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 5th, 2006, 08:28 AM   #161
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
Think about the context in which you're making this argument. The South Loop is no place to complain about shadows. Complaining about shadows in the South Loop is like complaining about water while standing in the ocean. Additionally, casting shadows is just one of those things that buildings do. If the creation of a shadow were a reason not to construct a building then Chicago would still be an empty field of prairie grass. Increasing the density of the built environment, augmenting the tax base, and possibly attracting new residents to the downtown vicinity all outweigh any concerns about shadows.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 5th, 2006, 09:41 AM   #162
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Just to tackle this shadow issue:

Does the shadow cast by Heritage in the afternoon and evening keep people away from Millennium Park? Were shadows cast onto the park a major concern when they were planning Legacy? I doubt this. To assume that a shadow cast by a building will drive people away is a little too hasty.

It's true that people do not like dark spaces, but usually this must be combined with a sense of enclosure for people to feel uncomfortable. Buckingham Fountain is at the center of the largest single block of Grant Park, with vast paved promenades and tree-lined areas surrounding. People will continue to flock to Buckingham Fountain just as they always have, regardless of what shadow this building casts.

Also - was the Near South Community Plan designed to take into account the record growth this area is now seeing? If it was planned before people had such a keen interest to live in the South Loop, perhaps its building standards are out-of-date. Plans are important, but they must take into account the desirability of an area. In the case of the South Loop, where a MASSIVE desirability shift has taken place, perhaps the urban plans must be reviewed/updated.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2006, 04:54 PM   #163
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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?
The site is so small that if they had 2 35 story towers, they would basically be from lot-line to lot-line, something the neighbors did not want since it would really block their views and would really cast a wide shadow. This is a win-win-win situation i think. I cannot think of a reason why this building should not be built.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2006, 04:56 PM   #164
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
I smell south loop neighbors...

that you dennis?
I thought Dennis had said that he/South Loop Neighbors opposed this building? (Cuz it was not consistent with the Near South Plan that was drafted by them).
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2006, 07:10 AM   #165
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrintersRowBoiler View Post
I thought Dennis had said that he/South Loop Neighbors opposed this building? (Cuz it was not consistent with the Near South Plan that was drafted by them).
South Loop Neighbors hasn't taken a position; the developer has not presented the project to them. The June 29 meeting at Jones HS was a meeting put on by the developer, not the alderman or any of the neighborhood groups. It was very poorly publicized within the neighborhood and only a few people were allowed to speak.

The Near South Community Plan was drafted by Trkla Allen Pettigrew & Payne (a planning consultant firm since merged with a larger group) for DPD, although I have the impression that the height guidelines were pretty much the work of DPD staff alone. Near South Planning Board, Greater South Loop Association, South Loop Neighbors, and perhaps other groups offered comments on the plan, but they were not always incorporated. (Friends of Downtown did not comment as best I remember.)
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2006, 07:43 AM   #166
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
South Loop Neighbors hasn't taken a position; the developer has not presented the project to them. The June 29 meeting at Jones HS was a meeting put on by the developer, not the alderman or any of the neighborhood groups. It was very poorly publicized within the neighborhood and only a few people were allowed to speak.

The Near South Community Plan was drafted by Trkla Allen Pettigrew & Payne (a planning consultant firm since merged with a larger group) for DPD, although I have the impression that the height guidelines were pretty much the work of DPD staff alone. Near South Planning Board, Greater South Loop Association, South Loop Neighbors, and perhaps other groups offered comments on the plan, but they were not always incorporated. (Friends of Downtown did not comment as best I remember.)
No you are wrong. I have read several periodicals with South Loop Neighbors opinions including this from the Journal:

"
"Weíre building 376 units, which is exactly what the zoning allows," said Barr. Barr said the tall, thin design will block less light than shorter and wider designs.

"The [Chicago Department of Planning and Development] pushed us to go with a taller, slender building," Barr said.

But not everyone is as excited about a new skyscraper in the South Loop as OíNeill and Barr. Dennis McClendon, a member of South Loop Neighbors, believes the building will not fit in with its surroundings.

"I donít think itís going to fit in at all," McClendon said. McClendon says the building is taller than what is currently allowed in that spot by the Michigan Avenue Landmark District, which would limit the building to 425 feet.

"This proposal is almost double the height that is to be allowable in that spot," McClendon said. A spokesperson for the Commission on Chicago Landmarks could not be reached for comment.

Paulette Boyd, president of South Loop Neighbors, is also skeptical about how the building will work in that spot.

"It certainly would provide a huge shadow," she said. "Weíre looking at something thatís double anything in that area south of Congress." Both she and McClendon are afraid a building of that size will cast shadows across Grant Park.

Boyd has not seen any drawings of the proposed high-rise, but she would prefer to see a development that stays within the limits imposed by the Michigan Avenue Landmark District.

"I just kind of have to wait and see what [the developersí] plans are," Boyd said. "And nothing this tall has ever been proposed."

But OíNeill isnít worried about shadows. Like Barr, he believes the proposed design will actually allow in more light than a shorter, wider building.

"By being thinner and taller, it lets more light in," OíNeill said. "I think this really is a win-win-win situation."

In addition to allowing more light, OíNeill said the proposed high-rise will take up a smaller plot of land than a shorter, wider building, which allows more green space around it.

"The lot that is there right now is hideous," OíNeill said.

Jeff Key, president of the Greater South Loop Association, also supports the project, and agrees with OíNeillís assertion that the building will frame the park.

"Thereís something lopsided about Grant Park," Key said. "Grant Park was originally planned to be surrounded by tall buildings."
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2006, 08:16 PM   #167
harvesterofsorrows
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 642
Likes (Received): 113

Woah, I was lookin' at STR'smodels and look how this fits in the skyline
harvesterofsorrows no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2006, 09:49 PM   #168
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

Speaking of STR he got a mention on the Chicagoist website this week about his renderings.

http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/architecture/
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2006, 09:08 AM   #169
Dancer
Registered User
 
Dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 2,106
Likes (Received): 253

Quote:
Originally Posted by danthediscoman View Post
Speaking of STR he got a mention on the Chicagoist website this week about his renderings.

http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/architecture/
NICE WORK STR!
__________________
Dancer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2006, 06:34 PM   #170
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
Think about the context in which you're making this argument. The South Loop is no place to complain about shadows.
...and, in any case, the reason these Vancouver-style pencil towers are so in vogue with Chicago city planners is because they mitigate the loss of light a chunkier, shorter tower would bring. Would you rather watch the parade with Rosie O'Donnell in front of you, or with Angelina Jolie?

I'm thinking Mather Tower; I'm thinking church steeple - the whole darn building is a setback!

Last edited by wrabbit; November 15th, 2006 at 10:05 PM.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2006, 06:42 PM   #171
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Shadows on other buildings: not a problem for public policy. Views from existing windows: not a problem for public policy. Shadows on treasured public parks--now that's something city planners should be concerned about. Shadow studies were required before the tall buildings in Central Station were approved, showing they would not significantly shade Grant Park.

The shadow issue here is not so much with one thin tower, though that's worrisome. It's that this tower sets a precedent for similar size beasts all the way down Wabash. Shorter towers simply don't throw shadows as far into the park.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2006, 06:52 PM   #172
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
What is the self-serving purpose?
Attention.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2006, 06:53 PM   #173
jpIllInoIs
Registered User
 
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 649
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrabbit View Post
...and, in any case, the reason these Vancouver-style pencil towers are so in vogue with Chicago city planners is because they mitigate the loss of light a chunkier, shorter tower would bring. Would you rather watch the parade with Rosie O'Donnell in front of you, or with Angelina Jolie?

Quote:
Think Mather Tower, think church steeple - the whole darn building is a setback!


This is one of the most overused writing syles in circulation right now. Please stop telling us what to "THINK"
jpIllInoIs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2006, 07:01 PM   #174
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs View Post
[/I]

This is one of the most overused writing syles in circulation right now. Please stop telling us what to "THINK"
No prob - I've changed the wording of the post to "I'm thinking". There. All better.

Last edited by wrabbit; November 15th, 2006 at 10:07 PM.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2006, 09:34 PM   #175
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
Shadows on other buildings: not a problem for public policy. Views from existing windows: not a problem for public policy. Shadows on treasured public parks--now that's something city planners should be concerned about. Shadow studies were required before the tall buildings in Central Station were approved, showing they would not significantly shade Grant Park.

The shadow issue here is not so much with one thin tower, though that's worrisome. It's that this tower sets a precedent for similar size beasts all the way down Wabash. Shorter towers simply don't throw shadows as far into the park.

So the hell what if it casts a shadow on the park.

Last time I looked there were several thousand of theses big tall things, with leaves. I believe that they are called trees, although I might be mistaken. Don't they cause a lot of shade, or am I mistaken?

Last time I heard, melanoma was running quite rampent. Maybe a bit of shade is a good thing.

Besides, the shadow that this building will cast across the park will be long and thin like the tower itself, which means that anyone with a brian can choose to sit on either side of the buildings shadow so that they won't be affected by it.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2006, 02:48 AM   #176
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

How long will there be a shadow by Buckingham anyways? An hour if the sun is out? Plus the US Green people are pushing for people to develop the land with plenty of shade (apparently it is good for the environment).
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2006, 05:02 AM   #177
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

^Exactly.
It seems the main arguments against this tower are:

1 Shadows

2 Way too tall for the South Loop.

I for the life of me can not see how anyone can try to justify being against this tower simply because of shadows! If we were talking about another fat Sears tower then I understand but this belief that these shadows are going to plunge Grant Park and city of Chicago into the dark ages is absurd. Could those who object to the whole "Grant Park shadow scenario" please explain what it is exactly that is so wrong with having some shadows?...the last time I checked I had a shadow?oh and by the way I'm 6'4" so I will be sure not to walk on the East side of Michigan Ave so my freakishly tall body doesn't cast any shadows into Grant Park either.

In regards to complaint #2. I SEE IT LIKE THIS: ITS NOT THAT THIS TOWER IS "TOO TALL" BUT THAT ALL THE OTHER BUILDINGS AROUND IT ARE TOO SMALL!
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 05:42 AM   #178
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

Has everyone forgotten the basics of where the sun travels if you live in Chicago? This tower is west of Grant Park, thus, it will only cast shadows over the park when the sun is west of the tower. That results in only a short time during the course of the day. Seriously, and the shadow would be so diffuse by the time it reached Buckingham (for the 20 seconds that it would stretch to there) it would hardly even be noticable.
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2006, 12:21 AM   #179
Chicago Shawn
Registered User
 
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 361
Likes (Received): 0

^Exactley! The sun is located to the south of us, all shadows fall to the north. For the majority of the day, the shaddows of this tower will fall on the nieghboring South Loop buildings, which of course, cause shaddows of thier own. The late afternoon is the only time 830's shaddow will reach into the park. The Central Station towers along Roosevelt on the otherhand will put shaddows into the park all day, and One Musuem Park is nearly comparable in height, standing in at 734' above grade. By the time late afternoon hits, the trees of Grant Park cast long shaddows anyway, diffusing sunlight, thus nulling the shaddow complaint of 830 all together.
Chicago Shawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2006, 04:11 AM   #180
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
The late afternoon is the only time 830's shaddow will reach into the park. The Central Station towers along Roosevelt on the otherhand will put shaddows into the park all day
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?
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 08:30 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