HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Park Michigan in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 7:18 PM
kazpmk kazpmk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 719
That new rendering looks great. It looks similar to Waterview Tower.
__________________
America's Tallest UC
Nordstrom Tower, NY 1,550 ft UC 111 West 57 St, NY 1,431 ft UC
One Vanderbilt, NY 1,401 ft UC 30 Hudson Yards, NY 1,296 ft UC
Vista Tower, Chicago 1,1199 ft UC 45 Broad St, New York 1,115 ft UC
9 DeKalb Ave, New York 1,066 ft 53W53, New York 1,050 ft UC
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 7:23 PM
headcase's Avatar
headcase headcase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: East Village, Chicago
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanthony
It was good to meet many of you last Thursday. I live across the street from 830 on wabash, and will definitely be at this meeting to show community support for the project. I'll also email Alderman Haithcock. We need more ground level retail/restaurants in the area. The taller the better on this one.

Good to see you online. I fully attend on being there, and will try and catch up with you.

Loopy, are you going to be in attendance? I would love to put a face with the name.
__________________
He was constantly reminded of how startlingly different a place the world was when viewed from a point only three feet to the left.
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 7:34 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,794
With the setbacks and sloped roof, the top almost looks like a head and shoulders, a statue standing guard facing the lake.

I like it, looks good.
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 7:38 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,377
^ sloped roof? i don't see a sloped roof in the rendering.
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 8:06 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,794
Look at the pinacle on the east (Mich Ave) side and look at how the roof line slopes down towards the west. The west side of all setbacks is noticeably shorter than the east side.
By counting floors it looks to be a 6-7 story difference between west and east sides.

That seems too much to be an artifact of the rendering angle.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 8:09 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,377
^ i was reading that as merely perspective distortion due to the rendering angle. it sure looks to me like it's got a flat roof.
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 8:11 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 8:13 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38
Look at the pinacle on the east (Mich Ave) side and look at how the roof line slopes down towards the west. The west side of all setbacks is noticeably shorter than the east side.
By counting floors it looks to be a 6-7 story difference between west and east sides.

That seems too much to be an artifact of the rendering angle.
I think it's just the angle that the building is seen from. It seems more exaggerated than it would be in real life. I don't believe it's a sloped rooftop.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 8:20 PM
Fabb's Avatar
Fabb Fabb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 9,018
It's a beautiful project. Not very innovative, but a classic.
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 8:38 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38
With the setbacks and sloped roof, the top almost looks like a head and shoulders, a statue standing guard facing the lake.
That's what I always thought about the Sears Tower, coming in from the West Side. I'm sure I'm not alone. "City of Big Shoulders," you get my drift.

Anyway, you're right that there is some "local vocabulary" in use and a dialog starting here, and I love that stuff. The Sears Tower and Bankers' Building always did that for me in the same way, when seen from Federal Plaza.
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2006, 10:29 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
Just sent an e-mail message... I hope everyone does the same.
^ I also sent an email in support.
__________________
Eat less
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 2:43 AM
Norsider Norsider is offline
Vox Clamantis In Deserto
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 316
This might be a bit OT, but since it involves south loop development, hopefully it's worth a comment:

I feel like Chicago needs to demo the circular on ramps for the Ike east of the river. Since there is a stop light about 200 meters from where these ramps are, it makes absolutely no sense why valuable real estate should be wasted on infrastructure for high speed merging . There is no reason why anyone getting on or off the IKE couldn't just turn on/from Clark St. at the stoplight. Like a fart at the dinner table, those stupid access ramps stop the flow of the city dead in its tracks. I am almost willing to guarantee that if you built up those blocks, the "Riverside Whatever" development to the south would become significantly more valuable.
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 3:55 AM
HK Chicago HK Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
^ the interior of the ramps are official city parks, benches and all... so the space does get some use.

dang, I waited years to make this lame 1000th post.
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 4:40 AM
emoney emoney is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 43
I know that chicago's planning peeps are going thin to win or whatever, but looking at the diagram drawing it looks too thin I like buildings with at least a little girth. I guess I will have to wait for a more detailed rendering
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 3:39 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,449
I just received this email. This is why we have to show our numbers and support this project.


From: South Loop
To: southloopneighbors@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:03 AM
Subject: 830 S. Michigan Ave. Meeting - Jones Prep - 6/29


Renaissant Development is proposing an 80-story building, 850 feet
tall, at 830 South Michigan. A public meeting will be held on this
Thursday night at Jones HS, beginning at 6.30. We encourage all South
Loop Neighbors to attend and make their concerns known, particularly
to Alderman Haithcock.

This new building would straddle the alley, preserving only the front
40 feet of the old YWCA building fronting Michigan. It would contain
376 condos and 34,000 square feet of retail space, plus parking for
both.

South Loop Neighbors and the Department of Planning and Development
worked for four years on the Near South Community Plan, adopted in
2004 with the alderman's support, to guide development in our
neighborhood. Both that plan and the draft guidelines for the
Michigan Avenue landmark district would only allow a building 425
feet tall--HALF the height this developer proposes!

Our alderman is very responsive to objections from the community, but
she must hear them loud and clear at this meeting! I encourage you
to ask why our two-year-old plan is being ignored so completely in
discussions of this development.


If you cannot attend this meeting, PLEASE send an email or letter to
Alderman Haithcock expressing your concerns.
__________________
titanic1

Last edited by BVictor1; Jun 28, 2006 at 3:52 PM.
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 4:03 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1
I encourage you
to ask why our two-year-old plan is being ignored so completely in
discussions of this development.
Because it's completely arbitrary, selfish, narrow-minded, and better suited for downtown Boise?

What really pisses me off is that the only real issue (namely, why is only 40 feet of the YWCA being preserved?) is going to be completely abused by these people to serve their own misguided and greedy interests.
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 4:45 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
Because it's completely arbitrary, selfish, narrow-minded, and better suited for downtown Boise?

What really pisses me off is that the only real issue (namely, why is only 40 feet of the YWCA being preserved?) is going to be completely abused by these people to serve their own misguided and greedy interests.
Not sure about the structure of the YMCA building, but if the facade gets the total treatment, that'd be great. The building is a boarded-up bombed-out mess now, so anything towards preserving part of me seems like a step in the right direction.

Also, a natural counter argument is the same as Carley's with Fordham Spire....would you rather a short chunky building with the same number of units blocking more light, or have a tall skinny landmark tower?
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 4:49 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by emoney
I know that chicago's planning peeps are going thin to win or whatever, but looking at the diagram drawing it looks too thin I like buildings with at least a little girth. I guess I will have to wait for a more detailed rendering
Well, they're saying "thin is in" down at City Hall. Like it or not, this going to be the look of most of our future supertalls.

The idea is, of course, that tall thin buildings are less visually disruptive at the street level than shorter, more squat buildings. They are also touted as being less obstructive when viewed from the upper floors of nearby tall buildings.

I have two concerns about "tall and thin":

One is that it means that we will likely be seeing more pedestal buildings. "Tall and thin" works wonders for occupied space, but parking still requires a more spacious plan. We may see a lot of beanstalks growing out of cowpies in the future. I hope that there will be enough tall towers with fully integrated designs to offset this.

Secondly, I am worried that it will also mean less streetwall construction. Developers will be allowed to build taller if they set the building back from the property lines. The resulting plazas will be welcome to the homeless and skateboard communities, but will do nothing to enhance or focus life on the sidewalks, the cultural arteries of our city.
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 4:59 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
What really pisses me off is that the only real issue (namely, why is only 40 feet of the YWCA being preserved?) is going to be completely abused by these people to serve their own misguided and greedy interests.
It was a residence hotel, a flophouse, if you will. There is nothing inside to preserve except a bunch of 6X10 sleeping chambers.
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2006, 5:26 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1
I just received this email. This is why we have to show our numbers and support this project.

Renaissant Development is proposing an 80-story building, 850 feet
tall, at 830 South Michigan. A public meeting will be held on this
Thursday night at Jones HS, beginning at 6.30. We encourage all South
Loop Neighbors to attend and make their concerns known, particularly
to Alderman Haithcock.

This new building would straddle the alley, preserving only the front
40 feet of the old YWCA building fronting Michigan.
It would contain
376 condos and 34,000 square feet of retail space, plus parking for
both.

South Loop Neighbors and the Department of Planning and Development
worked for four years on the Near South Community Plan, adopted in
2004 with the alderman's support, to guide development in our
neighborhood. Both that plan and the draft guidelines for the
Michigan Avenue landmark district would only allow a building 425
feet tall--HALF the height this developer proposes!

Our alderman is very responsive to objections from the community, but
she must hear them loud and clear at this meeting! I encourage you
to ask why our two-year-old plan is being ignored so completely in
discussions of this development.
Again we have NIMBY's posing as preservationists.

There is NOTHING in the ass end of this building worth saving except a bunch of ratty sleeping chambers.

     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:05 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.