HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Park Michigan in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2006, 4:23 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by headcase
I agree that Ziv was spouting the same nonsense that he, apparently, always says, but I disagree with yelling at him. He has every right to speak, and we have a chance to rebut him. It just doesn't portray a professional image.
Agreed. But the hollering started when he diverted his oratory from public comment on Park Michigan to his pet Polk Street issues.
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2006, 4:45 PM
museumparktom museumparktom is offline
Chicagotom SSC
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 438
Chicagotom on SSC

Quote:
Originally Posted by headcase
I agree that Ziv was spouting the same nonsense that he, apparently, always says, but I disagree with yelling at him. He has every right to speak, and we have a chance to rebut him. It just doesn't portray a professional image.


Well I'll take the heat. I didn't come to hear his Polk Street Canyon BS. I kept quite as he drooled on about his interpretations of the Near South Loop Development Plan and how the 830 building would be out of compliance.

Your right he has every right to speak. But he had no right to continue when he attempted to highjack a public forum to promote his opposition to Terrapin's Burnham Point Tower - I had enough.
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2006, 4:56 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by museumparktom
Quote:
Originally Posted by headcase
I agree that Ziv was spouting the same nonsense that he, apparently, always says, but I disagree with yelling at him. He has every right to speak, and we have a chance to rebut him. It just doesn't portray a professional image.


Well I'll take the heat. I didn't come to hear his Polk Street Canyon BS. I kept quite as he drooled on about his interpretations of the Near South Loop Development Plan and how the 830 building would be out of compliance.

Your right he has every right to speak. But he had no right to continue when he attempted to highjack a public forum to promote his opposition to Terrapin's Burnham Point Tower - I had enough.
Opposing 830 because it doesnt comply with the Near South Plan is a weasally position to take since it doesn't deal with the actual merits of the project. I don't get why some people (Ziv and a friend of his from SLN whose name I'll withold because he doesnt crave the limelight like Senor Psychopath from Folio Square) are so opposed to any skyscraper construction.

But yeah, I don't think we should shout him down (maybe at most some condescending snickering so he starts sweating and stammering), even when he tries to hijack the meeting. 1, the hijack attempt is obvious and destroys his own credibility and 2, the people running the event will be in the best position of authority to deal with nonsense arguments. The best thing is to simply prepare a sensible rebutttal, wait your turn, stand up and let loose with your support of the project and destruction or criticism of his arguments.

In my experience with heated meetings, the people who are undecided on the issue will almost always side with the people who present a calm, cool, professional, and knowledgeable opinion, rather than a lunatic rambler like Ziv.

I did like the old guy who stood up and asked why the developer was bothering to spend all that money to save the facade of that "ugly old building"....and of course he has a point, i mean look at the Johnson Publishing building to the north, its not like every building on the Mich Ave streetwall is a beautiful victorian structure from pre-1900...and even if they are, that doesnt necessraily mean its worth saving. But such is the argument of preservationists: old = good, regardless of the fact that somethign built now will someday be old and quaint as well...

Last edited by VivaLFuego; Jun 30, 2006 at 5:02 PM.
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2006, 6:39 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
I did like the old guy who stood up and asked why the developer was bothering to spend all that money to save the facade of that "ugly old building"....and of course he has a point, i mean look at the Johnson Publishing building to the north, its not like every building on the Mich Ave streetwall is a beautiful victorian structure from pre-1900...and even if they are, that doesnt necessraily mean its worth saving. But such is the argument of preservationists: old = good, regardless of the fact that somethign built now will someday be old and quaint as well...
That is bologna. The Michigan Avenue Streetwall is documented thoroughly for its landmark worthiness. There is very scholarly research done about why each and every building should be saved. Most proposals in Chicago for landmarking presented to the Commission never see the light of day.

Old does not necessarily equal good in Chicago. In fact, the pendulum swings FAR to the demolition side here. Trust me - I worked in this field for several years. Just drive through Lincoln Park, Lakeview, East Village, Humbolt Park, Edgewater, virtually anywhere in fact, and you will see this fact for yourself. Compare Chicago to less architecturally-significant cities, and it's a sad thing.

Concerning the modern buildings such as the Johnson Publishing building, they were all EXCLUDED from the landmark designation, so the owners can do as they see fit with them. (Actually, this has me worried, as the Essex Inn and the Borg-Warner building are quite excellent and probably will be demolition targets in the near future. No, I don't care how many people detest them, and I'm not saying that just because they're old - )

_________________

On an brighter note, I think this tower is Pappageorge's finest high-rise moment to date. The color rendering really has me sold. I think the balconies are excellently handled, the curtainwall looks nice, and the prominent beacon on top looks great. Also, I really dig the crossing over the alley. It reminds me of the Field's Store or the Carson store downtown, but also reminds me of the old loft buildings that - ahem - used to fill the streets of the South Loop, with their covered walkways zig-zagging across the alleyways.
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2006, 7:41 PM
museumparktom museumparktom is offline
Chicagotom SSC
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 438
9th and Wabash - Ground floor grocery store with condos above. I believe this was 11 floors.
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2006, 8:03 PM
SevenSevenThree's Avatar
SevenSevenThree SevenSevenThree is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by museumparktom
9th and Wabash - Ground floor grocery store with condos above. I believe this was 11 floors.
Ah thanks. I was just about to ask if anyone has seen the Wabash side of the project. Nice.
__________________
Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar," 1897
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2006, 9:26 PM
SevenSevenThree's Avatar
SevenSevenThree SevenSevenThree is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 400
Hey Chicagotom, Im transfering your image of the Wabash side that spyguy cleaned up over here.

__________________
Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar," 1897
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2006, 11:08 PM
HK Chicago HK Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Quote:
On an brighter note, I think this tower is Pappageorge's finest high-rise moment to date. The color rendering really has me sold. I think the balconies are excellently handled, the curtainwall looks nice, and the prominent beacon on top looks great.
This is their best to date, but along with 1MP they haven't sold me that they understand what a crown is. It's the top of the tower, not a hat. And definitely not a stainless steel hat. Lighting this thing up will be as gaudy as 311.

I'm only particular because I really like the tower and I think they can devise a better way to wrap the mechanicals up there.
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2006, 11:51 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 6,409
Nice updates gentlemen. . . you've done good work. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 1:02 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by HK Chicago
This is their best to date, but along with 1MP they haven't sold me that they understand what a crown is. It's the top of the tower, not a hat. And definitely not a stainless steel hat. Lighting this thing up will be as gaudy as 311.

I'm only particular because I really like the tower and I think they can devise a better way to wrap the mechanicals up there.
Yeah, I will agree with you, about 1MP especially. That top makes no sense to me - a totally horizontal, contradictory inner element "emerging" (that's the most polite way I can describe it) from the tower.

But I think the beacon on this tower looks a lot better. If it were well handled, really nicely detailed, and integrated into the design, I don't really mind its grotesque size. This tower's got to end with a flourish. I don't think the current design approaches gaudiness.

I'm a fan of 311 S. too, believe it or not, although I'd never recommend doing another one. I think a little "bling" on the skyline isn't at all a bad thing. Turning Chicago into Vegas certainly isn't what I'm after, but these things increase the excitement of the "big downtown," and they also act as a foil to the brute, brooding force of the giant major buildings. People are attracted to them like moths to a bug light.

Now, on the other hand, the base on Wabash I think could be more elegant... I've never liked those round concrete columns P/H does.
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 5:19 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212

This will finally beat Trump World Tower as the tallest all-residential building in the US -- and even hit world's 2nd-tallest -- if the numbers on the title of this thread are correct and the numbers on Emporis of the other buildings are correct. Chicago would reclaim the longtime US title lost by Lake Point Tower about 5 years ago to TWT!


However, this will not happen if Emporis's figure for this building, 850', is correct. How reliable is the 866' figure in the title of this thread?
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 5:43 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467

This will finally beat Trump World Tower as the tallest all-residential building in the US -- and even hit world's 2nd-tallest -- if the numbers on the title of this thread are correct and the numbers on Emporis of the other buildings are correct. Chicago would reclaim the longtime US title lost by Lake Point Tower about 5 years ago to TWT!


However, this will not happen if Emporis's figure for this building, 850', is correct. How reliable is the 866' figure in the title of this thread?
It was the number presented to us by the developers at thursdays presentation. We won't know exact numbers until we see the blue prints or one of us speaks with the architects.
__________________
titanic1
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 4:34 PM
Marvel 33's Avatar
Marvel 33 Marvel 33 is offline
"The World is my Oyster"
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 943
I have an email from the architects confirming the height at 866ft. I also published a story about the building on NewcitySkyline.com with all the renderings they sent me.

Here is the link:

http://www.newcityskyline.com/ParkMichigan.html
__________________
CHICAGO
Also known as:
The Windy City - The City of Broad Shoulders - Chitown - City in a Garden - Gem of the Prairie - Second City - The "I Will" City
_________________________________
Architectural News At: NewcitySkyline.com
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 4:48 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,880
Nice "exclusive" info you've got there.
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 5:02 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
That is bologna. The Michigan Avenue Streetwall is documented thoroughly for its landmark worthiness. There is very scholarly research done about why each and every building should be saved. Most proposals in Chicago for landmarking presented to the Commission never see the light of day.

Old does not necessarily equal good in Chicago. In fact, the pendulum swings FAR to the demolition side here. Trust me - I worked in this field for several years. Just drive through Lincoln Park, Lakeview, East Village, Humbolt Park, Edgewater, virtually anywhere in fact, and you will see this fact for yourself. Compare Chicago to less architecturally-significant cities, and it's a sad thing.

Concerning the modern buildings such as the Johnson Publishing building, they were all EXCLUDED from the landmark designation, so the owners can do as they see fit with them. (Actually, this has me worried, as the Essex Inn and the Borg-Warner building are quite excellent and probably will be demolition targets in the near future. No, I don't care how many people detest them, and I'm not saying that just because they're old - )

_________________

On an brighter note, I think this tower is Pappageorge's finest high-rise moment to date. The color rendering really has me sold. I think the balconies are excellently handled, the curtainwall looks nice, and the prominent beacon on top looks great. Also, I really dig the crossing over the alley. It reminds me of the Field's Store or the Carson store downtown, but also reminds me of the old loft buildings that - ahem - used to fill the streets of the South Loop, with their covered walkways zig-zagging across the alleyways.
I agree with you on the Essex....and I think the restored YWCA facade will indeed be nice, but I also don't believe they should have been required by law to do it. And this nonsense about enforcing historic sightlines from the public way causing P/G to design those awkward stepping-back terraces? Whatever.

I mean, we're not talkign about tearing down the Auditorium Building, the Sante Fe, etc...the YWCA, for various reasons, is falling apart and a total mess.
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 5:20 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
but also reminds me of the old loft buildings that - ahem - used to fill the streets of the South Loop, with their covered walkways zig-zagging across the alleyways.
When were those bulldozed for all those surface parking lots?
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 5:40 PM
rds989's Avatar
rds989 rds989 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 374
The renderings Marvel 33 has on NewCitySkyline are better resolution than what we have here. Any chance of bringing those over?
__________________
rds989
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 6:01 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
And this nonsense about enforcing historic sightlines from the public way causing P/G to design those awkward stepping-back terraces? Whatever
Hmmm... In a Landmark Designation, you are allowed to make "additions" but not ones that are visible from the public right of way. This prevents someone in a District, typically comprised of smaller buildings, from buying a smaller historic building (a worker's cottage, for example) and then building a gigantic 3-flat behind it, essentially overwhelming the building.

I don't think it's a bad idea, and it's a nice compromise, considering the Landmark Ordinance is so loose here - essentially, you can do just about whatever you please, in any manner you please, so long as it doesn't affect the street appearance.

Consider the Legacy project. I think this is a great example of how saving the sightlines will work perfectly. Because Wabash is so congested and it's hard to get a look from a distance, those original "buildings" (facades now) will still have a chance to shine on their own.

In any case, I think the stepping back looks pretty cool. It certainly saved the developer a lot of flak about lost sightlines of the park from the neighbors, &c.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
When were those bulldozed for all those surface parking lots?
This has been happening since WWII. But obviously the trend continues; we lost one of the few remaining cast-iron facades on Wabash in 2004 without so much as a whimper from the public (now a surface lot), Wm. LeBaron Jenney's Isabella building came down in 2004 (now a surface lot), and numerous other less important buildings are falling regularly, contributing to a lessening of the original character of the neighborhood. Generally, these have been replaced by more "architectural" buildings, but still, I don't think anyone wants to lose that cool industrial Chicago character altogether.

There is one alley with a cool bridge over it just east of Motor Row, between Michigan and Indiana around 23rd street. I'm sure there are still others too.
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 6:13 PM
Marvel 33's Avatar
Marvel 33 Marvel 33 is offline
"The World is my Oyster"
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 943
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds989
The renderings Marvel 33 has on NewCitySkyline are better resolution than what we have here. Any chance of bringing those over?





__________________
CHICAGO
Also known as:
The Windy City - The City of Broad Shoulders - Chitown - City in a Garden - Gem of the Prairie - Second City - The "I Will" City
_________________________________
Architectural News At: NewcitySkyline.com
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2006, 8:55 PM
Fabb's Avatar
Fabb Fabb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 9,018
It's incredibly handsome.
I'd regret it if it wasn't built.
     
     
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 11:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.