daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 16th, 2007, 05:58 PM   #1141
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...?coll=chi_mezz

Blue light special
Inside the stunning Michigan Avenue skyscraper beacon. (By the way, it is not a bug zapper.)

By Emily Nunn | Tribune staff reporter
November 15, 2007


Don't go into the light. That seems to be the agreed-upon advice from people who make it back down from the heavens after a near-death experience.

Someday, we'll all go into that light -- sorry, but it's true, at least metaphorically -- but very few people will get the chance to go into the spectacular 20-foot-high light that sits atop the Metropolitan Tower, at 310 S. Michigan Ave., 457 feet in the sky.

If you've never noticed the glass and steel lantern before, you should take a look: It's shaped like a giant beehive (hence the building's nickname, the Beehive Building) and hovers above four tremendous carillon bells that play Handel's "Cambridge Quarters," supported by four carved stone bison standing sentinel over the city. At night it glows an ethereal cobalt blue. It's lovely.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 7th, 2007, 07:25 PM   #1142
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cg...ws.pl?id=27377

U.S. says office tenants must vacate 220 S. State
By Thomas A. Corfman


The U.S. General Services Administration has notified office tenants in a GSA-owned building on State Street that they must vacate the 21-story tower, as plans for an expansion of the downtown courthouse and office complex slowly move forward.

The terra-cotta structure at 220 S. State is part of a block-long, 1.3-acre site between Adams Street and Jackson Boulevard, where the GSA two years ago unveiled plans for much as 1.5 million square feet. The site is adjacent to the Everett M. Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, 219 S. Dearborn St.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2007, 10:56 PM   #1143
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Damn! I knew it was a bad precedent when the city let Boeing and BankOne put big signs on the top of their buildings. Look what's going up this afternoon:

Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2007, 01:02 AM   #1144
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

We need better night lighting for historical buildings and crowns. But not more corporate logos.

At least it's only three letters, right?

Bleh.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2007, 01:43 AM   #1145
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

I thought that there was a ban on these corporate logos? Chase was grandfathered.
Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2007, 02:10 AM   #1146
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

If you construct a timeline, I think there's a long moratorium between United of America, Equitable, and Kemper, which all went up in the early 60s, and BankOne and Boeing, which went up in the early 2000s. More recently we have UBS, ABN/Amro, Citibank, Huron Consulting, and now United and CNA. Feh. Makes us look like Indianapolis.

I'm not sure what changed. I know BankOne leaned hard on the mayor to approve theirs (which the Planning Commissioner did very reluctantly). Boeing was probably an incentive offered to lure them. Surely it's not Reilly being less hardnosed than Natarus about the matter.

Still, better than it used to be, with Grant Park lined on all sides by Chevrolet, Canadian Club, Almer Coe Opticians, Torco, and Illinois Central. Though I certainly wouldn't mind if some Magikist lips had been saved somewhere.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2007, 03:13 AM   #1147
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 19th, 2010 at 02:49 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2007, 08:19 AM   #1148
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Still, better than it used to be, with Grant Park lined on all sides by Chevrolet, Canadian Club, Almer Coe Opticians, Torco, and Illinois Central. Though I certainly wouldn't mind if some Magikist lips had been saved somewhere.
I think the last Magikist sign was the one along the Kennedy, which has been replaced by ANOTHER self-storage place. *sniff*

The huge signage for Pepsi (and Pabst, I think) that used to be at Randolph and Michigan was kinda cool, in a Times-Square sort of way. Certainly not any less garish than the attractions at Millennium Park - the corporate sponsorship was just more overt back in the day.

On a related note, why has the Firstar Bank sign not been removed from the Michigan Boulevard Building?
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2007, 09:52 PM   #1149
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

I enjoy signage. It lights up the skyline at night more.
BorisMolotov está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2007, 08:33 PM   #1150
Flubnut
4th Level of Hades
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 709
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
On a related note, why has the Firstar Bank sign not been removed from the Michigan Boulevard Building?
I don't know, but it's even more annoying that the new owners just covered it up with fabric, instead of actually removing it. One would hope someone somewhere in City Hall could throw a fit and make them remove it, but hasn't happened yet.
Flubnut no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2007, 09:01 PM   #1151
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flubnut View Post
One would hope someone somewhere in City Hall could throw a fit and make them remove it
Under what legal theory? Is it unsafe?
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2007, 10:08 PM   #1152
Chicagophotoshop
Chicago Photographer
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 2,832
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisMolotov View Post
I enjoy signage. It lights up the skyline at night more.
me either. what is the problem with it?
__________________
Portfolio | Twitter | Facebook | Flickr | Gear
| SmugMugPro
Chicagophotoshop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2007, 12:18 AM   #1153
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Under what legal theory? Is it unsafe?
I don't understand why the sign is still up... Firstar isn't even a valid corporate name anymore. I have to imagine that keeping the sign up presents maintenance costs and hassles for the building owners... so I ask again, why hasn't it been removed?
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2007, 01:15 AM   #1154
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

I assume because it would cost money to take it down. Also, keeping the sign up means that they could replace it with a current corporate name without having to get permission for a new sign. In towns with strict sign control, you'll sometimes find an original 1965 McDonald's or Holiday Inn sign because if they replaced it they'd have to comply with current rules. I think that's probably the story behind that sign at the Kennedy and Ashland for the Chicago Park District. The property owner wants to preserve his nonconforming right to have such a big sign there when the property is redeveloped.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2007, 02:21 AM   #1155
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Use it or lose it, eh?
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 08:54 PM   #1156
Flubnut
4th Level of Hades
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 709
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Under what legal theory? Is it unsafe?
I was referring to the ugly fabric covers more than the actual sign, sorry.
Flubnut no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 09:14 PM   #1157
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

I understand, but under what legal theory can the city make someone take down something that's vaguely ugly?
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 10:02 PM   #1158
cbotnyse
Chicago Enthusiast
 
cbotnyse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 2,560
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I understand, but under what legal theory can the city make someone take down something that's vaguely ugly?
dont buildings need a permit of some kind to have signs like that?
cbotnyse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2007, 10:27 PM   #1159
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Yes. Presumably the building has a permit, received decades ago (maybe before the 1957 zoning code). If they take the sign down, they'd have to seek new permission to put up a sign, which is unlikely in the landmark district. If they keep the current sign up, they can get a purely ministerial building permit to change the tenant name at some point in the future--or at the very least, the negotiations with Landmarks become a lot easier.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2007, 01:25 AM   #1160
Retrograde
Chicago
 
Retrograde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 903
Likes (Received): 4

December 19, 2007

R+D659


Trio
Retrograde no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu