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 3rd, 2006, 06:42 AM   #141
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
What's so horrible about a tall building at that location?
Process. A plan should mean something for a little while after the community spends years hammering it out. If there are changed conditions requiring reconsideration, that should come back to the community, not be decided in a closed-door meeting.

Shadows. An 866-foot tower throws shadows pretty far into Grant Park. My quick-and-dirty calculations show it reaching Buckingham Fountain's gardens by 3 pm more than half the year.

Precedent. What hope is there to restore the few remaining loft buildings along Wabash, to keep some of the neighborhood's architectural character, if developers know they can build 800-foot towers there?

Scale. It's more than twice as tall as anything within 600m. That either sets a new benchmark for the South Loop skyline or it sticks up like a rude finger. If it sets a new benchmark, we're back to the shadow problem times 15. Plus, after the fourth or fifth building of this height, who will be paying close attention to how elegant each new proposal is?

It's one thing to appreciate the muscular architecture of Hancock Center as a singular building. It's another to applaud its siting and the mediocrity--from Olympia Center to Water Tower Place to One Mag Mile--that followed once it had despoiled upper Michigan Avenue.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 3rd, 2006, 06:48 AM   #142
Steely Dan
born again cyclist
 
Steely Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: old style city
Posts: 3,381
Likes (Received): 1295

^ i'm so very glad that small-thinkers like you don't run the show in chicago. make no little plans.

people who dislike shadows should not be living anywhere remotely near downtown chicago. we have thousands upon thousands of sq. miles of city neighborhoods & suburbia for all you shadow-haters.
__________________
"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; November 3rd, 2006 at 06:54 AM.
Steely Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2006, 07:00 AM   #143
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ i'm so very glad that small-thinkers like you don't run the show in chicago. make no little plans.

people who dislike shadows should not be living anywhere remotely near downtown chicago. we have thousands upon thousands of sq. miles of city neighborhoods & suburbia for all you shadow-haters.
^Haha..

Yes, please do us all a favor and move out of downtown if you are worried about density and height. Thats the most ridiculous thing to worry about when living within one of the most vertical skylines on the planet! Where do you think you are anyway, Schaumburg?
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2006, 09:51 AM   #144
forumly_chgoman
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 10

deleted

Last edited by i_am_hydrogen; November 8th, 2006 at 06:05 AM. Reason: Do not insult people.
forumly_chgoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2006, 05:46 PM   #145
ChicagoLover
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 819
Likes (Received): 0

There's no way this building is going up in this real estate climate. Its all hype.
ChicagoLover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2006, 05:59 PM   #146
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

^Probably not at $200 million, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens considering the views and location.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2006, 06:37 PM   #147
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Process. A plan should mean something for a little while after the community spends years hammering it out. If there are changed conditions requiring reconsideration, that should come back to the community, not be decided in a closed-door meeting.

Shadows. An 866-foot tower throws shadows pretty far into Grant Park. My quick-and-dirty calculations show it reaching Buckingham Fountain's gardens by 3 pm more than half the year.

Precedent. What hope is there to restore the few remaining loft buildings along Wabash, to keep some of the neighborhood's architectural character, if developers know they can build 800-foot towers there?

Scale. It's more than twice as tall as anything within 600m. That either sets a new benchmark for the South Loop skyline or it sticks up like a rude finger. If it sets a new benchmark, we're back to the shadow problem times 15. Plus, after the fourth or fifth building of this height, who will be paying close attention to how elegant each new proposal is?

It's one thing to appreciate the muscular architecture of Hancock Center as a singular building. It's another to applaud its siting and the mediocrity--from Olympia Center to Water Tower Place to One Mag Mile--that followed once it had despoiled upper Michigan Avenue.

^ That's all nonsense. Nobody buys that bull. It's downtown Chicago, and nobody cares about some self-serving 'pact' you made with the city to limit highrise construction. I need to take another look at the Central Area Plan and Near South Community Plan that is published on the web for public viewing, but I don't recall anybody arbitrarily posting height limits of such-and-such feet for given areas. My hunch is that you are pulling this out of your rear end.

Another thing--do you realize what forum you've joined? You're going to regularly bash heads with people who completely disagree with your whole view on development in the city, and that's never going to change. You're welcome to try to win us over to your side, but I'll tell you now that you will fail miserably.

Oh, and please do downtown Chicago a favor and move elsewhere if you're going to stand it its way.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2006, 07:35 PM   #148
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
I need to take another look at the . . . Near South Community Plan that is published on the web for public viewing, but I don't recall anybody arbitrarily posting height limits of such-and-such feet for given areas. My hunch is that you are pulling this out of your rear end.
You'll want to look at page 61: "The suggested building heights [below] are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments. Wabash Avenue District. Higher intensity development could be permitted along both sides of the corridor, provided it does not detract from the image and character of the Michigan Avenue Development District. 350 feet."


Quote:
Another thing--do you realize what forum you've joined? You're going to regularly bash heads with people who completely disagree with your whole view on development in the city, and that's never going to change. You're welcome to try to win us over to your side, but I'll tell you now that you will fail miserably.
Good architecture and urbanism is determined by more than mere height. Surely there are members of even this forum who would concede that Aqua or Fordham Spire would be inappropriate in Brighton Park or Bucktown. Context matters. When a building is six times the size of its neighbors, it's either badly out of place or a harbinger of things to come, and I think it's proper for informed citizens--not a lone architect, developer, or alderman--to decide whether such a dramatic change to their neighborhood (or their downtown) is appropriate.

I understand that many here will disagree with my opinion on this building. I hope some of them are up to a more intelligent discussion about the issues than calling me "petulant" or my arguments "nonsense."
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2006, 07:47 PM   #149
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Scale. It's more than twice as tall as anything within 600m. That either sets a new benchmark for the South Loop skyline or it sticks up like a rude finger. If it sets a new benchmark, we're back to the shadow problem times 15. Plus, after the fourth or fifth building of this height, who will be paying close attention to how elegant each new proposal is?
That's untrue. Park 1000, the Columbian, the four tall towers along Roosevelt in Central Station

And if the market is supposedly slowing down, of course they'll try for an interesting design to help spur sales. Chicago has multiple tall towers going up or proposed right now, and I don't think any of them are terribly designed.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2006, 08:13 PM   #150
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Good architecture and urbanism is determined by more than mere height. Surely there are members of even this forum who would concede that Aqua or Fordham Spire would be inappropriate in Brighton Park or Bucktown. Context matters. When a building is six times the size of its neighbors, it's either badly out of place or a harbinger of things to come, and I think it's proper for informed citizens--not a lone architect, developer, or alderman--to decide whether such a dramatic change to their neighborhood (or their downtown) is appropriate.
^ Certainly you can acknowledge that all of downtown Chicago was, at one point, prarie grass and wetlands overlooking a river? And then it was full of rickety wooden buildings, followed by 3-4 story masonry structures, then even larger structures, followed by...etc etc and now we have 1000 foot tall towers standing in that very same space.

It did not become that way by people like you, who claim that somehow character is inherent in a growing neighborhood's past state of underutilization. It became that way because of bold vision, high land prices, and unprecedented economic growth. Of course nobody wants to build a tall skyscraper in Bucktown or Bridgeport, but that's because they are not downtown (yet..).

This is downtown. You clearly think you live elsewhere, and you can wave that speculative document called the Central Area Plan in the air alleging that it backs up your personal sentiment on the issue, but I certainly don't buy it. That is some of the most prime real estate in the entire continental interior, and for you to pretend that it's just another plot of land on 111th street just shows how little weight your argument holds in light of something called REALITY.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2006, 08:29 PM   #151
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

This discussion should be relocated to a different thread. This guy must be Peter Ziv or one of his "followers". No one else is this irrational. His views are driven by the fact that his half-million dollar condo is about to get a building built just 20 some feet away blocking his view (Terrapin's Burhnam Pointe). This guy is a menace and standing in the way of progressive development in the South Loop. He thinks he lives in Printers Row (missed it by a block). He lives in that one brick building sitting amongst surface lots and is fighting tooth and nails to keep it taht way.

Regardless of what the Near South Community Plan and Central Area Plan say, they are merely guides and concept plans for the city. They are by no means binding regulations or ordinances, but mere suggestions and references for the plan commission. The Plan Commission and DPD clearly want the buildings in this area to meet their zoning limits (DX-whatever) and have rejected plans by developers who are proposing lesser sized buildings. The size of the buildings going up around Ziv were virtually dictated by the City. I guess you can't make everyone happy.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2006, 03:36 AM   #152
High Life on LSD
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 2

I live in 910 S. Michigan and my view will be severly hindered by this project, but unlike my neighbors, I'm all for it. This plot will be developend (someday), and I want the best possible thing next door. This building completely change my block in a very positive way. I think the best way to look at it, is my building may have been build in 1905 but when it was build it ruined some other buildings view. Somerhing is going to ruin my view anyways, I hope its this one.
High Life on LSD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2006, 04:49 AM   #153
chicagogeorge
Registered User
 
chicagogeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South suburban Chicago
Posts: 5,284
Likes (Received): 893



Yeah, I have a condo on the 12th floor of 1250 S Michigan Ave. (so we are practically neighbors). My view of Lake Michigan and Soldier Field was obstructed several months ago, as they built on the east side of the Ave. I don't care though, I would love to see a street wall extend south and west of the South Loop area. The more the better imo.
__________________

for the Pelasgians, too, were a Greek nation originally from the Peloponnesus
The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...assus/1B*.html

Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece". Strabo, VII, Frg. 9
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ragments*.html

But north of the gulf, the first inhabitants are Greeks called Epirotes....
Procopius
http://books.google.com/books?id=9m6...page&q&f=false
chicagogeorge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2006, 09:51 AM   #154
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Hmm - if I may play the devil's advocate here, since I happen to like this building...

It seems like this guy is being very rational, he just doesn't agree with the views held by skyscraper-boosters here. Planning documents are extremely important in the planning and execution of buildings in city - ANYWHERE in a city, including the dense downtown core. Now, I personally disapprove of the unequal focus that the South Loop has received compared to the North Loop, and how lopsided that makes the skyline look, especially when looking from the lake.

But this plan was agreed upon as a way to control the rough characteristics of buildings not even proposed yet, so it today seems heavy-handed. The plan takes context into consideration, which is an extremely important thing for new buildings. In fact, it's a very-well put together plan, but it does not help to balance out the skyline.

I think it's ridiculous to lambast this guy for speaking his mind, especially since he's kept his temper. In all honesty, I can't see Peter Ziv suggesting a bulky 350-foot building that would only add to so-called "canyonization" over an 866' building which is very slender with a short base, blocking as little shadows and views as possible for its height.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2006, 06:47 PM   #155
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

I was at the public meeting held by Madeline Haithcock about 3 or 4 months ago for this building. She said at first glance she wanted to reject the building since it was so uncharacteristic. However, she decided to give the developers to present it to the public and see how well received it would be.

At first, many of the people seemed against this building, but after the presentation, it received overwhelming support to the group. The developer is really working hard to try to appease everyone (he will need to in order to pull this off). I would say 2 out of 3 people seemed to applaud it versus the people who were upset. Many of the neighbors were there and raised concerns about the views. After they learned that they would keep a decent view instead of losing it to a bulky building, the neighbors that spoke up all expressed approval. This building has been through scrutiny by everyone and it really has impressed many.

The arguement about Grant Park / Buckingham is absurd. One of the biggest advocates is Bob O'Neill (I cant remember his title, but head of the Grant Park group). He loves how this building is going to balance out the buildings along Grant Park and said he was envisioning this for years and thought it would never happen. He called it a miracle that this part of Grant Park was forming the shape it was and expressed his excitement.

Guess who got up to speak at this meeting - Peter Ziv. He said that this tall of a building does not belong in the South Loop to some applause. (Apparently he DOES like squat buildings over the tall ones, or buildings that arent built to their zoning standards). Not long after he got the opponents attention did he pull out his boards for the Burnham Pointe Building and it appeared the only reason he was there was to give his plug for his NIMBY group/website. He was booed and yelled to sit down by people in the meeting and the developer interrupted him to put an end to his sidetracking issue leaving Peter Ziv fumbling for words trying to start a shouting match and firing up the crowd. I think he just looked like a spaz, especially after he gave the wrong website address for his site.

I do too like to play Devil's Advocate, but I feel like we have had this arguement tenfold for this project and others such as Lennar's buildnigs (Library Tower and the Clark/Polk development) and Burnham Pointe. We will have this arguement again when they build the next 40 story building in the South Loop.

As my name implies, I have invested in the South Loop and what sold me was the direction it was going. If you read the Business Section of this mornings Trib, population in the South Loop is projected to go from 13,500 to 20,000 in 5 years (it was 4,500 in 1991). It's just where this part of the city is progressing. You can't make everyone happy. If you can't accept the inevitable evolution of this underserved area, you need to think again about where you WANT to live.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 4th, 2006, 07:29 PM   #156
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

I've got to agree with ardecila on this one - there's no sense in berating Mr. Downtown (although the irony of his name in juxtaposition to his argument isn't lost on me). He has been civil and thorough in outlining his stance.

Now, if I may add one piece of dissection to it:
Quote:
When a building is six times the size of its neighbors, it's either badly out of place or a harbinger of things to come, and I think it's proper for informed citizens--not a lone architect, developer, or alderman--to decide whether such a dramatic change to their neighborhood (or their downtown) is appropriate.
You're absolutely right - that is, however, only if I am to take an optimistic meaning from what you've said. My fear is that, in reality, you mean only residents of the local neighborhood should have a say in whether this tower is a reality or not. In contrast, it should be the entire populace of Chicago that gets a say - certainly those in proposed development's surrounding neighborhood can't be objective? Your concerned (and rightfully so) about property values being affected by very real issues (light and views). However, we must always serve the needs of the many, not that of the few. What's good for Chicago as a whole is good for you as an individual (even if it takes some time to manifest).
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2006, 01:54 AM   #157
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 878

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ i'm so very glad that small-thinkers like you don't run the show in chicago. make no little plans.

people who dislike shadows should not be living anywhere remotely near downtown chicago. we have thousands upon thousands of sq. miles of city neighborhoods & suburbia for all you shadow-haters.
I smell south loop neighbors...

that you dennis?
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2006, 04:49 AM   #158
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Hmm - if I may play the devil's advocate here, since I happen to like this building...

It seems like this guy is being very rational, he just doesn't agree with the views held by skyscraper-boosters here. Planning documents are extremely important in the planning and execution of buildings in city - ANYWHERE in a city, including the dense downtown core. Now, I personally disapprove of the unequal focus that the South Loop has received compared to the North Loop, and how lopsided that makes the skyline look, especially when looking from the lake.

But this plan was agreed upon as a way to control the rough characteristics of buildings not even proposed yet, so it today seems heavy-handed. The plan takes context into consideration, which is an extremely important thing for new buildings. In fact, it's a very-well put together plan, but it does not help to balance out the skyline.

I think it's ridiculous to lambast this guy for speaking his mind, especially since he's kept his temper. In all honesty, I can't see Peter Ziv suggesting a bulky 350-foot building that would only add to so-called "canyonization" over an 866' building which is very slender with a short base, blocking as little shadows and views as possible for its height.

^ If your only support of this fellow is that he's being rational and level-headed, then good for you. It's safe to say that his opponents have behaved likewise. But what matters is the future of Chicago's downtown--and people like him have no business holding it back for their self-serving purposes. And that's what it comes down to.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2006, 07:13 AM   #159
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
what matters is the future of Chicago's downtown--and people like him have no business holding it back for their self-serving purposes.
What is the self-serving purpose? This building won't affect me personally in any way. And how is it "holding back" downtown Chicago to prefer two 35-story towers to one 80-story tower, or to feel that an 80-story tower should be in a different downtown location? Why do I "have no business" expecting the Plan Commission to follow the plan it adopted only last year?

Last edited by Mr Downtown; November 5th, 2006 at 07:29 AM.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2006, 07:51 AM   #160
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
What is the self-serving purpose? This building won't affect me personally in any way.
I don't buy that. That fails to explain why Peter Ziv (that is either you or somebody close to you, something increasingly obvious at this point) has expended so much energy complaining, protesting, and doing nearly everything in his power to stop highrise development in his immediate vicinity.
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