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 28th, 2007, 08:51 PM   #341
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

Not really following you here...or perhaps I'm not really sure what you were trying to say in your earlier post.

Which part of Park Michigan's footprint is even close in SF to that other project you cited, other than perhaps the rehab-portion at the existing facade-ectomy piece on Michigan Ave.?

As I mentioned in an earlier post that noone responded to- this might all be a moot point as the structural engineers can't make it work right now anyway.
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 28th, 2007, 09:57 PM   #342
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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?
Amli is a wide squat building that will be visually inferior to Park Michigan. It's a wall along Clark, which I don't really have a problem with because I like canyons but that's what it's doing.

I wasn't quoting the Near South Plan itself on population growth. I'm quoting the people at the Department of Planning who developed the plan. But I'm sure you already knew that seeing as you were at the very same meeting as I, when that person said population growth and demand was underestimated for the area when the plan was drawn up.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2007, 01:36 AM   #343
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Mr. Downtown - Lord King of the South Loop NIMBYs!!

OK – Enough is enough with this clown. Been lurking for quite some time (frequent poster on SSP). Mr. Downtown – your absurdly misleading name has piqued my curiosity for some time. You positions and pretzel logic, however, point to an altogether different persona. From your writings, which are filled with the same tired, inconsistent and factually incorrect rhetoric that NIMBY groups such as Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance and South Loop Neighbors regularly spout, I would guess that you are, or are close to, insidious neighborhood nuisances such as Dennis McClendon, Tina Feldstein or the especially asinine Jeffery Ayersman. Also, from what I have been able to discern, you are little more than a local history buff and a pretender when it comes to true knowledge and advocacy of quality urban design, planning and architecture.

Let me set you straight, Lord King of the NIMBYs:

You and the SLN/PDNA crowd have come up with this ridiculous theory that somehow X/O, Park Michigan etc are illegal because they are PDs that don’t conform to adopted plans. Sorry – wrong on this one. The “adopted plan” is just a guideline. What does it mean to “conform” to a guideline? Think about it – I am reasonably certain you are no great legal mind – but it doesn’t actually mean much of anything. A fair interpretation is that the guidelines were merely considered in the adoption of the PD, and thus they conformed.

Second, it is hilarious that the very reasons you claim to be against Park Michigan – its form, height, shape, etc. – are the project’s most towering strengths (with the possibility of the great neighborhood amenities (grocery store, other retail, etc) that it will bring. What is most certainly not needed is a blocky skyline in the South Loop, where you have this row of thick, bulky towers on and behind Michigan that all top off at around 450’ or so. This would be an urban design and skyline disaster. What is needed is diversity in the skyline, more balance in the skyline (the South Loop gaining some height to better balance the Near North), and specifically a very tall, very thin tower that acts as a beacon, drawing eyes south from the heart of the Loop. Shadow talk on this tower is nonsense – shadows cast will be extremely minimal – this is a very, very thin tower. Shadows cast from a shorter, but much bulkier building would be much more of an issue. This project could not conceivably fit its site any better, in its beautiful design and site-specific pitch-perfect massing, than it does as currently designed. For you to bring up the footprint nonsense is a joke – you’re undoubtedly including the 10-story section facing Wabash (with the 2 stories of retail and loft condos above…..(actually I wouldn’t doubt if you’re also including the YWCA as well).

So your legal argument is junk, your aesthetic position is rubbish and your forum name is pure bullshit. Do you have anything to say that’s actually worthy of contribution to this forum? If not, create your own forum for NIMBYs, or history geeks, and leave the fields of urban development, planning, design, architecture and the like to people who actually know what they’re talking about.

Last edited by i_am_hydrogen; June 30th, 2007 at 03:22 AM.
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2007, 02:36 AM   #344
smurf
Smurfy Smurf
 
smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoopSam View Post

Let me set you straight, Lord King of the NIMBYs:

So your legal argument is junk, your aesthetic position is rubbish and your forum name is pure bullshit. Do you have anything to say that’s actually worthy of contribution to this forum? If not, create your own forum for NIMBYs, or history geeks, and leave the fields of urban development, planning, design, architecture and the like to people who actually know what they’re talking about.
smurf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2007, 02:39 AM   #345
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoopSam View Post
So your legal argument is junk, your aesthetic position is rubbish and your forum name is pure bullshit. Do you have anything to say that’s actually worthy of contribution to this forum? If not, create your own forum for NIMBYs, or history geeks, and leave the fields of urban development, planning, design, architecture and the like to people who actually know what they’re talking about.

(By the way, moron: nice try attempting to catch Centrum on somehow starting work early on the Roosevelt Collection site!!) Jackass!!!!
I disagree with everything you say here. The major function of this forum is to freely express your opinions of development, including aesthetic positions. While I don't always necessarily agree with him, I think Mr. Downtown has had a lot of worthy posts in this forum. In fact, I have gone back and searched for his posts because I feel he posts some of the best material on this forum. His community involvement, well-read knowledge of the city, and experiences of living in the "downtown" area for many years brings a lot of value to this forum.
Sometimes I get frustrated on this forum because it seems the majority of the posts are people leaving one-liners (or dancing bananas / clinking beer mugs / disco lights) expressing their excitement for a building regardless of how it looks or the value it presents to the community. I personally like to visit the forum to learn about the development in my community and to read feedback from the community. I would much rather read Mr. Downtowns critical positions on development than an off-the-hip response from a student who creams his pants every time another building is on the drawing table.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2007, 03:09 AM   #346
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

^Point taken however when the majority of this thread is filled with insane arguments about shadows and other issues that only an incredibly small minority share, its a waste of time and I think the whole shadow thing and any other nimby issues should be put to rest as we just go in circles, everyone has stated their opinions but to keep bantering back and forth is ridicolous.
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2007, 04:11 AM   #347
NearNorthGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 502
Likes (Received): 4

Regarding Mr. Downtown, while I completely disagree with his assessment of the Park Michigan, I do recognize that he is much more than a "...history buff," as he was called above.

In fact, Mr. Downtown has provided some terrific information about history, planning, and infrastructure in the Central Area. I want him to keep posting....just not too much of the anti-height stuff.
NearNorthGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2007, 10:43 PM   #348
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoopSam View Post
The “adopted plan” is just a guideline. What does it mean to “conform” to a guideline? Think about it – I am reasonably certain you are no great legal mind – but it doesn’t actually mean much of anything. A fair interpretation is that the guidelines were merely considered in the adoption of the PD, and thus they conformed.
Actually, because the Standard Zoning Enabling Act requires consistency between zoning and a comprehensive plan, nearly all states have a fairly rich jurisprudence regarding this term of art. Illinois is no exception: see Forestview Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. County of Cook, 18 Ill.App.3d 230 (1974), Rodriquez v. Henderson, 217 Ill.App.3d 1024 (1991), and 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Casalino, 816 N.E.2d 675 (2004). A national reporter like Land Use Law & Zoning Digest (which I edited my first few years out of law school) probably runs a dozen "consistency" cases a year.

The actual language of the Near South Community Plan is that the "indicated numbers are intended to set upper limits." (In a few places, like Printers Row, minimum heights are also given.) It would strain the consistency doctrine, not to mention the plain text and clear intent of the Chicago zoning ordinance, to ignore such an unambiguous and measurable parameter.

Quote:
a blocky skyline in the South Loop. . . would be an urban design . . . disaster
You don't say what urban design texts you're looking at, but all the ones I have are more concerned with what happens at street level than what is visible from across Lake Michigan. Richard Hedman, with whom I worked on Fundamentals of Urban Design, was particularly emphatic about the importance of not shadowing public parks, for instance.

Quote:
(By the way, moron: nice try attempting to catch Centrum on somehow starting work early on the Roosevelt Collection site!!) Jackass!!!!
Why would you impute some invidious intent to me in noting the inconsistency? I just assumed the newspaper report was incorrect on the closing date.

Welcome to SSC, I guess. In my opinion, it pegs the chutzpah-meter to join a forum just so you can ask one of its members to leave.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2007, 11:42 PM   #349
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

...don't make me quote Rodney King again....
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2007, 11:57 PM   #350
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
You don't say what urban design texts you're looking at, but all the ones I have are more concerned with what happens at street level than what is visible from across Lake Michigan. Richard Hedman, with whom I worked on Fundamentals of Urban Design, was particularly emphatic about the importance of not shadowing public parks, for instance.

Well, I'm certainly not going to go out and by the book anytime soon, but seeing as you worked on the text, why don't you explain to us all, the importance of not shadowing public parks, because I nor does anyone else here understand that logic.

Grant Park's northern end, even with it's monumentous highrises receives adaquate sun all morning and early afternoon. I personally, enjoy being outdoors as much as possible, but I'm not so keen on being scorched by the sun. A few towers casting a bit of shadow into Grant Park, temporarily releaving patrons of melanoma shouldn't be a reason for skyscrapers not to be built in the South Loop along park boarders.

Your argument is weak and will not stand.....
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2007, 01:50 AM   #351
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
You don't say what urban design texts you're looking at, but all the ones I have are more concerned with what happens at street level than what is visible from across Lake Michigan. Richard Hedman, with whom I worked on Fundamentals of Urban Design, was particularly emphatic about the importance of not shadowing public parks, for instance.
So does that mean you are against trees in public parks? After all, trees cast fairly big shadows. Will you join me in my crusade to save our public parks from those evil, shadow-casting trees???? Or are you all talk????
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2007, 02:36 AM   #352
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Actually, because the Standard Zoning Enabling Act requires consistency between zoning and a comprehensive plan, nearly all states have a fairly rich jurisprudence regarding this term of art. Illinois is no exception: see Forestview Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. County of Cook, 18 Ill.App.3d 230 (1974), Rodriquez v. Henderson, 217 Ill.App.3d 1024 (1991), and 1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Casalino, 816 N.E.2d 675 (2004). A national reporter like Land Use Law & Zoning Digest (which I edited my first few years out of law school) probably runs a dozen "consistency" cases a year.

The actual language of the Near South Community Plan is that the "indicated numbers are intended to set upper limits." (In a few places, like Printers Row, minimum heights are also given.) It would strain the consistency doctrine, not to mention the plain text and clear intent of the Chicago zoning ordinance, to ignore such an unambiguous and measurable parameter.
^ Blah blah blah blah yada yada yada yada

Please for once use your noodle for something palatable instead of your usual factual diarrhea--you're not winning anyone over with this mumbo jumbo. Okay, you're an attorney, good for you. You're not the only professional on this forum. I have no reason to believe that you have a good vision for the south loop, and it appears that most urban planners/architects tend to agree with me. And city development, well...that's THEIR specialty, not yours.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2007, 03:47 AM   #353
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Blah blah blah blah yada yada yada yada

Please for once use your noodle for something palatable instead of your usual factual diarrhea--you're not winning anyone over with this mumbo jumbo. Okay, you're an attorney, good for you. You're not the only professional on this forum. I have no reason to believe that you have a good vision for the south loop, and it appears that most urban planners/architects tend to agree with me. And city development, well...that's THEIR specialty, not yours.
I beg to differ... he has impressed me with his "diarrhea." He mentioned the law school becuase he was citing court cases to support his statement about the legality of the neighborhood plan.
I am a professional in the planning/design field and I disagree with a lot of the things you post, TUP. Don't put yourself up on a pedestal.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2007, 04:32 AM   #354
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrintersRowBoiler View Post
I beg to differ... he has impressed me with his "diarrhea."
Guess I can say then that you are both full of shit
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2007, 04:39 AM   #355
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrintersRowBoiler View Post
I am a professional in the planning/design field and I disagree with a lot of the things you post, TUP. Don't put yourself up on a pedestal.
^ Yeah, your disastrous ideas really show promise. Go get um, skipper. 2 for 1 parking everywhere!

But then, even your own Alderman thinks it's stupid, and the guy you supported for the 2nd ward lost miserably. I guess you were just way off the map on that one.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2007, 08:01 AM   #356
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

This thread is closed and will not reopen until there is legitimate news about this project.
__________________
flickrgallery
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2008, 10:03 PM   #357
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Developer Warren Barr gives up on 830 S. Michigan high-rise
REAL ESTATE | Market put S. Michigan tower in limbo, Barr says
Recommend (1)
Comments

November 19, 2008
DAVID ROEDER [email protected]

Condo developer Warren Barr is grievously disappointed that he can't pursue a project that was to be his mark on the skyline. But he can be thankful he is exiting the deal financially intact.

Barr has sold property at 830 S. Michigan where he planned an 80-story building. The financial crisis and overbuilt housing market have rendered those plans moot for probably at least three years, so Barr concluded now was the time to get out. "I really wanted to do this building, but the market today just makes it impossible," he said.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...eder19.article
__________________
flickrgallery
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2008, 10:39 PM   #358
Chicagophotoshop
Chicago Photographer
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 2,832
Likes (Received): 14

damn I really liked this one
__________________
Portfolio | Twitter | Facebook | Flickr | Gear
| SmugMugPro
Chicagophotoshop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2008, 11:25 PM   #359
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

the same guy who designed 600 Lakeshore Drive did this building.
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2008, 03:13 AM   #360
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

I bet if we are patient, it will get built. Why would someone pay $18M for the parcel after a financial crisis from a guy who paid $13M for it 15 months ago? Presumably because he doesn't have to go through the zoning and design processes. Let's see what happens in 3 years...
PrintersRowBoiler 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 08:30 PM.


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