbage. I do not think I am a NIMBY just because I want to preserve the diverse fabric of buildings in my city. There are plenty of other places to go throw up shlock like this.
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 4:21 PM
Halsted & Villagio Halsted & Villagio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 40
At night....for me it was at night when I first laid my eyes upon them. I was enjoying a crisp summer night with my family downtown and those little row homes glistened like a friendly oasis. Absolutely etched in my memory forever.

I am a fan of the height of this new proposal. I love height. And indeed, I could care less about blocked views. Not a closet NIMBY in the least - I personally think they are idiotic. I just want to see something worthy of what we will be losing. I simply have not seen that yet.

.
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 4:44 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 View Post
I do not see this as an ignorant opinion in this case. What they are proposing is much worse than what is there now. Just because it is a skyscraper that adds density does not mean it is better in any way. The city is better off having what is there now than this proposed garbage. I do not think I am a NIMBY just because I want to preserve the diverse fabric of buildings in my city. There are plenty of other places to go throw up shlock like this.

totally fair to say "build it on a parking lot" first, and i sure wish the city policies and tax schemes encouraged this, but they dont...the location demands this it seems...the best way to preserve is to buy

it's also not impossible to *move* homes
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 4:58 PM
Halsted & Villagio Halsted & Villagio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 40
In the alternative -- build around the row homes -- if that happens then I would be ok with this being built. I am not a fan of the design but I can live with it as long as we can preserve the row homes.

Also, maybe its just me (entirely possible btw) but I always look askance at anything done by outsiders (particularly New Yorkers) that would destroy our history.

.

Last edited by Halsted & Villagio; Mar 9, 2017 at 5:16 PM.
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 5:48 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,522
this is where the city needs to provide incentives....land swaps..air rights...density bonuses...
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 7:32 PM
stylusx stylusx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
stylusx, why do you bother? You have been an occasional NIMBY presence on these threads since 2007 and have consistently spewed the most ignorant opinions which have never been well received and have been consistently, and repeatedly, knocked down...

clearly you live in this neighborhood because you have never contributed to a discussion in any other... the NIMBY trolling is just so tiresome
Some like to call any criticism, "NIMBY"...and others might call all this cheerleading, "FANBOY". The fact is that this is bad architecture and would be ill-placed. This proposal is real and the Alderman has caused the developer to offer up 325 parking spaces that would do nothing to alleviate the congestion.

You may want to discourage comment from those that know the neighborhood the best...but that won't make the argument go away.

This building is overly tall, sits on an ugly parking podium, makes me think of an '80's TV show and will get the Alderman un-elected if erected. Simple enough.
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 7:56 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
You may want to discourage comment from those that know the neighborhood the best...but that won't make the argument go away.
I live near the site. Traffic and "placement" and height aren't an issue. It's design (as far as I can tell from one, misleading image).

Sure losing the vintage buildings and older trees will sting, but not enough for me to rule-out any tall building in this site--which it sound like you have already done.

I'd hate to be you, because if you think something tall isn't going to be built here you are just setting yourself up for bitter disappointment.
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2017, 2:07 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
Some like to call any criticism, "NIMBY"...and others might call all this cheerleading, "FANBOY". The fact is that this is bad architecture and would be ill-placed. This proposal is real and the Alderman has caused the developer to offer up 325 parking spaces that would do nothing to alleviate the congestion.

You may want to discourage comment from those that know the neighborhood the best...but that won't make the argument go away.

This building is overly tall, sits on an ugly parking podium, makes me think of an '80's TV show and will get the Alderman un-elected if erected. Simple enough.
Blah blah blah you're a NIMBY. Heard it all before. Your motives are self centered, probably centered around protecting your views.

But I agree with you about the podium. Dead on arrival
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2017, 3:30 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
Some like to call any criticism, "NIMBY"...and others might call all this cheerleading, "FANBOY". The fact is that this is bad architecture and would be ill-placed. This proposal is real and the Alderman has caused the developer to offer up 325 parking spaces that would do nothing to alleviate the congestion.

You may want to discourage comment from those that know the neighborhood the best...but that won't make the argument go away.

This building is overly tall, sits on an ugly parking podium, makes me think of an '80's TV show and will get the Alderman un-elected if erected. Simple enough.

Eh...

Some of your criticism is quite NIMBY, that's just a fact.

Overly tall? You've got to be kidding me

I can agree with you on the podium and the fact that the design isn't stellar, but height complaints in downtown is NIMBY.



On a side note... I hope that some of you can attend the public meeting. I'm not a big fan regarding the demo of the town homes at all. A skilled designer would be able to work around things.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2017, 1:19 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
Some like to call any criticism, "NIMBY"...and others might call all this cheerleading, "FANBOY". The fact is that this is bad architecture and would be ill-placed. This proposal is real and the Alderman has caused the developer to offer up 325 parking spaces that would do nothing to alleviate the congestion.

You may want to discourage comment from those that know the neighborhood the best...but that won't make the argument go away.

This building is overly tall, sits on an ugly parking podium, makes me think of an '80's TV show and will get the Alderman un-elected if erected. Simple enough.
Look, the proposal looks like some shit that should be in a suburb of Atlanta... having said this, you remind me of Jarta/Pilton, adopting some valid criticism to bolster your ridiculous NIMBY ranting which is ALL you have ever contributed... please don't treat us like idiots...
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2017, 10:18 PM
stylusx stylusx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
Look, the proposal looks like some shit that should be in a suburb of Atlanta... having said this, you remind me of Jarta/Pilton, adopting some valid criticism to bolster your ridiculous NIMBY ranting which is ALL you have ever contributed... please don't treat us like idiots...
Don't be so sensitive. It is not treating anyone like 'idiots' to restate a recurring theme about developing this site. 2007, 2014 and then the St. James debacle in between. Why did these projects fail? I can assure you it wasn't me that thwarted hundred-million dollar buildings. It was the same reason this project should fail. Sacrificing the row houses along Superior, blocking the traffic from Michigan Ave. West and West and West. Gridlocking the North-South movement on Rush. And even though (who said it?) the area is 'lousy with parking garages' it is the cars in movement that pose the problem. The four-way stops don't cause any problem...its the lights on Michigan Ave. that have to operate. The Alderman thought in 2014 that no additional parking would force residents to use the Red-Line and Taxis/Uber. That won't happen. Everyone loves their cars and hates getting robbed on the Red-Line. Trump Tower is a good example of a glass building built in the right place. No detriment to the neighborhood and values in the building have gone as high as $1500 per foot. There is a place for this building. Not on Wabash and Superior.
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2017, 11:13 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
And even though (who said it?) the area is 'lousy with parking garages' it is the cars in movement that pose the problem.
I wonder where those "cars in movement" might be moving to and from. Certainly not the parking garages, right?

Quote:
Everyone loves their cars and hates getting robbed on the Red-Line.
There are plenty of available units that are not 1 block away from "L" stops in high density housing and office neighborhoods. If someone loves their car, they are already living in a place that you admit is bad for cars.
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2017, 12:11 AM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
Everyone loves their cars and hates getting robbed on the Red-Line.
I can't imagine what the sub-text here might read ...
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2017, 12:47 AM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post

This building is overly tall



Good one. Oh wait, you're being serious?
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2017, 1:02 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,138
Why on earth would you drive if you live in that area, unless you work in the suburbs.

Just bewilders me.
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2017, 1:05 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 13,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by stylusx View Post
Don't be so sensitive. It is not treating anyone like 'idiots' to restate a recurring theme about developing this site. 2007, 2014 and then the St. James debacle in between. Why did these projects fail? I can assure you it wasn't me that thwarted hundred-million dollar buildings. It was the same reason this project should fail. Sacrificing the row houses along Superior, blocking the traffic from Michigan Ave. West and West and West. Gridlocking the North-South movement on Rush. And even though (who said it?) the area is 'lousy with parking garages' it is the cars in movement that pose the problem. The four-way stops don't cause any problem...its the lights on Michigan Ave. that have to operate. The Alderman thought in 2014 that no additional parking would force residents to use the Red-Line and Taxis/Uber. That won't happen. Everyone loves their cars and hates getting robbed on the Red-Line. Trump Tower is a good example of a glass building built in the right place. No detriment to the neighborhood and values in the building have gone as high as $1500 per foot. There is a place for this building. Not on Wabash and Superior.
I want this area to get more congested now. At some point a sane person realizes that when everything he could possibly need is within a 10 minute walk that he is being an absolute ass by driving everywhere.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.