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 May 17th, 2007, 06:38 AM   #301
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

The "this sets a precedent" argument doesn't work for me. Though I wish to be true, I don't see a bunch of nearly 900 foot buildings sprouting from that area of the South Loop.
__________________
flickrgallery

Last edited by i_am_hydrogen; May 17th, 2007 at 05:13 PM.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 17th, 2007, 06:38 AM   #302
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 spyguy View Post
But John Taylor, another neighbor who lives near the proposal, said he opposes the project.

"I must disagree with [Dorsey] and I don't think he speaks the sentiments for the people who live at the 910 building," Taylor said, noting that he moved into the neighborhood in 2000. "I happen to live on the north side, so every morning I look out and say, 'A couple of years from now I won't see anything.'"
Weird. I know the guy. I heard several months ago that he was drastically opposed, but never approached him about it.

As for the "north side" comment - he IS referring to the north side of his building, not THE north side.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 06:53 AM   #303
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Here's an idea:

SCRAP THE NEAR SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN! IT SUCKS
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 07:21 AM   #304
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

[..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:21 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 08:04 AM   #305
Chitowner245
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Paradise
Posts: 278
Likes (Received): 0

I like TUP's idea A LOT! Nice comment as well, Loopy- I couldn't agree more with the two of you. I'm sick of people who don't understand the purpose of a CITY!!!
Chitowner245 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 08:51 AM   #306
urban_addict
Craving density 24/7
 
urban_addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 141
Likes (Received): 0

We NEED this building!
urban_addict no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 02:08 PM   #307
Chi_Coruscant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
Here's an idea:

SCRAP THE NEAR SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN! IT SUCKS
I totally agree with TUP.
Chi_Coruscant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 08:29 PM   #308
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
The "this sets a precedent" argument doesn't work for me. Though I wish to be true, I don't see a bunch of nearly 900 foot buildings sprouting from that area of the South Loop.
I'm not so pessimistic about that. Warren Barr also has bought the Auditorium parking garage lot across from the Auditorium on Wabash and probably has similar plans for that lot. There are a lot of empty lots or lots that could be cleared and a 900' building provides plenty of units with great views of the city and lake. Plus, with the new Vancouver attitude in the planning department, I think we will see more thin, tall towers.

I think the best thing we can do is to contact Bob Fioretti and give support (or opposition) for the building. I think he will be the largest hurdle to get over. Right now he is semi-accessible (not as much as he would like you to believe). I wrote an e-mail supporting the project to him, but have not heard back from him.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 07:50 AM   #309
southloopscotty
Registered User
 
southloopscotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
Here's an idea:

SCRAP THE NEAR SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN! IT SUCKS
INDEED!
southloopscotty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 02:08 PM   #310
Chi_Coruscant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...25&TM=83237.89
The proposed tower by Renaissant Development would stand 850 feet tall and contain 376 condos and 34,000 square feet of retail space.
850 ft???? So the height is reduced? Or is it a typo error?
Chi_Coruscant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 06:15 PM   #311
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:19 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 02:08 AM   #312
RavenWolf55
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

I like the tower. Though I think the top needs a little touch up. The YMCA, beside being old has no real merit. I honestly think a clear cut clean slate would be better. Replace the YMCA with something new and breathtaking. The Spertus museum is a good example on how a modern structure can enhance and respect Michigan ave.
RavenWolf55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2007, 08:14 AM   #313
Chicagophotoshop
Chicago Photographer
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 2,832
Likes (Received): 14

this would be great. I hope it happens
__________________
Portfolio | Twitter | Facebook | Flickr | Gear
| SmugMugPro
Chicagophotoshop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 08:05 AM   #314
brett7three
Insert Cheesy Slogan Here
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 45
Likes (Received): 0

Any updates on Park Michigan

Does anyone have any new information on the status of Park Michigan Project?

- Just wondering
brett7three no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 03:25 PM   #315
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavenWolf55 View Post
I like the tower. Though I think the top needs a little touch up. The YMCA, beside being old has no real merit. I honestly think a clear cut clean slate would be better. Replace the YMCA with something new and breathtaking. The Spertus museum is a good example on how a modern structure can enhance and respect Michigan ave.
Just remember that the Randolph to 11th Street is a designated preservation district and the exterior of the buildings cannot be modified. Spertus - and I love it, was able to be built because it was an empty lot. I agree that there is great value in integrating modern and historical. In contrast most NYBYs want Disneyland esthetics where it’s all "the same". As a city we are going to get some tremendous juxtapositions of architectural styles and textures with building tall even supertall on Wabash. I actually think that it draws more focus on the historic Michigan Avenue wall that way.

I do have to strongly disagree with you on the YWCA - not the YMCA. The building has huge historical and architectural value. IMO
Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2007, 08:40 AM   #316
ChicagoNight
Registered User
 
ChicagoNight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 283
Likes (Received): 4

So TUP says the near south plan sucks, and a few people seem to agree.

I have no idea what the plan is; basically, what is it and why is it bad?
ChicagoNight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2007, 04:14 PM   #317
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoNight View Post
I have no idea what the plan is; basically, what is it and why is it bad?
Don't worry. None of the people criticizing the Near South Community Plan have read it, either.

In 1998, neighborhood groups, concerned about the lack of predictability in new development proposals for the fast-growing South Loop, pressured the city for a neighborhood plan that would guide development. DPD gave the job to Trkla, Pettigrew, Alan & Payne, a consulting firm now part of URS. While the plan was being prepared, public comment was sought, but little of the language actually changed, and the plan was adopted by Plan Commission with no discussion in March 2004.

In addition to the usual platitudes about "better pedestrian environments" and new open space sites, the plan examined factors such as transit access, street network connectivity, street width, and impact on surrounding historic districts, and actually included recommended building heights for different "districts" within the large planning area. Planned developments, by law, must "comply with" adopted plans.

Scraperfans who get excited about size rather than technique, about how tall you can go instead of what the resulting streetscape is like, have criticized these recommended building heights, apparently feeling that everything north of Cermak Road is "downtown," where there should be no restrictions at all on building size or shape. They call anyone who actually believes in city planning a "NIMBY."

So far, no one seems to have actually paid any attention to the Near South Community Plan. X/O was approved at a height six times what is allowed by the plan, and the Plan does not seem to have come up as DPD staff have discussed Park Michigan (2.5 times the allowable height) and Franklin Point (twice the allowable height).

None of the scraperfans who criticize city planning have ever explained what legal technique they would recommend for determining which developer proposals should be permitted and which should not.

Last edited by Mr Downtown; June 26th, 2007 at 04:34 PM.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2007, 05:41 PM   #318
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Don't worry. None of the people criticizing the Near South Community Plan have read it, either.
^ I'm going to have to call your bull on this one.

I've read it, as well as the Central Area Plan. I've read every single plan that's available on the Dept of Planning and Devt's website over the past 3 years.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2007, 05:47 PM   #319
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Scraperfans who get excited about size rather than technique, about how tall you can go instead of what the resulting streetscape is like, have criticized these recommended building heights, apparently feeling that everything north of Cermak Road is "downtown," where there should be no restrictions at all on building size or shape. They call anyone who actually believes in city planning a "NIMBY."
No, we just don't understand what all of your hangups are with height. Why do tall buildings create such sensational anger among community groups all the time? What's wrong with them?

Oh, and many of us also feel that the NSCP is bologne, intentionally crafted by a handful of grassroots settlers in a relatively undeveloped neighborhood to keep prime real estate from reaching its potential. It's unrealistic, unfair, and downright selfish. It will not hold up over time.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2007, 06:36 PM   #320
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 878

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
No, we just don't understand what all of your hangups are with height. Why do tall buildings create such sensational anger among community groups all the time? What's wrong with them?

Oh, and many of us also feel that the NSCP is bologne, intentionally crafted by a handful of grassroots settlers in a relatively undeveloped neighborhood to keep prime real estate from reaching its potential. It's unrealistic, unfair, and downright selfish. It will not hold up over time.

AMEN!!!

And it hasn't held up as you can tell

Thank god for the people at city hall willing to admit the error of their ways and try to correct the problem
BVictor1 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 08:18 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