CHICAGO | Park Michigan | 866 FT / 264 M | 80 FLOORS | 2008 | NEVER BUILT

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by bnk

From SSC today

Notice the great work from the origional poster, and look to the far right projected tall building in the south loop.

Park Michigan.


This one is needed in this location stat. It would compliment OMP...ect...




Imagine.

And then remember that this was a no go zone for anyone going to and fro from Bears games. 20 years ago the south end of the downtown was the Blackhawk Hotel and anyone that took on foot south was on their own.

Nice to see things change for the better.

This rendering shows just how crucial Park Michigan is. It will very much be needed to balance the skyline, as well as to provide a bridge between the CS Roosevelt Towers and the Loop...

[Dr. Taco]

what rendering...

[scalziand]

The one in post #514.

[Busy Bee]

God I hope so!

[Northwest]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

God I hope so!

Park Michigan. Yes it really would look fantastic right there. Hopefully it could be the start of more good things to come. This part of the skyline really needs it! Talk about unobstructed views!

[Haworthia]

If you look at a lot of the postcard type shots of the Chicago skyline, you don't see the growing southloop part included. I think having Park Michigan like above and already having OMP making such an impression would really tie the whole strip/park wall together. It would make for a new postcard view of the city. I hope it happens.

[F1 Tommy]

This would really fill the gap!!I took this shot out on Lake Michigan.

[a chicago bearcat]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

This would really fill the gap!!I took this shot out on Lake Michigan.

this and the red massing really show visually the rumored reason park michigan has been delayed.

it's failed wind studies, apparently, this proportion this far from any other towers might not be physically possible, even with the largest Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) to date

the whole "it's too big for this neighborhood" complaint, might have some traction, but more in a structural, rather than opinionated manner

it just reminds us that the greatest load acting on any of these new towers we see is the horizontal, and not the vertical loads

[jboy560]

if it's too 'by itself', then i don't see how sears or hancock could've been built. i mean, they were, and the sears still kind of is by itself. is there something different about where park michigan's going to be?

[honte]

^ Not much different in location, but they don't have Fazlur Kahn working for them either...

In any case, I'm finding this hard to believe... but if it's a problem, it's time to get more creative structurally.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat

it's failed wind studies, apparently, this proportion this far from any other towers might not be physically possible, even with the largest Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) to date.

I agree, this doesn't make any sense. Neighboring towers wouldn't shield the building from the wind, not to a degree to make it structurally possible only in certain locations.

Is there any more detail on what "failed wind studies" means? This isn't any thinner than Waterview or Park Tower, so the structure can't be impossible.

Maybe they over value engineered the structure and got unacceptable sway at the top?
If they have to beef things up, that costs more and makes it less likely this will get financing. Crap.

[Loopy]

I had heard that the building was bulked up (made fatter) somewhat after the wind tunnel studies. But, I had also heard that all further design and engineering work was halted due to lack of funds from the developer.

This developer has been unable to get construction financing on "Park 1000" which is over 75% sold, so it doesn't surprise me that "Park Michigan" is in limbo as well.

[wrab]

It'd be weird if the project got all the way to presales w/o a completed study. Perhaps this is a just a good excuse to pull the plug on the project?

[GregBear24]

This developer is pathetic. They have everything including great location, spectacular views, michigan ave address, across from grant park, close to cta roosevelt and lots of new retail (esp after rc is built). If this falls through I won't be too disappointed because it's been obvious that the developer is incompetent with not being able to make park1000 happen with those sales. However, I think another developer could step in and say, "It's ok, baby, we'll take over from here."

[Mojava]

At this point the developer/owner is probably going to wait out the current housing market slump and credit crisis. They are either smart or lucky that they havent moved forward with further design and marketing dollars as I'm sure they wouldnt have sold too well in this current market. Just take a look at Canyon Ranch and Peshtigo. Terrible sales on the more recent projects that started selling.

[GregBear24]

Peshtigo is a bizarre building altogether, and canyon ranch is awfully expensive for what you get and where it is. I know the location is still pretty good, but wouldn't you rather have the views of park michigan for the same price- or even a little less?

[a chicago bearcat]

Originally Posted by jboy560

if it's too 'by itself', then i don't see how sears or hancock could've been built. i mean, they were, and the sears still kind of is by itself. is there something different about where park michigan's going to be?

it really is just a matter of sears and hancock using innovative structural systems to deal with the extra wind loads

sears is "bundled tube", with the setbacks so that the tower is dealing with less surface area which "captures" the wind loads

hancock is a singular tube, with extrenal bracing and tapering towards the top

park michigan doesn't taper (literally), it has minor setbacks, and no innovative bracing that I know of.

but yes, wind loads are not as difficult to deal with when there are surrounding buildings, much like standing in a group of people
the wind still will hit you, but the direction of the wind, is less consistent.

There is the idea of buildings "tunneling" wind, making the wind stronger, but usually that takes special planning to intensify the winds that much

I'm curious if they are bulking up the tower square footage, or structural
because if it is only a bulking up in adding more structure, that could mean they are not increasing their FAR in the process, and they wouldn't need to shorten the tower

[CenIL_LA]

I would have thought that this building would have been reinforced concrete unlike sears or hancock which would make it less annoying. It would be awful to build such a thin tower of steal frame.

[Pandemonious]

^There is pretty much zero chance this building will be steel. Not only is steel expensive right now, but with the slenderness ratio of this tower it would likely sway too much. Concrete allows you to build thinner than steel. I'm not sure I buy that it is structural issues that are holding this tower up. It is tall and thin, but not THAT tall and thin. I would assume this tower will be concrete, and will likely have just a bunch of shear walls (along with the core) to resist lateral loads. It really isn't very complex...

Are there any elevations available of this tower? We could then see how slender the narrow face of the tower is.

Winds are also actually more unpredictable around other tall towers due to vortex shedding. Sometimes other tall buildings nearby can help shield other towers from prevailing winds, but certainly isn't required in order to build a tall thin tower...

[honte]

Originally Posted by Pandemonious

Winds are also actually more unpredictable around other tall towers due to vortex shedding. Sometimes other tall buildings nearby can help shield other towers from prevailing winds, but certainly isn't required in order to build a tall thin tower...

Yes, exactly.