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 20th, 2006, 04:39 AM   #181
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

It will look great.

The problem is that NIMBYs don't like tall towers anywhere really, and not allowing them where they are most appropriate (river, lake, parks) makes no sense in my opinion.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 20th, 2006, 06:14 AM   #182
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Well, it appears that the shadow for this project affects NOT Buckingham Fountain (which is, now that I think about it, too far north), but rather Hutchinson Field and the park area to the west of it, which has no definite usage due to the IC yard there. Hopefully, we'll do a scaled-down Millennium Park down there in the future.

Except for baseball games and Lollapalooza, these areas tend to get the lowest usage of any areas in Grant Park.

Further north, there are taller buildings fronting the park (Heritage, Mid-Continental, CNA), which cast shadows, but these areas of the park are more heavily-used. The empirical evidence here clearly shows that shadows cast upon the park do not affect the levels of park traffic. In fact, there's a positive correlation.

I appreciate your efforts calculating the placement of shadows, but I truly believe that people come to Grant Park for its truly amazing setting - dizzyingly-tall buildings included.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2006, 06:24 PM   #183
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Thanks, Mr Downtown, for the nifty shadow graphic! (although it would be more meaningful to include existing shadows as well as those for buildings UC).

I just can't get my knickers in a knot over shadowing in Grant Park. The issue presumes that we value parks only as places without shade, ignores that the entire East face of the Park is perpetually open to sun, and discounts the dynamism that comes from having a dense, tall urban environment on its edges. Central Park, anyone?
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2006, 03:06 AM   #184
forumly_chgoman
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
All right, letís talk seriously about shadowing.

In Chicagoís climate, itís hard to imagine any serious planner or urbanist who would dismiss the shadowing of the cityís premier park. Here on the lakefront, there are fewer than 20 days a year that park users would choose shade rather than sun.

Hereís a shadow study for three useful dates when people would be in Grant Park seeking sun. I didnít even calculate the other 7 months of the year, when the afternoon shadowing is much worse because of the low sun angle.



I donít have a full 3-D modeling program, so I didnít calculate shadows for the other buildings fronting the park. You can get a rough idea by knowing that 830 is twice the size of anything currently around it. 1130 S Michigan is 431 ft, 1000 S Michigan would be about the same. Shadows from the Central Station towers now under construction will fall largely on the IC tracks in the afternoon, though they should also be a matter of civic concern.

Now this is a thin building, so the shadow may not seem terribly serious. But how can other developers be denied the same opportunity? This developer already owns the Auditorium Garage site at Wabash/Congress, and there are a dozen other ďsoft sitesĒ along Wabash. What will Grant Park be like with a dozen towers this size shadowing it every afternoon?
Yeah, but what of the 10-12 hours of uninterrupted sun from sunrise until late afternnoon????

I noitce no mention that for almost half of the day the park will receive sun nearly uninterrupted
forumly_chgoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2006, 04:41 AM   #185
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

^And the majority of sun worshipers I have seen and know in Chicago do not go to the patchy grass fields of Grant Park...they go to the lakefront!
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2006, 06:47 AM   #186
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Mr. Downtown, this shadow argument just fails to capture anyone's spirit. If you don't see that, then that's too bad. I guess we just have different views of what constitutes a great downtown.

You apparently think completely uninterrupted sunlight makes a city great. Well I think other things, such as bold architecture, large amounts of foot traffic, and plenty of shops and entertainment do. There are plenty of lakefront areas/beaches that are bathed with sunshine all day. What's the big friggin deal?
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2006, 07:08 AM   #187
Steely Dan
born again cyclist
 
Steely Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: old style city
Posts: 3,381
Likes (Received): 1295

perhaps our friend mr. downtown suffers from Sciaphobia (fear of shadows).

and i'm not trying to neccessarily be a smart-ass. Sciahobia is a real, and at times debilitating, psychological condotion that afflicts thousands of seemingly normal people. however, as much as i feel sorry for the suffering of the sciaphobes, we cannot allow their irrational fears to dictate the urban planning policies of our cities.
__________________
"I wish they'd hurry up and just destroy humanity already........... it's the waiting that I can't stand" - Philip J. Fry
Steely Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2006, 07:06 PM   #188
wickedestcity
BANNED
 
wickedestcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,566
Likes (Received): 26

Ok I think we can all agree that the “shadow” is hardly a reason why not to build a building. With all due respect, to argue this point is plain outright silliness in my opinion. No offence Mr. downtown, while we respect your opinion, you need to stop and think about this and really try to rationalize whether or not it’s a viable argument. And I’m sure you’ll conclude that its just simply not. Shadows are just not even in the ballpark of what be a reasonable argument. Its one thing to say its blocking views from neighboring buildings – which I truly believe this slim design is far more considerate of than short squat buildings. So in the end, what exactly would the protest be? It’s to tall for that area? Frankly I think that’s an absurd protest as well. But I suppose everyone’s entitled to his or her opinion.
wickedestcity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2006, 08:50 PM   #189
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Actually, in New York they have been putting up a huge stink about the two new Trump Towers casting a shadow on Central Park... but they are much wider and there is 2 of them...
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2006, 02:12 AM   #190
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

Mr Downtown... I appreciate the time you spent putting together the cursory shadow study that you've shown us. What your study fails to show is how diffuse the shadows will be by the time they have "traveled" that far. They won't be nearly as dark to the extreme east as they would be at the base of the tower, for example. If you want to argue against this tower that's fine (everyone's entitled to their opinion), but, I think the shadow angle (no pun intended) isn't the right way to go about it.

Just look at the effect the Heritage (not quite as tall as Park Michigan - but tall nonetheless and much wider) has had on the northern edge of Millennium Park. Does anyone even notice?
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2006, 03:51 AM   #191
Frumie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 717
Likes (Received): 0

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows; ha ha ha ha ha haaaa. Enough said?
__________________
You truly want peace? Be righteous.
Frumie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2006, 04:37 AM   #192
SkylineHeaven
Chicago: One and Only
 
SkylineHeaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago(Naperville, SW Suburb), Miami(South Beach)
Posts: 354
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
All right, letís talk seriously about shadowing.

In Chicagoís climate, itís hard to imagine any serious planner or urbanist who would dismiss the shadowing of the cityís premier park. Here on the lakefront, there are fewer than 20 days a year that park users would choose shade rather than sun.

Hereís a shadow study for three useful dates when people would be in Grant Park seeking sun. I didnít even calculate the other 7 months of the year, when the afternoon shadowing is much worse because of the low sun angle.



I donít have a full 3-D modeling program, so I didnít calculate shadows for the other buildings fronting the park. You can get a rough idea by knowing that 830 is twice the size of anything currently around it. 1130 S Michigan is 431 ft, 1000 S Michigan would be about the same. Shadows from the Central Station towers now under construction will fall largely on the IC tracks in the afternoon, though they should also be a matter of civic concern.

Now this is a thin building, so the shadow may not seem terribly serious. But how can other developers be denied the same opportunity? This developer already owns the Auditorium Garage site at Wabash/Congress, and there are a dozen other ďsoft sitesĒ along Wabash. What will Grant Park be like with a dozen towers this size shadowing it every afternoon?


You want tan go out to the lake shore or beach, is grant park the only place for you to get some sun....come on!
__________________
GO DA BEARS!!! (9-2)

Chicago Skyline Wallpaper - November, 2006

Chicago Skyline Heaven : Only da best of one and only!

City Skylines Heaven : Show us the best city skyline pix
SkylineHeaven no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2006, 05:56 AM   #193
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Wow... I actually get that reference (and I'm 17!). I read the pulps, though... I've never actually heard the radio show.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2006, 02:58 AM   #194
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 878

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
All right, letís talk seriously about shadowing.

In Chicagoís climate, itís hard to imagine any serious planner or urbanist who would dismiss the shadowing of the cityís premier park. Here on the lakefront, there are fewer than 20 days a year that park users would choose shade rather than sun.

Hereís a shadow study for three useful dates when people would be in Grant Park seeking sun. I didnít even calculate the other 7 months of the year, when the afternoon shadowing is much worse because of the low sun angle.



I donít have a full 3-D modeling program, so I didnít calculate shadows for the other buildings fronting the park. You can get a rough idea by knowing that 830 is twice the size of anything currently around it. 1130 S Michigan is 431 ft, 1000 S Michigan would be about the same. Shadows from the Central Station towers now under construction will fall largely on the IC tracks in the afternoon, though they should also be a matter of civic concern.

Now this is a thin building, so the shadow may not seem terribly serious. But how can other developers be denied the same opportunity? This developer already owns the Auditorium Garage site at Wabash/Congress, and there are a dozen other ďsoft sitesĒ along Wabash. What will Grant Park be like with a dozen towers this size shadowing it every afternoon?
I must agree with many of the other recent comments. While I respect your opinion and argument, I certainly do not agree with it. I do not believe that it is a valid enough argument or reason for this tower not to be constructed. So what if there are shadows in the park. This section of the park doesn't regularly get a large amount of traffic.

Grant Park is 320 acres, and there are plenty of other places within the park to soak up a few cancer rays; oops, I mean sunshine.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2006, 11:05 PM   #195
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Another image of the entrance


My only complaint is about the lowrise structure - get rid of the gold/yellowish color on the columns and maybe clad them with metal. Then this whole project will look really sleek.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2006, 05:00 AM   #196
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

That could just be a flaw in the rendering. The other gold tones around that area are the interior spaces. Perhaps the columns are just supposed to be highly reflective?
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2006, 05:51 PM   #197
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Perhaps, although there's a rendering somewhere on the previous pages that shows the same color on the lowrise structure where the grocery store is (?). But they could easily change the color I'm sure.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2006, 06:38 AM   #198
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...07&TM=83872.29

Tower tension strikes again
South Loop Neighbors take on Boul Mich highrise

By BILL MAYEROFF
, Contributing Writer

At the Dec. 13 meeting of the South Loop Neighbors, members of the community group decided to try and fight against the building of an 80-story tower proposed for 830 S. Michigan Ave. after board member Dennis McClendon expressed concern that the building will be too tall and cast shadows into popular areas of Grant Park.

"It's shadows being cast on our most important public space," McClendon said after the meeting, adding that he does not know if the Chicago Department of Planning and Development required a shadow study. He told the crowd at the meeting that he performed a rudimentary shadow study and determined that during the summer and fall, the tower would block sunlight from popular areas of the park long before the sun went down. "At 6 p.m. on June 21, there's still three hours of daylight left," he said.

But Connie Buscemi, spokesperson for the Department of Planning and Development, says the city has not performed a shadow study for a couple reasons.

"Its impact on [Grant Park] would be minimal compared to a shorter, stockier building," Buscemi said by phone Tuesday. Buscemi added that the Grant Park Advisory Council has been encouraging tall, thin buildings to frame the park.

McClendon also expressed concern that the building goes over the height limit of 350 feet that the zoning for the area allows.

"That plan says 350 feet is the maximum for this district," he said. "This is going to change our landscape dramatically if it is allowed." He added that he does not know whether the project has been approved by the city, but he has an idea.

"It's my understanding that the mayor has already nodded on this," he said. "It would be the tallest residential building in the U.S., by the way."

But according to Second Ward Alderman Madeline Haithcock, the proposal has not been approved. Because the proposal is over the 350-foot height limit, she said by phone last Friday, she would have to rezone the area, which she has not done.

"The neighborhood and the community have to want it," Haithcock said, adding that she does not believe shadows will be a problem because building is designed to be very thin. "I haven't heard a thing from anybody around there."

But Haithcock said she always felt the proposal was too big.

"Eighty stories seems to be too tall," she said.

South Loop Neighbors president Paulette Boyd said that she is going to try and work with other community groups in 2007 to try and prevent the building from going up. She agrees with McClendon and Haithcock that the building is just too tall.

"It's unbelievable," said Boyd. She added that she has not heard any concerns from other neighborhood groups but that she thinks the Near South Planning Board could be an ally.

But the Near South Planning Board has already given its support to the project.

"We basically gave them a vote of approval," said board chairman Tony Kramer, adding that he is not concerned about shadows being cast. "It's a pretty thin spire, so it wouldn't cast any massive shadows."

Near South Planning Board President Bonnie Sanchez-Carlson, who said that the board has seen a number of presentations by developer Renaissant Development Group, agrees.

"It is a tall, slender building; better than a short, stocky building," Sanchez-Carlson said. She believes the building will allow a lot of light into the park and said that the building will help frame the park. "Just because a taller building doesn't exist doesn't mean it shouldn't come into the picture," she said, adding that when the John Hancock Center was built, there weren't many taller buildings in that area, either.

But McClendon is worried that allowing one high-rise into the South Loop will lead to lots of them coming into the area. He believes that if the city allows an 80-story building to be built, there will be nothing to stop even taller buildings from going up.

"If this is allowed," McClendon said, "why not 900 or 1000 feet?"


------------------

Realistically though, 60+ story buildings would only make sense in a few sites with maximum views [of the lake/park] where developers could charge premium prices.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2006, 07:47 AM   #199
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

^ Ziv and McClendon, NIMBY's on steroids.

Seriously, nearly 99% of the Chicago metropolitan area has exactly the kind of environment they covet. Why do they want to do this to Chicago's renowned downtown?

There is nothing that could possibly back up what they're trying to do other than pure self-righteousness.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2006, 07:49 AM   #200
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
All right, letís talk seriously about shadowing.

In Chicagoís climate, itís hard to imagine any serious planner or urbanist who would dismiss the shadowing of the cityís premier park. Here on the lakefront, there are fewer than 20 days a year that park users would choose shade rather than sun.

Hereís a shadow study for three useful dates when people would be in Grant Park seeking sun. I didnít even calculate the other 7 months of the year, when the afternoon shadowing is much worse because of the low sun angle.



I donít have a full 3-D modeling program, so I didnít calculate shadows for the other buildings fronting the park. You can get a rough idea by knowing that 830 is twice the size of anything currently around it. 1130 S Michigan is 431 ft, 1000 S Michigan would be about the same. Shadows from the Central Station towers now under construction will fall largely on the IC tracks in the afternoon, though they should also be a matter of civic concern.

Now this is a thin building, so the shadow may not seem terribly serious. But how can other developers be denied the same opportunity? This developer already owns the Auditorium Garage site at Wabash/Congress, and there are a dozen other ďsoft sitesĒ along Wabash. What will Grant Park be like with a dozen towers this size shadowing it every afternoon?
^ At least now we know who this dude really is.
The Urban Politician 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 08:19 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