HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


1000M in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #581  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2017, 4:40 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 886
^ I agree, the whole thing looks like kind of a mess... the close up rendering of the base looks awkward as hell... where is Jahn showing his later career skill with designing tight, minimal elevations?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #582  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2017, 4:45 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
this project seems to have jumped the shark ever since the developer retardedly decided to abandon the stacked cantilevered boxes.

idiot.



if there's a way to elegantly handle the big angled cantilever on the south side of this beast, jahn's team sure as hell hasn't found it yet.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Feb 10, 2017 at 5:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #583  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2017, 5:45 PM
Rocket49 Rocket49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 163
If you ignore the first 20 or so floors I think the new design is attractive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #584  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2017, 2:43 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
I think this is solid for the neighbourhood. It's not out of place, and it isn't overly in your face. Elegant, yet mild. In other words, its not like something you'd see out of an architect like Ingels or the great Zaha Hadid (RIP) which is radical and overly stands out. Doesn't disrupt the beauty of Millennium/Grant Park and intermingles well with the proxy towers along the park edge. Mr.Jahn did a nice job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #585  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2017, 4:56 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Apparently there's an ad for 1000M in Chicago Magazine.

I've heard that we could be getting commercials sometime next month.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #586  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2017, 7:35 PM
Daprato Rigali's Avatar
Daprato Rigali Daprato Rigali is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I think this is solid for the neighbourhood. It's not out of place, and it isn't overly in your face. Elegant, yet mild. In other words, its not like something you'd see out of an architect like Ingels or the great Zaha Hadid (RIP) which is radical and overly stands out. Doesn't disrupt the beauty of Millennium/Grant Park and intermingles well with the proxy towers along the park edge. Mr.Jahn did a nice job.
i like your positivity. I agree. 1000M will be solid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #587  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 2:50 AM
sloop.chi sloop.chi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 73
If the city and park district would put a cohesive plan for Grant Park to be more suitable for the neighborhood, akin in Lincoln Park or Jackson Park, this building would have no problem selling out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #588  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 4:26 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Huh? What use do people in this kind of a building have for a public park, except to look down at it from their windows hundreds of feet above, and as a place for their dog to poop? What kind of "cohesive plan" do you think closes the deal on a $600/ft condo?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #589  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 4:54 PM
simon07 simon07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Huh? What use do people in this kind of a building have for a public park, except to look down at it from their windows hundreds of feet above, and as a place for their dog to poop? What kind of "cohesive plan" do you think closes the deal on a $600/ft condo?
I would think something along the lines of covering up the ugly ass train tracks and service road that cuts through the entire park and is located right in front of your building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #590  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 4:57 PM
XIII's Avatar
XIII XIII is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Huh? What use do people in this kind of a building have for a public park, except to look down at it from their windows hundreds of feet above, and as a place for their dog to poop? What kind of "cohesive plan" do you think closes the deal on a $600/ft condo?
And god forbid that anyone may try to spoil that park with a museum or something. Then its lawsuit time!
__________________
"Chicago would do big things. Any fool could see that." - Ernest Hemingway
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #591  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 5:19 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,127
The way it works is, first the buildings are built, then more property taxes come in, then the money is available to cover the tracks. (If it doesn't get spent on something else)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #592  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 5:21 PM
ChiHi's Avatar
ChiHi ChiHi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 172
Am I the only one that thinks this would look better if it was pushed to the back of the lot and something more in line with the neighboring buildings was fronted on Michigan? Similar to the Legacy. To me skylines look better when they have depth to them and placing the tallest buildings the front of the skyline just blocks the view of the rest of the buildings. And by view blocking, I mean from a pedestrian viewing perspective, not as a resident view blocking of the buildings. Kind of thought the same thing about the Spire also.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #593  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 6:20 PM
sloop.chi sloop.chi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Huh? What use do people in this kind of a building have for a public park, except to look down at it from their windows hundreds of feet above, and as a place for their dog to poop? What kind of "cohesive plan" do you think closes the deal on a $600/ft condo?
Ask the developers around Central Park and Lincoln Park. Big selling point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #594  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 6:41 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Huh? What use do people in this kind of a building have for a public park, except to look down at it from their windows hundreds of feet above, and as a place for their dog to poop? What kind of "cohesive plan" do you think closes the deal on a $600/ft condo?
Are you serious? Condos on a nice park are the city's equivalent of beachfront real estate. In every city. Parks are coveted, for views and other reasons, and come with a premium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #595  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 7:25 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
^Correct. To look at, or to walk the dog in, exactly as I said above. But Grant Park already exists.

sloop.chi is suggesting that some change in the programming or planning of Grant Park—making it "akin [to] Lincoln Park or Jackson Park"—would cause it to attract buyers who currently don't see it as acceptable. I'm trying to figure out what he means.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #596  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 8:41 PM
sloop.chi sloop.chi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
^Correct. To look at, or to walk the dog in, exactly as I said above. But Grant Park already exists.

sloop.chi is suggesting that some change in the programming or planning of Grant Park—making it "akin [to] Lincoln Park or Jackson Park"—would cause it to attract buyers who currently don't see it as acceptable. I'm trying to figure out what he means.
I live near Grant Park with a current view. I have long been critical of the park for its lack of cohesiveness. I do know GP was not developed akin to Central Park or Lincoln Park, but I do feel that the neighborhoods around GP have changed while GP has not. It is broken up by large swaths of roads, especially Columbus, and there is a lack of ability to stroll, sit, or enjoy GP in similar fashion as CP or LP.

If I had to put a percentage of the park actually used, outside of getting to and from Museum Campus, during the year it probably would put it at a 90% under utilized park.

If the city invested in road diets to the roads cutting through, a landscaping plan that allows for more nature aspects, a pedestrian efficient pathways, and more neighborhood style amenities (playground); then the park would be overall much more attractive to look at from above, used by more people, and in turn increase the real estate values of all the buildings that have been built and will be built in the future.

Apologies for getting off the topic of 1000 S Michigan itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #597  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 10:36 PM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by sloop.chi View Post
I live near Grant Park with a current view. I have long been critical of the park for its lack of cohesiveness. I do know GP was not developed akin to Central Park or Lincoln Park, but I do feel that the neighborhoods around GP have changed while GP has not. It is broken up by large swaths of roads, especially Columbus, and there is a lack of ability to stroll, sit, or enjoy GP in similar fashion as CP or LP.

If I had to put a percentage of the park actually used, outside of getting to and from Museum Campus, during the year it probably would put it at a 90% under utilized park.

If the city invested in road diets to the roads cutting through, a landscaping plan that allows for more nature aspects, a pedestrian efficient pathways, and more neighborhood style amenities (playground); then the park would be overall much more attractive to look at from above, used by more people, and in turn increase the real estate values of all the buildings that have been built and will be built in the future.

Apologies for getting off the topic of 1000 S Michigan itself.
Absolutely 100% agree. I visited GP recently and I couldn't believe how unfriendly it is compared to LP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #598  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2017, 11:28 PM
KWILLSKYLINE's Avatar
KWILLSKYLINE KWILLSKYLINE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
Maybe we could talk Ken Griffin into fronting the money to cover the train tracks. He's been in an over-generous mood latley. They just got to rename that area of the park the Griffin Parkway. Haha.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #599  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2017, 10:54 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sloop.chi View Post
a landscaping plan that allows for more nature aspects, a pedestrian efficient pathways, and more neighborhood style amenities (playground); then the park would be overall much more attractive to look at from above, used by more people, and in turn increase the real estate values of all the buildings that have been built and will be built in the future.
I suppose no one would object to a playground for cute little kids, but young families are very seldom the market for these buildings. The empty-nesters who dominate the highrises fronting Grant Park are working hard to prevent a small installation of "fitness equipment" in the park because—after all—everyone already belongs to a gym or has a workout room in their condo building. They don't like the skate park, and want Lollapalooza, the Chicago Marathon, and all the fun runs gone from Grant Park.

In other words, they don't want a park. They want a lawn to look down at. And you kids better keep off of it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #600  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2017, 5:21 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I suppose no one would object to a playground for cute little kids, but young families are very seldom the market for these buildings. The empty-nesters who dominate the highrises fronting Grant Park are working hard to prevent a small installation of "fitness equipment" in the park because—after all—everyone already belongs to a gym or has a workout room in their condo building. They don't like the skate park, and want Lollapalooza, the Chicago Marathon, and all the fun runs gone from Grant Park.

In other words, they don't want a park. They want a lawn to look down at. And you kids better keep off of it!
The probably don't want shadows in the park either
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:25 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.