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 October 30th, 2005, 10:21 PM   #61
STR
What'u smokin' Willis?
 
STR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 2,095
Likes (Received): 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoSkyline
First of, who said that we are talking about other cities then chicago all alone?Well, does chicago only build buildings? how about some dramatic architecture feast that it has been dominated for centuries? Who say chicago only can be in the building form?
That was a joke at Toronto's expense. Get a sense of humor.

Quote:
You sounded pretty stereo typical that is why you started a thread on why are you in Chicago even with the cold and crap, if you don't like chicago, move out!
This really isn't worth responding to, but you've managed to rack up quite a few fallacies in just one run-on sentence: false alternative fallacy, post hoc, ad hominem, not to mention it was totally irrelavent to the subject at hand.

Quote:
There is obviously many needs to replace our old broadcasting technology and this new proposed TV tower is a step ahead to solve with some architecture thought to it!
Do you really think they're still using the same broadcast equipment that was installed when Sears first went online 30 years ago? Or did you not notice when (I believe Trizec Properties owned Sears Tower at the time, but I could be wrong) four 150 foot tall antennas were added to the roof to grant HDTV ability? Chicago is HDTV ready already, there is no technical or practical reason why $300 million must be spent to get an extra 300 feet of height. In addition, the majority of TV owners in Chicago use cable and satellite, further reducing the need for a new broadcast tower.

Quote:
BTW, they only need less then $10 million to start up this project, so I am not sure about that whopping $300mil numbers is from, don't forget,
The $300 million figure came from a Chicago Tribune article. $10 million would get the land and possibly a nice acrylic model that lights up.
__________________
There are six phases to every project 1) enthusiasm, 2) disillusionment, 3) panic, 4) search for the guilty, 5) punishment of the innocent, 6) praise for the non-participants. - Guy Tozzoli
Build your own Model Skyscrapers** New World Trade Center (2006-) 3D Model ** World Trade Center (1971-2001) 3D Model

Last edited by STR; October 31st, 2005 at 02:19 AM.
STR no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 31st, 2005, 02:29 AM   #62
STR
What'u smokin' Willis?
 
STR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 2,095
Likes (Received): 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy999
And yes, Carley could do anything he wants with the tower after it's done, but if he tampers with it so much he will drive away his own tenants who were drawn to this project from around the world because of Calatrava's persuasion, not Carley.
I'm having difficulty understanding your reasoning. Are you saying, that if Carley adds an antenna to FS (assuming Cal. has a problem with it, which he hasn't given any indication that he does) that everyone whose placed nonrefundable down payments will up and leave? I think you misunderstand the dynamics of the situation.

The people (who will be) buying condos in this building don't give a crap about the politics of the building. Their main interest is in buying a condo and making small talk/ bragging about it when they have their hoity-toity social events with other blue bloods. All they need to know is that Cal. designed it, not what happened afterword. I mean, how many people cared that Walter Chrysler ripped off William van Allen? Going by the occupancy rate of the Chrysler Building when it opened (which was over 70%) not too many.
__________________
There are six phases to every project 1) enthusiasm, 2) disillusionment, 3) panic, 4) search for the guilty, 5) punishment of the innocent, 6) praise for the non-participants. - Guy Tozzoli
Build your own Model Skyscrapers** New World Trade Center (2006-) 3D Model ** World Trade Center (1971-2001) 3D Model
STR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2005, 08:40 AM   #63
Aaron King
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 47
Likes (Received): 0

any questions about Television Transmission I can answer, I have worked for a long time in Transmission. The basic need for a transmission tower such as this or CN tower is twofold. The network or channel sends the signal through the tower to both viewers as well as the broadcast delivery channels (cable company, satellite company). There is a need for HD towers for a couple of reasons, The FCC has set a mandate that says that all TV must be broadcast digitally by 2008 (not likely to happen) as well the FCC states that all Broadcast networks must be available over the air regardless of how most of their viewers see it (cable) this would include ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, UPN, etc etc etc. The need for a tower is there in every major city, but it doesn't have to be like this one, or the CN tower, it could easily be added to Sears, if the other major antenna were transferred to another building such as Hancock or Aon. This could also be done somewhere in the suburbs without trouble. Any questions? comments?
Aaron King no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2005, 08:47 AM   #64
STR
What'u smokin' Willis?
 
STR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 2,095
Likes (Received): 104

Well, here's a question I can't answer. The Sears Tower was already fitted for HDTV in March 2000. How much of a difference would the 300 foot relative increase in height do for reception in range (a taller tower would broadcast farther)?
__________________
There are six phases to every project 1) enthusiasm, 2) disillusionment, 3) panic, 4) search for the guilty, 5) punishment of the innocent, 6) praise for the non-participants. - Guy Tozzoli
Build your own Model Skyscrapers** New World Trade Center (2006-) 3D Model ** World Trade Center (1971-2001) 3D Model
STR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2005, 11:01 AM   #65
De Snor
Forever Travelling
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,386
Likes (Received): 37

nice thing but it is proposed on the wrong location.
it would better be built on Meigs Field imo.
De Snor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2005, 05:06 PM   #66
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Meigs Field is slated to become a park with bird sanctuary (possibly more with an Olympic bid).
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2005, 06:43 PM   #67
Fragmentor
Funky London
 
Fragmentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North London
Posts: 1,782
Likes (Received): 1

well, It doesnt fit, but that doesn't stop me liking it, so many 'don't fit' but when are built look fantastic, im feeling good about this one
Fragmentor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 02:22 AM   #68
LibertyTwo
nohup rm -rf */*
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 0

Tweasers next to a tooth pick

awful for chicago
__________________
Yes -- Dubai rocks, FT sucks, spires cheat, and Taipei101 is ugly --- we know all ready, can we move on to more interesting chatter
LibertyTwo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 05:00 AM   #69
Aaron King
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 47
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by STR
Well, here's a question I can't answer. The Sears Tower was already fitted for HDTV in March 2000. How much of a difference would the 300 foot relative increase in height do for reception in range (a taller tower would broadcast farther)?

It really depends on the capacity of the antennas as well. The "problem" with HDTV is that there isn't one or two standards like here in North America and in Japan we have NTSC and in Europe we have PAL. There are over 17 different HD formats with different resolutions, frame rates, and aspect ratios. The difference in the 300 feet would be clearer for the higher level HD formats, 1080i, and 24p. I really am not sure what Sears' capabilities are at the moment.
Aaron King no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 06:31 AM   #70
ChicagoSkyline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago[Naperville-SW Suburb] + Miami[Miami Beach & South Beach]
Posts: 2,101
Likes (Received): 29

Quote:
Originally Posted by STR
Well, here's a question I can't answer. The Sears Tower was already fitted for HDTV in March 2000. How much of a difference would the 300 foot relative increase in height do for reception in range (a taller tower would broadcast farther)?
LOL, I can answer that, it will ruin the sears tower! I just can't see any more height add to the top of sears tower, it alreday looks horrandeous with those huge antenassticking out of it, ADD EXTRA 300 feet to it,lol,PLEASE! Time for some reality check! We need our very own and unique Chicago TV Tower that will stand taller then the current tallest and away from our loop(Navy Pier/Meigis Field/South Loop). STR, no offense to you or anything, but I am starting to doubt that you like Chicago at all,lol!
ChicagoSkyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 06:36 AM   #71
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

I remember a month or two ago someone said they were proposing to extend Sears' antennas to around 1800.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 06:37 AM   #72
ChicagoSkyline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago[Naperville-SW Suburb] + Miami[Miami Beach & South Beach]
Posts: 2,101
Likes (Received): 29

Oh, BTW, I am pretty sure our chicago TV Tower sure look way better then normal TV Towers, do you really into this?
ChicagoSkyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 06:40 AM   #73
ChicagoSkyline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago[Naperville-SW Suburb] + Miami[Miami Beach & South Beach]
Posts: 2,101
Likes (Received): 29

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy999
I remember a month or two ago someone said they were proposing to extend Sears' antennas to around 1800.
Well, didn't they alreday trying to max out on sears antennas few years back? I started to think that our newly proposal TV Tower is the result of alternative to the height limitation and capabilities to the sears extension! I really don't want to see sears tower handle any higher antennas,JMHO
ChicagoSkyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 07:06 AM   #74
STR
What'u smokin' Willis?
 
STR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 2,095
Likes (Received): 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron King
It really depends on the capacity of the antennas as well. The "problem" with HDTV is that there isn't one or two standards like here in North America and in Japan we have NTSC and in Europe we have PAL. There are over 17 different HD formats with different resolutions, frame rates, and aspect ratios. The difference in the 300 feet would be clearer for the higher level HD formats, 1080i, and 24p. I really am not sure what Sears' capabilities are at the moment.
It depends on the station. Every network except ABC and Fox are 1080i, with the former two stations currently broadcasting at 720p. There is no structural reason why the remain stations cannot be upgraded to 1080i.

I can point out several examples I found on the web of people living 40 miles from Sears and still having crystal clear reception. In additon, the maximum theoretical range of Sears and Hancock is ~50 miles, but I can't find any first-hand examples of anyone living out that far, probably because NO ONE lives that far.

I really can't see any justification for this thing.

For clarification:


Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy999
I remember a month or two ago someone said they were proposing to extend Sears' antennas to around 1800.
I heard nothing, it was probably an empty rumor. Whenever anything happens to that building, I'm usually the first to know.

However, it is not impossible to boost the antennae that high. It has been quoted that the main antennae are stable enough to handle masts that reach higher than the CN Tower. There just has been no economic incentive to do so, as there aren't enough people living 70-80 miles out. Building higher only allows the signals to go farther (they also allow more stations to be broadcast from one antenna, but that isn't an issue here)
__________________
There are six phases to every project 1) enthusiasm, 2) disillusionment, 3) panic, 4) search for the guilty, 5) punishment of the innocent, 6) praise for the non-participants. - Guy Tozzoli
Build your own Model Skyscrapers** New World Trade Center (2006-) 3D Model ** World Trade Center (1971-2001) 3D Model

Last edited by STR; November 1st, 2005 at 07:23 AM.
STR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 07:20 AM   #75
ChicagoSkyline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago[Naperville-SW Suburb] + Miami[Miami Beach & South Beach]
Posts: 2,101
Likes (Received): 29

Quote:
Originally Posted by STR
It depends on the station. Every network except ABC and Fox are 1080i, with the former two stations currently broadcasting at 720p. I can point out several examples I found on the web of people living 40 miles from Sears and still having crystal clear reception. In additon, the maximum theoretical range of Sears and Hancock is ~50 miles, but I can't find any first-hand examples of anyone living out that far, probably because NO ONE lives that far.

I really can't see any justification for this thing.
Hey, I am currently living that far and I just can't see how you can tell when you aren't living this far,lol! STR, how is da reception in downtown? I am planning on upgrading to HDTV soon in da suburb so I hope that it is better worth my money and heck, if Chicago TV Tower will bring better reception for the digital contents, I am all for it as long as it doesn't looks like another regular TV Tower that you can spot everywhere else, if it will to build, it has to be architecturely sound and majestic in its height, JMHO!
ChicagoSkyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 07:25 AM   #76
STR
What'u smokin' Willis?
 
STR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 2,095
Likes (Received): 104

Dude, take an english class. Your grammar sucks, I don't understand anything you're saying.

Not that what you're spouting would make much more sense even if it was in proper english. But if you're claiming that Sears doesn't broadcast out to Naperville, you're either ignorant or outright lying. People can get excellent reception out in Elgin, Aurora, Joliet, and parts of Michigan and Wisconsin. Search the web, you can find plenty of people in these areas comment on their reception, barring the idiots that don't know how to put a reciever on their house.
__________________
There are six phases to every project 1) enthusiasm, 2) disillusionment, 3) panic, 4) search for the guilty, 5) punishment of the innocent, 6) praise for the non-participants. - Guy Tozzoli
Build your own Model Skyscrapers** New World Trade Center (2006-) 3D Model ** World Trade Center (1971-2001) 3D Model

Last edited by STR; November 1st, 2005 at 07:30 AM.
STR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 07:29 AM   #77
ChicagoSkyline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago[Naperville-SW Suburb] + Miami[Miami Beach & South Beach]
Posts: 2,101
Likes (Received): 29

Oh, another reason that they came up with the extreme high TV Tower is to resolve the reception issues that its sprawling suburbs are experiencing. The suburbs still growing and extending out and with sears tower limitation with Antenna upgradings and extensions. It is only matter of time that Chicago has to come up with some sort of individual architecture that will dedicate to the massive dedication of new brocasting technologies! With the new proposed TV tower, it sures is the first step or some kind of hint that Chicago will be most like to have a TV Tower you like it or not, and it is the issue of where it is best fit and hot it should look that is the major setback, considering chicago is a pure skyscraper city thus far, but by not placing it too close to the loop and its skyline.
ChicagoSkyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 07:31 AM   #78
ChicagoSkyline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago[Naperville-SW Suburb] + Miami[Miami Beach & South Beach]
Posts: 2,101
Likes (Received): 29

Quote:
Originally Posted by STR
Dude, take an english class. Your grammar sucks, I don't understand anything you're saying.

Not that what you're spouting would make much more sense even if it was in proper english.
Dude, no offense, but you aren't better!
How about I meet you in english class and we all be happy?
ChicagoSkyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2005, 07:36 AM   #79
ChicagoSkyline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago[Naperville-SW Suburb] + Miami[Miami Beach & South Beach]
Posts: 2,101
Likes (Received): 29

Quote:
Originally Posted by STR
Dude, take an english class. Your grammar sucks, I don't understand anything you're saying.

Not that what you're spouting would make much more sense even if it was in proper english. But if you're claiming that Sears doesn't broadcast out to Naperville, you're either ignorant or outright lying. People can get excellent reception out in Elgin, Aurora, Joliet, and parts of Michigan and Wisconsin. Search the web, you can find plenty of people in these areas comment on their reception, barring the idiots that don't know how to put a reciever on their house.
LOL, I never say that we don't get any reception out here! Just that suburban territory continue to sprawl out and who knows what it would be like for the resident out that far with currently shitty reception from Sears Tower, dud, you live in chicago so you have the luxury of not aware the issue, but we in da suburb got the money and will do whatever it takes to build that TV Tower if it warrents a clearer reception and covers out furthur area! I think that it is good for Chicago, cause it means more income revenue and attractions for downtown, which part of advantage don't you see!
ChicagoSkyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2005, 09:16 PM   #80
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Renderings from the Tribune:


spyguy 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 01:20 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