CHICAGO l Eco-Bridge and observation tower. - Page 4

LucasS6 · #61 Posted **Sep 1, 2008, 2:58 PM**

The city couldn't spend that money on subsidizing things like Waterview or Park Michigan or the L?

Please don't build this shit.

Nowhereman1280 · #62 Posted **Sep 1, 2008, 3:31 PM**

^^^ Well I don't think they should be subsidizing private projects like that unless there really is a dire need to do so (for example if Waterview were to become snagged in a legal battle that could last for a decade). The El on the other hand could use the money. But if the Eco Bridge does anything near what Millennium Park did for downtown then its worth every penny. Its visionary projects like this that make people remember a city. I think we should build it with the entrance in the breakwater right in the middle and a Colossus-style Daley statue bridging the gap!

And Chicagoguy you gotta post a link to that article, its forum policy and I don't want the mods to delete your article.

BVictor1 · #63 Posted **Sep 1, 2008, 8:30 PM**

Build it...

wrab · #64 Posted **Sep 1, 2008, 9:01 PM**

^ Ditto - build it!

Chicago3rd · #65 Posted **Sep 1, 2008, 10:02 PM**

Build it...tired of hearing from the small town boys on here. I look back at all the great things Chicago built in its history and realize that if we would have had some of the folks on here saying we can't or shouldn't we would have not be in the class of city that we are.

LucasS6 · #66 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

Build it...tired of hearing from the small town boys on here. I look back at all the great things Chicago built in its history and realize that if we would have had some of the folks on here saying we can't or shouldn't we would have not be in the class of city that we are.

You mean like Dubai? It's just plain ugly. Chicago doesn't need this at all. I daresay the people that think it does have some insecurity issues. Chicago doesn't need to build ugly breakwaters to be important.

And the city can certainly subsidize building skyscrapers if they end up getting money from it. Just another investment.

Chicagoguy · #67 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LucasS6

The city couldn't spend that money on subsidizing things like Waterview or Park Michigan or the L?

Please don't build this shit.

Well first off from what I have read and heard most of the money for this project would be from private donations. And I posted the link for the article.

ih8spires · #68 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 7:43 PM**

I think it adds to both the Lakefront and City! If it can be done, I totally want it! That tower at the mouth is really impressive. I know it is just a vision but everything starts as a vision.

Nowhereman1280 · #69 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LucasS6

And the city can certainly subsidize building skyscrapers if they end up getting money from it. Just another investment.

No, if you subsidize skyscrapers you end up with a glut of space and a crash in the real estate market. Think about it, if the government gives people money to increase the demmand for skyscrapers, then people will build more skyscrapers than there is actual demmand for. Eventually the excess space will catch up with everyone and crash the market by causing rents to plummet. The "build it and they will come" mentality is wrong, look at the ESB and WTC, they didn't fill up for decades after they were finished.

However, new parks and infrastructure are not governed by typical market conditions since there is nearly unlimited demmand since they are free to use. They greatly increase land values by making places more attractive. When land values go up, so does the demmand for skyscrapers, and poof! You've created more skyscrapers!

Just look at Millennium park as an example, it cost billions to build, but they have estimated that it has created billions of dollars in development within a two block radius alone. Do you think there would be enough demmand to cause a 50x50 plot to get a proposal for a 40 floor building if Millennium park weren't there?

Investing in public works, monuments, infrastructure, and parks is the best thing a government can improve its economy, and guess what, it has the added benefit of improving everyone elses lives!

Diversey a Go Go · #70 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 8:05 PM**

Build it !!!

intrepidDesign · #71 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

Build it...tired of hearing from the small town boys on here. I look back at all the great things Chicago built in its history and realize that if we would have had some of the folks on here saying we can't or shouldn't we would have not be in the class of city that we are.

Small town boys hm? I can think of a lot of different places that the city of Chicago could use the money it would cost to build this. I guess small town boys dont get the value of big city boy fiscal irresponsibility...

Chicago3rd · #72 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 8:41 PM**

Naw. Being in a big city means we can spend money in many many things...including culture and parks.

intrepidDesign · #73 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 9:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

Naw. Being in a big city means we can spend money in many many things...including culture and parks.

Agreed, but the part you're glossing over is that with all that money (which is kinda a joke when you look at Chicago's financial status) comes the burden of using it responsibly. Culture, parks, hell yes. At the expense of our transit system and highways/bridges crumbling, under funded education, hell no. If Chicago had money to burn, which it doesnt, then go for it. Build the Eco Bridge. Until then, there are far more critical projects that desperately need funding instead. Ill admit, at first I didnt like this project, but its grown on me, and i think would be a great addition to the city but not until the budget can be balanced.

Now if its privately funded, thats a different story.

Tom In Chicago · #74 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LucasS6

You mean like Dubai?

Please stop making comments regarding Dubai. . . we've already heard those silly comparisons. . .

. . .

BVictor1 · #75 Posted **Sep 2, 2008, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

Small town boys hm? I can think of a lot of different places that the city of Chicago could use the money it would cost to build this. I guess small town boys dont get the value of big city boy fiscal irresponsibility...

Sure other parts of the city could use the money, hell! I COULD USE THE MONEY, but I still say BUILD IT!!!.

Tom Servo · #76 Posted **Sep 3, 2008, 4:52 AM**

about the strange obelisk tower or sorts out there///
how sick would a MASIVE (think big: 3,000 feet or more!) monolithic sculpture, that also served as a observation deck, be out there staring back at us?

...i'm think jean nouvel on a grand scale

cbotnyse · #77 Posted **Sep 3, 2008, 11:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Sure other parts of the city could use the money, hell! I COULD USE THE MONEY, but I still say BUILD IT!!!.

maybe this spend, spend, spend mentality is what got us our near record deficit in Chicago.

If we have the money, built it. If not, don't.

Nowhereman1280 · #78 Posted **Sep 3, 2008, 3:59 PM**

^^^ No what has gotten us this record deficit in Chicago is heaps of overly generous legacy costs, union wages, and general bueraucratic waste. Name one excessive public project that Chicago has spent its own money except for Millennium park.

cbotnyse · #79 Posted **Sep 3, 2008, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ No what has gotten us this record deficit in Chicago is heaps of overly generous legacy costs, union wages, and general bueraucratic waste. Name one excessive public project that Chicago has spent its own money except for Millennium park.

I didn't say it was because of specific public project. I'd equate the spend, spend spend (and tax) mentality and "bueraucratic waste", as you say. I'd like to get rid of that first before we spend a billion dollars we don't have on this project.

munda · #80 Posted **Sep 3, 2008, 9:17 PM**

if this is built
then we should have the upper hand in the 2016 games...
just build it already!!!!!!!!
i wonder how tall would the observation deck is going to be??? it shouldnt be more then 1000FT...