CHICAGO | NEMA Chicago | 896 FT | 81 FLOORS

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by left of center

Central Park is no worse off for having canyons of skyscrapers enclose it on all sides. I think it actually adds to its allure.

Except when you have tiny, pencil thin ugly skyscrapers creating those shadows. Then the allure goes away. . .

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

Except when you have tiny, pencil thin ugly skyscrapers creating those shadows. Then the allure goes away. . .

For the love of gawd, this planet is literally covered in wide open fields, parks, forests, you name it, with not a skyscraper in sight. The allure DOES NOT go away because a "pencil thin" shadow, it's part of it! 1% of the Earth has parkland with skyscraper shadows. 99% of the world does not, feel free to hang out on any of it if a skyscraper makes your skin chilly, but please, spare the rest of us the asinine complaints about cities having skyscrapers.

[Bonsai Tree]

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind buildings casting shadows. What I do mind, is if the buildings casting shadows are literal pieces of garbage, like most of the new skyscrapers they are erected around Central Park.

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind buildings casting shadows. What I do mind, is if the buildings casting shadows are literal pieces of garbage, like most of the new skyscrapers they are erected around Central Park.

So let me get this right; you're complaining about the shape of the shadow caused by architecture you find distasteful? Talk about first world problems

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Sunlight that should instead be reaching Grant Park.

Nah I prefer a little shade in the park and a great view. This building and it's shadow are a benefit to the park.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

Except when you have tiny, pencil thin ugly skyscrapers creating those shadows. Then the allure goes away. . .

Good for us that OGP is anything but ugly or pencil thin

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

So let me get this right; you're complaining about the shape of the shadow caused by architecture you find distasteful? Talk about first world problems

Exactly.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind buildings casting shadows. What I do mind, is if the buildings casting shadows are literal pieces of garbage, like most of the new skyscrapers they are erected around Central Park.

There is PLENTY of quality architecture surrounding Central Park. If you're looking for bad buildings, you're just ignoring the many many good ones.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

There is PLENTY of quality architecture surrounding Central Park. If you're looking for bad buildings, you're just ignoring the many many good ones.

No, all the new architecture, not the old architecture. I'm talking about buildings like Central Park Tower, 111 West 57th, 432 Park Avenue (which is coincidentally designed by the same architect as OGP, and took inspiration from a garbage can https://www.wired.com/2015/06/nycs-1...red-trash-can/), etc. Not some of the awesome old architecture that still surrounds the park.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

For the love of gawd, this planet is literally covered in wide open fields, parks, forests, you name it, with not a skyscraper in sight. The allure DOES NOT go away because a "pencil thin" shadow, it's part of it! 1% of the Earth has parkland with skyscraper shadows. 99% of the world does not, feel free to hang out on any of it if a skyscraper makes your skin chilly, but please, spare the rest of us the asinine complaints about cities having skyscrapers.

Exactly! After all, what is the fundamental appeal of Grant Park other than its location and the view of the skyline? You can't really experience the lake from the park.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Sunlight that should instead be reaching Grant Park.

Get over it... we're preventing melanoma here.

[Rocket49]

Do people actually complain about a shadow problem from buildings at the south end of Grant Park?

During summer months the sun is high in the sky when it's to the south. I doubt the shadow would extend more than a couple hundred feet into the park

[Mr Downtown]

It's a basic axiom of urban design that you do not shadow public open spaces. For that reason, the Central Station PD specified that developments must not "significantly shadow public or private open space."

[J_M_Tungsten]

Yeah, and the major rail running through the heart of that “open space” really adds to the public park use. Also, are there certain hours or seasons shadows cannot project over this land or something? Pretty sure most of the building west of Michigan Ave. project shadows over the park.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's a basic axiom of urban design that you do not shadow public open spaces. For that reason, the Central Station PD specified that developments must not "significantly shadow public or private open space."

Ah yes, 2 PM, the most pleasant time to be in the sun all day. Nothing like full blast glaring sunlight at peak daytime heat. And you know, 2 PM is the best time to go to the park, 99% of people aren't working at that time or anything.

Oh and it's not like the sun is high enough in the sky that the shadows basically only shade a 4 lane roadway throughout the entire late spring and summer or anything...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's a basic axiom of urban design that you do not shadow public open spaces.

It is?

Says who?

You?

[left of center]

I guess we need to tear down all the buildings around Times Square, since its a public space and all. We wouldn't want all those skyscrapers, video screens, and advertisements to get in the way of whatever it might be that draws people there to begin with, right?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's a basic axiom of urban design that you do not shadow public open spaces. For that reason, the Central Station PD specified that developments must not "significantly shadow public or private open space."

And Grant Park is how big again...? Exactly! Don't rehash and argument you're going to lose my friend.

People can walk 1-block to the north for their daily does of pre-melanoma.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's a basic axiom of urban design that you do not shadow public open spaces. For that reason, the Central Station PD specified that developments must not "significantly shadow public or private open space."

I guess we should get rid of all the trees too because those cast shadows as well and clouds too, as well as hills and mountains and bushes. I prefer my parks to be barren wind swept plains with no views at all, just in case anything gets in the way of the sun. I believe the city is no place for tall buildings or really any buildings at all.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Says who?

Richard Hedberg's book Fundamentals of Urban Design, p. 119. Jonathan Barnett, An Introduction to Urban Design, p. 180. William H. Whyte's The City, entirety of chapters 17 and 18. Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language, p. 514, which says bluntly:

People use open space if it is sunny, and do not use it if it isn't, in all but desert climates. This is perhaps the most important single fact about a building.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Ah yes, 2 PM, the most pleasant time to be in the sun all day. Nothing like full blast glaring sunlight at peak daytime heat. And you know, 2 PM is the best time to go to the park, 99% of people aren't working at that time or anything.

The average high in Chicago on Sept. 10 is 74º (this year—a Sunday—it was 67º). Looking at historic averages, people in Grant Park are seeking the warmth of sunshine from mid August until the following June. This summer, there have only been 17 days when you would prefer the shade for reasons of comfort.