HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2008, 9:30 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by munda View Post
if this is built
then we should have the upper hand in the 2016 games...
just build it already!!!!!!!!
i wonder how tall would the observation deck is going to be??? it shouldnt be more then 1000FT...
if we build this we won't have money for the 2016 games.



pragmatism first and foremost. The green component of this is excellent but that part of this project can be built elsewhere at a cheaper price.

and what about capturing the wind between buildings downtown? seems like a goldmine for green energy.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2008, 10:00 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1 View Post
if we build this we won't have money for the 2016 games.
Good thing the government is not planning on paying anything for the games but harnessing private investors to fund them in exchange for a large cut of the profits...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2008, 10:14 PM
Seppuko_Panda Seppuko_Panda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago.
Posts: 38
I've wondered for quite some time how tall that tower would be.

Given that the Chicago Spire won't have an observation deck, it'd be nice if this thing was also 2,000 feet. It would basically compensate for the lack of one in the Spire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2008, 10:28 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 7,972
Let's wait for Obama to be elected and then have him squeeze federal dollars for this, Olympics, CTA/transportation, and O’Hare.

Call it pork all you want but Illinois has been a federal dollar donor state for too long. I am sick of subsidizing the sprawl in the red states that are federal dollar welfare queens.



For every dollar your state sends to DC, here's how much you get back


New Mexico 1.91
Alaska 1.80
West Virginia 1.75
Mississppi 1.70
Alabama 1.64
North Dakota 1.64
Virginia 1.60

Hawaii 1.54
Montana 1.51
Arkansas 1.43
Oklahoma 1.43
South Dakota 1.43
Kentucky 1.41
Louisiana 1.41
Maryland 1.41
Maine 1.36
South Carolina 1.35
Tennessee 1.29
Arizona 1.28
Missouri 1.27
Idaho 1.25
Utah 1.14
Kansas 1.11

Vermont 1.11
Iowa 1.10
North Carolina 1.10
Wyoming 1.09
Pennsylvania 1.07
Nebraska 1.06
Rhode Island 1.03
Ohio 1.02
Florida 1.01


Donor States

Georgia 0.99
Indiana 0.99
Texas 0.98
Oregon 0.97
Washington 0.91
Michigan 0.88

Wisconsin 0.85
Colorado 0.84
New York 0.84
California 0.83
Delaware 0.83
Massachusetts 0.82

Nevada 0.78
Illinois 0.77
Connecticut 0.73
Minnesota 0.73

New Hampshire 0.73
New Jersey 0.63

Table: Per-Capita Tax Burden and Return on Tax Dollar
The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
__________________
facebook

Last edited by bnk; Sep 3, 2008 at 10:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2008, 10:54 PM
ChicagoChicago ChicagoChicago is offline
Chicago carpetbagger
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chicago, Atlanta, Nashville
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnk View Post
Let's wait for Obama to be elected and then have him squeeze federal dollars for this, Olympics, CTA/transportation, and O’Hare.

Call it pork all you want but Illinois has been a federal dollar donor state for too long. I am sick of subsidizing the sprawl in the red states that are federal dollar welfare queens.



For every dollar your state sends to DC, here's how much you get back


New Mexico 1.91
Alaska 1.80
West Virginia 1.75
Mississppi 1.70
Alabama 1.64
North Dakota 1.64
Virginia 1.60

Hawaii 1.54
Montana 1.51
Arkansas 1.43
Oklahoma 1.43
South Dakota 1.43
Kentucky 1.41
Louisiana 1.41
Maryland 1.41
Maine 1.36
South Carolina 1.35
Tennessee 1.29
Arizona 1.28
Missouri 1.27
Idaho 1.25
Utah 1.14
Kansas 1.11

Vermont 1.11
Iowa 1.10
North Carolina 1.10
Wyoming 1.09
Pennsylvania 1.07
Nebraska 1.06
Rhode Island 1.03
Ohio 1.02
Florida 1.01


Donor States

Georgia 0.99
Indiana 0.99
Texas 0.98
Oregon 0.97
Washington 0.91
Michigan 0.88

Wisconsin 0.85
Colorado 0.84
New York 0.84
California 0.83
Delaware 0.83
Massachusetts 0.82

Nevada 0.78
Illinois 0.77
Connecticut 0.73
Minnesota 0.73

New Hampshire 0.73
New Jersey 0.63

Table: Per-Capita Tax Burden and Return on Tax Dollar
The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
That tells me our senators and congressmen are doing a supremely shitty job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2008, 11:09 PM
shaberko shaberko is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago View Post
That tells me our senators and congressmen are doing a supremely shitty job.
It tells me that we have a good tax base. Financially, I'd much rather be one of the blue states than one of the red states (when you look at which states are on each list).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2008, 12:54 AM
ChicagoChicago ChicagoChicago is offline
Chicago carpetbagger
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chicago, Atlanta, Nashville
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaberko View Post
It tells me that we have a good tax base. Financially, I'd much rather be one of the blue states than one of the red states (when you look at which states are on each list).
Well, when your job is to represent your tax base, and your state is getting 75 cents on the dollar it pays into the system, you aren't doing your job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2008, 1:11 AM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Good thing the government is not planning on paying anything for the games but harnessing private investors to fund them in exchange for a large cut of the profits...
you sure about that? promises are just that and I've rarely if ever seen Chicago follow through on budgets and how the city claims they will pay for projects.

again, it's a pragmatic problem and this one fails unless businesses pay for most of this.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2008, 9:40 PM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago View Post
That tells me our senators and congressmen are doing a supremely shitty job.
Thats false. We actually have an economy/weath/urabanity so we pay more in taxes, its not a product of the state not bein taken care of.

As to the eco-bridge, anyone thinking this should be built (or that its a serious proposal and not a VISION) is acting delusional. We have a decaying, crippled, and insuffcient public trans system that nearly dies EVERY YEAR and you peeps want to spend money on a bridge to nowhere? Pull for some real projects instead...public trans, covering the railroad tracks, a permenant olympic stadium...something of REAL worth to the city instead of a pipe dream.

...this doesn't even take into account the complete bastardization of the lakefront if that tower was built. NIMFY on that. "A common to remain forever open, clear and free of any buildings, or other obstruction WHATSOEVER.” Never surrender our lakefront.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2008, 9:59 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
Thats false. We actually have an economy/weath/urabanity so we pay more in taxes, its not a product of the state not bein taken care of.

As to the eco-bridge, anyone thinking this should be built (or that its a serious proposal and not a VISION) is acting delusional. We have a decaying, crippled, and insuffcient public trans system that nearly dies EVERY YEAR and you peeps want to spend money on a bridge to nowhere? Pull for some real projects instead...public trans, covering the railroad tracks, a permenant olympic stadium...something of REAL worth to the city instead of a pipe dream.

...this doesn't even take into account the complete bastardization of the lakefront if that tower was built. NIMFY on that. "A common to remain forever open, clear and free of any buildings, or other obstruction WHATSOEVER.” Never surrender our lakefront.


I don't think we care if it's visionary or real, but the fact that it will transform the lakefront.

Yes, money is needed for other things as well. I don't think anyone here is arguing that point.

We don't need a permanent Olympic stadium. We don't need a white elephant permanent stadium like Athens. Not unless we were to bring in another professional sports team.

This would not bastardize the lakefront at all considering it's just a more modern, eco friendly version of Burnhams proposal. Forever open free and clear my ass! If you think that you'd also be fighting the boats in the harbor seeing as half the year they clutter the space.

You lack vision.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2008, 10:11 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1 View Post
you sure about that? promises are just that and I've rarely if ever seen Chicago follow through on budgets and how the city claims they will pay for projects.

again, it's a pragmatic problem and this one fails unless businesses pay for most of this.
Summer Olympics in the United States have traditionally been privately funded. Atlanta paid nothing with the only public funding at the federal level for security reasons. LA II was funded almost entirely by corporations. LA I was funded privately. St. Louis 1904 doesn't really have any readily available data on funding since nothing was really built for those games and many venues were mixed in with their worlds fair...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2008, 10:15 PM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
You lack vision.
I have plenty of vision, you think I constantly slam buildings like Trump because I'm thrilled that they just meet the status quo? I also recognize that reality is a force to be contended with and given that, I can see plenty more visions that take priority over this one.

Besides, If you re-read my post, specifically referncing the numerous proposels spewing out these days that desecrate our lakefront, I was talking about eh POS obs tower.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2008, 4:20 AM
ChicagoChicago ChicagoChicago is offline
Chicago carpetbagger
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chicago, Atlanta, Nashville
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
Thats false. We actually have an economy/weath/urabanity so we pay more in taxes, its not a product of the state not bein taken care of.

As to the eco-bridge, anyone thinking this should be built (or that its a serious proposal and not a VISION) is acting delusional. We have a decaying, crippled, and insuffcient public trans system that nearly dies EVERY YEAR and you peeps want to spend money on a bridge to nowhere? Pull for some real projects instead...public trans, covering the railroad tracks, a permenant olympic stadium...something of REAL worth to the city instead of a pipe dream.

...this doesn't even take into account the complete bastardization of the lakefront if that tower was built. NIMFY on that. "A common to remain forever open, clear and free of any buildings, or other obstruction WHATSOEVER.” Never surrender our lakefront.
How can you say in one breath that we have wealth, economy and urbanity, and then say we have a crumbling infrastructure, and NOT blame our politicians??? I'm from Georgia, which sees more return for it's taxes paid than Illinois. The roads on Peachtree St. are not pothole ridden. The public transit system is funded. These are things that the Senators and Congressmen in Georgia fought to fund with federal dollars. When is the last time Durbin or Obama spoke of their state on the senate floor? What is it you think our representatives are supposed to do in Washington?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2008, 5:08 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
I have plenty of vision, you think I constantly slam buildings like Trump because I'm thrilled that they just meet the status quo? I also recognize that reality is a force to be contended with and given that, I can see plenty more visions that take priority over this one.

Besides, If you re-read my post, specifically referncing the numerous proposels spewing out these days that desecrate our lakefront, I was talking about eh POS obs tower.
And you know it's a POS because how? You've seen detailed renderings? What we've seen is just a massing place holder. You have no clue as to how beautiful or ugly it might be.

Untwist your panties why don't you?
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2008, 6:29 AM
PointSpecial's Avatar
PointSpecial PointSpecial is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Highwood, IL
Posts: 7
I think that it is interesting that this is called an eco-bridge. For one, there does not seem to be an outlet for the enclosed water.

It is accurate to look at the projects in Dubai in some respects, though.

The breakwaters at Palm Jumiera ran into a problem where the the water was not being recycled. In the initial design, the breakwater was one cohesive unit, without breaks. As they analyzed, however, they discovered that the water became tepid and polluted because the water could not be swept out to sea and cleansed in the normal way that sea water is. Thus, they made two 100 meter breaks to allow the water to circulate, and I saw a graphic that showed how the water recycled every 14 days.

http://www.designbuild-network.com/p...palm-jumeirah/

Now, the creation that is becoming Palm Jumiera is larger and thus it may (... does, probably) have different physics with the aquatics and certainly has different weather. The palm has the two openings and is also open on the coastal side, allowing further for recirculation. The pic here appears to have just one opening.

Realistically, enclosing non-flowing water without proper outlets and introducing pollutants even in the smaller enclosed system shown in the graphics of the eco-bridge will make a worse situation ecologically than the original Palm design. If you don't think this occurs, look at the Dead Sea in Israel. It doesnt have proper (...any) outlets and thus it can contain no complex life of any kind.

Now, one might say that a solution like what Dubai did would be possible... but that would require bridges on the bridge (more than the one or two that appears in the graphic). Some might even say that there ARE... I cant really say from the pic, but this would increase the cost. Though as $1 bil, cost does not seem to be of much consequence...

Certainly, Burnham's original plan, as shown earlier in the thread has gaps that would allow for water to exchange, much like the current breakwater. It didn't allow for a walking path... but it is elegant, nonetheless. I'm wondering why Chicago needs to spend $1 bil on another walking path?

Yes, it will have the turbines... but you only need to drive north on 94 and continue past the Milwaukee Zoo on US 45 to US 41 near Lomira and Byron to see what a wind farm looks like. It looks alien. War of the Worlds incarnated. And it doesn't obstruct, per say, the horizon, but it certainly distracts from it and takes away from it by placing something man made in the way. And to what end? There are 88 turbines in Dodge and
Fond du Lac Counties which, at maximum capacity, can provide 129 megawatts of power. I found one estimate that says 600 MW can provide power for 180,000 people... thus 129 MW provides power would power under 39,000 people. By my count, there are 45 on the northern half. One would thus assume that the southern half would have the same number, thus the number would be about 90. This would serve under 40,000 when extrapolating on those numbers. Taking an approximated Chicago 1997 population of about 2,836,658, this is just over 1% and it doesn't account for the power necessitated by the large commercial sector.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=752484

I am not saying I'm against wind power as a principle. I have read about the Picken's Plan and it seems a possible solution to the energy crisis in this country. But Illinois has the 16th highest wind profile in the country in terms of potential kilowatt hours per year. The top 12 states have everywhere between about 8 and 20 TIMES the wind profile. Collectively, those 12 states would provide 165 times the potential power.

here's a link to the wind profile of the US.
http://www.bestsyndication.net/image...er_pickens.jpg

And another
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._power_map.png

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_potentia...0much%20energy

And though Chicago is the Windy City, it really is the 21st windiest city in the country. And besides... cities are not the best places for wind farms. heck, there is more wind out in Lake Michigan... a wind farm there would have much more potential power AND it would not take away from the aesthetics of the lakefront.

http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-f...-windiest-city

So, basically, the wind proposal is just fluff. It won't make nearly the impact that a (likely much larger) wind installation in Lake Michigan... only having such a small amount of turbines in a relatively small area will be a waste. Again, this is ONE BILLION DOLLARS. And wind turbines cost about $750k. If you take out the 100 turbines, you decrease the cost by $750 MILLION DOLLARS!?! If the want to do some land reclamation, then I say look for a cost effective way to do this... and elimination the turbines will do this the best way possible.

And finally...

Why cant Chicago's natural beauty stay natural?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2008, 5:16 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 5,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by PointSpecial View Post
And though Chicago is the Windy City, it really is the 21st windiest city in the country. And besides... cities are not the best places for wind farms. heck, there is more wind out in Lake Michigan... a wind farm there would have much more potential power AND it would not take away from the aesthetics of the lakefront.

http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-f...-windiest-city

So, basically, the wind proposal is just fluff. It won't make nearly the impact that a (likely much larger) wind installation in Lake Michigan... only having such a small amount of turbines in a relatively small area will be a waste. Again, this is ONE BILLION DOLLARS. And wind turbines cost about $750k. If you take out the 100 turbines, you decrease the cost by $750 MILLION DOLLARS!?! If the want to do some land reclamation, then I say look for a cost effective way to do this... and elimination the turbines will do this the best way possible.

And finally...

Why cant Chicago's natural beauty stay natural?

Well I don't want to get too deep into this since I don't really take much issue with what you posted, however it should be noted - in regards to Chicago's /average/ wind speed - that the temperature inversion in conjunction with the predominate high rise nature of buildings along the lakefront make for windier-than-average conditions and it would seem to be an optimal place to put these. . . er. . . things. . .

And regarding Chicago's "natural" beauty? I don't really know what you'd be referring to since most of the lakefront is "man-made". . .

. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2008, 3:31 AM
PointSpecial's Avatar
PointSpecial PointSpecial is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Highwood, IL
Posts: 7
I'm talking about the beauty of the lake, not the lakefront. Placing these turbines would obstruct views of the lake and horizon (albeit FROM the man made lake shore... but that already exists).

And as I researched more and more, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to create something at this cost when there are other options (i.e. in the MIDDLE of the lake) where the wind blows harder and more frequently than on the shore of Chicago, especially when this would take away from the natural beauty of the lake in what is likely the place where most visitors will see it.

I mean, it very well could be very neat to have this path stretching out into the lake. I'm not necessarily saying that I think this portion of the plan should be nixed. After all, it was an original part of the 1909 Plan. But creating what will amount to a novelty in terms of impact on the power grid, at quadruple the price of creating said land bridge would be a travesty and simply shouldn't be done.

And even though much of the lakefront is "man made," it created, by and large, a showcase of nature in an urban setting. We think of Chicago in our current 21st century context, but think about a 19th century context. Grant Park was a green space, granted without the trees we think of today as late as the 1920's, but from its inception in 1835, the land east of Michigan Avenue, dubbed Lake Park in 1847, was "public ground forever to remain vacant of buildings." It DID expand with the landfill from the Chicago Fire, and didn't initially become "Grant Park" until 1901, but even so, "Chicago's front yard" implies a green space, i.e. natural.

I mean, if you really want to get technical, think about the Northwoods of Wisconsin. The great majority of what we believe to be "natural" has been logged and replanted since the 19th century. Technically, it is largely in its present state due to the influence of man. But that really gets away from the main point... Nature is seen as plants, wild animals and water. It's not artificial. By and large it's growing without human care. We can mess around with the definition (by the second half of that definition, a garden wouldn't be nature, I suppose), but by and large, it's green space.

It would be in contrast to the brick and mortar, steel, cement and rebar buildings that certainly are not natural.

And it isn't to say that I don't find Chicago's skyline to be beautiful. I do. But one of Chi-town's great qualities IS this great contrast between man made and natural. The buildings stretch skyward against the flat lake, the whites, grays, and blacks of the buildings contrast against the blue sky. I'm all for more human creations. But this one doesn't make sense. It doesn't begin to achieve what it appears to intend to, and it comes at far to great a cost, both financially, and to the natural beauty found in the lake itself that will be tainted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2008, 3:30 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,944
^well, 1% of energy coming from clean sources is a huge net impact on the environment for a city the size of Chicago. And increasing green energy isn't going to be accomplished through one mega-project.

But i agree with you. Having turbines in this fashion is pretty deplorable IMO. It's tacky and muddles up serene nature that such a path could provide people.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2008, 7:15 PM
PointSpecial's Avatar
PointSpecial PointSpecial is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Highwood, IL
Posts: 7
Well, that's about 1% of the population. Of the city. That doesn't account for the rest of the Chicagoland area. In a 2007 estimate, the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (including Kenosha County in WI and Lake, Porter, Jasper, Newton Co's in IN) was about 9.5 million. 40k is less than one half of one percent of that amount... and that is based on population. That doesn't account for industry or commerce. I don't know about you, but I use up a heck of a lot more electricity at work than I do at home.

And again, I'm not against clear sources as a concept... but this implementation isn't worth the cost.

I think that initiatives like this (on this rather small scale, comparatively) are useful when they're innovative... the FIRST wind turbine, the FIRST fuel cell or hybrid car. Then, if other people want to cover the intermediate period between when something is fresh and new and when it becomes affordable, to be the trendy ones, I'm all for it. Let them work through using technology that isn't quite up to snuff and let them pay 10x what will be paid when it's more widely accepted and all the kinks are out. For example, I didn't get a plasma TV 10 years ago when they were $10k. ... to be true, I don't even have one now, but I would certainly be able to see myself getting one NOW than then.

And, like I said before, wind turbines are about $750k a pop. If Chicago (eventually) wants wind power, I won't necessarily be against it... but implement it in a way that will allow it to be the most useful (i.e. farther out in the lake, where it won't affect the aesthetics and where the wind blows even more than on the coast), and implement it AFTER supporting a plan such as the Picken's Plan, where $1 trillion will be spent on other wind initiatives. If the demand goes way up and the supply follows suit (with added technology along the way), after the initial push, wind energy will be more cost effective to build.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2008, 2:43 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by PointSpecial View Post
Well, that's about 1% of the population. Of the city. That doesn't account for the rest of the Chicagoland area. In a 2007 estimate, the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (including Kenosha County in WI and Lake, Porter, Jasper, Newton Co's in IN) was about 9.5 million. 40k is less than one half of one percent of that amount... and that is based on population. That doesn't account for industry or commerce. I don't know about you, but I use up a heck of a lot more electricity at work than I do at home.

And again, I'm not against clear sources as a concept... but this implementation isn't worth the cost.

I think that initiatives like this (on this rather small scale, comparatively) are useful when they're innovative... the FIRST wind turbine, the FIRST fuel cell or hybrid car. Then, if other people want to cover the intermediate period between when something is fresh and new and when it becomes affordable, to be the trendy ones, I'm all for it. Let them work through using technology that isn't quite up to snuff and let them pay 10x what will be paid when it's more widely accepted and all the kinks are out. For example, I didn't get a plasma TV 10 years ago when they were $10k. ... to be true, I don't even have one now, but I would certainly be able to see myself getting one NOW than then.

And, like I said before, wind turbines are about $750k a pop. If Chicago (eventually) wants wind power, I won't necessarily be against it... but implement it in a way that will allow it to be the most useful (i.e. farther out in the lake, where it won't affect the aesthetics and where the wind blows even more than on the coast), and implement it AFTER supporting a plan such as the Picken's Plan, where $1 trillion will be spent on other wind initiatives. If the demand goes way up and the supply follows suit (with added technology along the way), after the initial push, wind energy will be more cost effective to build.
whatever the percentage (even if it is just 1.3% of residential), it's a huge net impact on the environment for a city the size of Chicago. Although to be fair, the best thing the region can do to mitigate environmental problems is to knock out the coal burning plants in the city.

I understand your position, but putting these things further out to lake would be 1. more expensive and 2. even more intrusive on the environment. However, I do think how these things get implemented and where is an important issue. I agree with you that having them in front of the downtown area is a myopic position.

Also, the $750k per turbine isn't lost money. There is a return on these in the form of energy. Clean energy. And it's not like these machines are 1st or 2nd generation. They've been around for decades now.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
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 > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.