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 June 26th, 2007, 09:51 PM   #321
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
we just don't understand what all of your hangups are with height. Why do tall buildings create such sensational anger
Height is an important aspect of bulk. It's also an easily quantifiable way to determine whether a developer is playing by the rules.

Quote:
many of us also feel that the NSCP is bologne, intentionally crafted by a handful of grassroots settlers
But as I've explained before, other than asking to have a plan, the neighborhood groups and residents had virtually nothing to do with the content of the plan. That was written entirely by the consulting firm. Only minor edits to the language of the plan were made in response to the letters community groups sent. The recommended heights were not changed from their initial appearance (in the second draft) to the final plan.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 26th, 2007, 10:31 PM   #322
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Height is an important aspect of bulk. It's also an easily quantifiable way to determine whether a developer is [B]playing by the rules.
If you are so concerned with bulk/density (and I myself have no problem with greater density), then what's the problem with Park Michigan? While it will be very tall, it will also be extremely thin and thus really won't have much more "bulk" than shorter, stubbier buildings in the area such as Vision on State or 900 South Clark (which will have 440 units). Not to mention, it will look much nicer in the skyline and cast much smaller shadows (which I know you are greatly concerned about) than a shorter, stubbier building with a similar amount of bulk.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2007, 10:37 PM   #323
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

I hear from an engineer friend that this building keeps failing every windtunnel test as it's currently designed - the floor plate is too small. Even a tuned mass dampening system like they used at Park Tower won't do it.

That means this project may look substantially different before all is said and done.
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2007, 12:16 AM   #324
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
If you are so concerned with bulk/density. . . then what's the problem with Park Michigan?
On principle. It thumbs its nose at the recently adopted plan. Developers should have to play by the adopted rules, no matter how pretty the rendering they present. (I'm not concerned about the density).
Quote:
it will look much nicer in the skyline and cast much smaller shadows than a shorter, stubbier building with a similar amount of bulk.
I think it will look terribly out of place in the skyline, both visually--and legally--inviting additional buildings of the same height along South Wabash and State. A shorter, stubbier building will cast shadows on other buildings and Michigan Avenue, which doesn't concern me. An 866-foot building will cast shadows far into Grant Park, which should concern everyone. Yes, this one is slender, but the next five along Wabash--made possible by the precedent this building would set--won't necessarily be.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2007, 12:32 AM   #325
Steely Dan
born again cyclist
 
Steely Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: old style city
Posts: 3,381
Likes (Received): 1295

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
On principle. It thumbs its nose at the recently adopted plan. Developers should have to play by the adopted rules, no matter how pretty the rendering they present.
if the rules are outdated, why shouldn't they be allowed to change? oh that's right, change, in all of its forms, is bad to the anti-city crowd.

healthy cities are flexible cities. the inflexibility of the NIMBY cause is a cancerous disease in our city. THANK GOD we have a facist despot in control of this town who doesn't listen to the "make little plans" crowd nor play by their precious little "rules".

long live the king!
__________________
"I wish they'd hurry up and just destroy humanity already........... it's the waiting that I can't stand" - Philip J. Fry

Last edited by Steely Dan; June 27th, 2007 at 12:51 AM.
Steely Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2007, 06:29 AM   #326
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
if the rules are outdated, why shouldn't they be allowed to change?
So what conditions changed in the 800 block of South Michigan between March 2004 and September 2005? Did the transit service get better, or the sewer pipes bigger, or the park further away, or did all the other surface parking lots get built on?

No, it's just that a well-connected developer managed to buy an option on buildings that Johnson Publishing had been holding for speculation. That doesn't make the 18-month-old rules "outdated."
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2007, 05:44 PM   #327
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

So what conditions changed in the 800 block of South Michigan between March 2004 and September 2005? Did the transit service get better, or the sewer pipes bigger, or the park further away, or did all the other surface parking lots get built on?

^No, but if it did get built, did you ever think those improvements just might happen! Do you not see that?!

If everyone in earlier generations had a mentality like yours this city would never have evolved into the metropolis it is now, and the skyline would be nowhere near as impressive. That mentality doesn't belong in downtown, or really anywhere in this city.

Keeping buildings shorter for some principle does nothing. I suppose you were also against OMP and OMPW, because if Park Michigan is out of place, then what the f*ck are those? Oh, and while were at it, let's keep the entire south loop short, high rises are totally out of place there too. Oh, and the Chicago spire, at 2000'? Way too tall and out of place, lets not build that either. The shadows over navy pier! And now that I think about it, why was the Hancock ever built? Totally out of place, and what a horrible precedent that set, buildings over 1000', how awful.

I get the feeling youre one of those people who just like to control things. Not because it makes sense, or is beneficial to anyone, but because you feel the need to dictate what goes on around you, and say what people can and cannot do. And you are trying to hide it by referring to the central area plan, as if it was written in stone like the ten commandments. Everyone knows those things are recommendations. At least give some good reasons for being against this building. (Oh, thats right, there are none). Anyway, there's tons of home associations in the subdivisions of the burbs where you would fit in perfectly, you can tell people not to paint their house pink or something. You may be happier there than in Dearborn park or wherever you live now.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2007, 06:26 PM   #328
Frumie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 717
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
So what conditions changed in the 800 block of South Michigan between March 2004 and September 2005? Did the transit service get better, or the sewer pipes bigger, or the park further away, or did all the other surface parking lots get built on?
Isn't a major improvement underway in removing a 100-year old decrepit train stop, shifting trackage, improving platform, etc.? Didn't Spertus build on what had been a vacant lot? Are there not buildings under construction in the Printers Row area on former parking lots? Haven't several improvements and amenities come to the Grant Park area, creating a more interesting public space? Isn't retail now picking up throughout the area? Besides median planters, I've seen several infrastructure improvements made and underway. Focusing on a single building for better of worse seems to miss the forest for a tree.
__________________
You truly want peace? Be righteous.
Frumie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2007, 09:25 PM   #329
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
So what conditions changed in the 800 block of South Michigan between March 2004 and September 2005? Did the transit service get better, or the sewer pipes bigger, or the park further away, or did all the other surface parking lots get built on?

No, it's just that a well-connected developer managed to buy an option on buildings that Johnson Publishing had been holding for speculation. That doesn't make the 18-month-old rules "outdated."
What's changed is that people actually want to live there now. Now more than ever before.

No, all the surface parking lot haven't been built upon, but that's the over all goal I hope.

What makes the 18-month-old rules outdated is that the initial estimate for population growth was underestimated in the first place. They were outdated before the ink dried on the documents.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 01:52 AM   #330
southloopscotty
Registered User
 
southloopscotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
On principle. It thumbs its nose at the recently adopted plan. Developers should have to play by the adopted rules, no matter how pretty the rendering they present. (I'm not concerned about the density).


I think it will look terribly out of place in the skyline, both visually--and legally--inviting additional buildings of the same height along South Wabash and State. A shorter, stubbier building will cast shadows on other buildings and Michigan Avenue, which doesn't concern me. An 866-foot building will cast shadows far into Grant Park, which should concern everyone. Yes, this one is slender, but the next five along Wabash--made possible by the precedent this building would set--won't necessarily be.
With statements like these, I find it highly ironic that your screen name is "Mr. Downtown."
Perhaps "Mr. Lincoln Park" or "Mr. Bucktown" would be more suitable...
Because it seems to me that you haven't a clue as to what a downtown is!
southloopscotty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 02:48 AM   #331
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

^Tell me about it and all we do is go around in circles with these people on this forum, really annoying.
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 03:09 AM   #332
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Mr Downtown can really piss people off sometimes (like me) with his occasional ridiculous NIMBY statements that reveal his true colors. But, in his defense, he also does provide some excellent historical information, particularly about the south loop area.

What I dont understand is one who is very knowledgable about the downtown area, can be so regressive and afraid of its expansion at the same time. I think buildings like Park Michigan have the potential to be in the pantheon of iconic skyline definers, like Hancock, Sears, smurfit stone, Marina City, etc. Why would anyone want to pass that up?

History is history, its time to think forward, not backwards. Im glad Daley realizes this.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 04:51 AM   #333
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
What I dont understand is one who is very knowledgable about the downtown area, can be so regressive and afraid of its expansion at the same time. I think buildings like Park Michigan have the potential to be in the pantheon of iconic skyline definers, like Hancock, Sears, smurfit stone, Marina City, etc. Why would anyone want to pass that up?
^ That's perplexed me ever since the guy joined these forums. He spouts his factoids out like a computer, but in the end there's no doubt in my mind that he downright doesn't get it. What a friggin waste
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 05:01 AM   #334
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
So what conditions changed in the 800 block of South Michigan between March 2004 and September 2005? Did the transit service get better, or the sewer pipes bigger, or the park further away, or did all the other surface parking lots get built on?
^ Ever heard of changing demand? Do things not change in your world? It seems like your views of the south loop are stuck in your static, 2003 world; just where you want it to be, right?

It's reality, buddy. Just face it. You're not fighting an evil corporate empire, you're not a hero, you guys aren't saving anybody from anything, and the hipster commune days of the south loop are long past. THe 60's are over and your so-called battles with the 'evil highrise developer' are an anachronism; younger generations just aren't interested.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 05:46 PM   #335
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

What does changing demand have to do with this building? Park Michigan is only 376 units, even though it occupies 40 percent of a block. The number of units here is not an issue. It's the shape of the building. Just for comparison, Amli900 is 440 units in a 25-story building with a smaller footprint than Park Michigan.

Oh, and BVictor1, exactly what was the "initial estimate for population growth"? What page of the Near South Community Plan is that found on?
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 05:53 PM   #336
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Just for comparison, Amli900 is 440 units in a 25-story building with a smaller footprint than Park Michigan.

Actually, that's not true. The typical residential floor plate of 830 S. Michigan is about 9,000 SF which is even smaller than Park Tower.

If there is to be meaningful debate on these forums, please let's try to stick to the facts!
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 05:58 PM   #337
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

I would be surprised if the size of Park Michigan's floor plate is much greater than half of the size of 900 South Clark's floor plate.

Not to mention, I believe that a large portion of 900 South Clark's units will be studios and Jr. bedrooms.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 06:37 PM   #338
Danillo
National Parks Artist
 
Danillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 981
Likes (Received): 220

Isn't the solution here to change the plan first? I mean, demand may be higher than anticipated, and this building is probably better as a tall, thin one than a shorter, stubbier one. From what I've seen, I hope it gets built. Yet, it does violate the adopted plan. Plans are important things, as they keep development from being all willy-nilly. Seems to me that if the current plan is so bad, the solution is to revisit the plan taking into account the problems that necessitate revision. If you do that, then there's a more refined guide for development and people affected by new development can at least know what to expect.
Danillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 06:51 PM   #339
Steely Dan
born again cyclist
 
Steely Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: old style city
Posts: 3,381
Likes (Received): 1295

^ ideally that sounds like a good solution, but it's a dangerous one, because it opens the door for every whiny anti-city clown to speak up for and attempt to defend the stagnation of chicago and its mighty skyline. a much better solution is to force the ignorant masses to bend over and take it...... that's the chicago way.

long live the king!
__________________
"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 June 28th, 2007, 07:59 PM   #340
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Yawn View Post
The typical residential floor plate of 830 S. Michigan is about 9,000 SF which is even smaller than Park Tower.
I said Park Michigan's footprint, not its floorplate. You do understand the difference between a floorplate and a footprint, right?
Mr Downtown 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