SkyscraperPage Forum - CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT

Viewing Page 10 of 143

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)

- - CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218947)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...30-column.html

Proposed South Michigan Avenue towers appealing but need to strike balance

10/30/15

http://www.trbimg.com/img-56341452/t...30/750/750x422
The Helmut Jahn-designed tower proposed for 1000 South Michigan would be Chicago’s seventh-tallest at 1,001 feet if another planned for East Wacker Drive also is built. (Jahn Architects)

BY: Blair KaminContact Reporter
Cityscapes

Quote:

After years of milquetoast midrise apartment towers, Chicago is finally seeing skyscraper plans that strive for height and aesthetic distinction. Yet as beguiling as these proposals are, they raise vexing questions about whether new growth is overscaled and infrastructure is becoming overburdened.

The answers will have an enormous impact on one of the nation's most significant urban ensembles, the officially protected stretch of historic skyscrapers along Michigan Avenue.

Two of the skyscraper plans, presented at a packed public meeting Thursday night at 816 S. Michigan, are among a rash of recently proposed high-rises that, if approved and financed, could add thousands of residential units to the southern edge of Grant Park and significantly alter the Chicago skyline.

The concerns transcend ordinary, not-in-my-backyard cries about blocked views. They speak to the wider issue of how Chicago should strike a balance between supercharged economic growth and civilized historic preservation. Residents are right to ask city officials and the local alderman, William Burns, 4th, to assess the cumulative impact of the planned skyscrapers on everything from traffic to shadows. Real estate bromides about building to "the highest and best use" are meaningless.

That article is some real BS.

A 1000 footer absolutely belongs there. Filling in the street wall gaps with diverse styles is key. He's crazy for questioning whether it fits in. It looks perfect there.

And how can you questions whether the infrastructure can handle these new developments? Residents of Michigan Ave aren't the ones clogging up downtown streets with cars. Most of the busiest cta stations are north of Madison. The South Loop feels like a ghost town compared to River North.

Complaining about density when the city just past a huge tax increase is insane.

Quote:

The concerns transcend ordinary, not-in-my-backyard cries about blocked views. They speak to the wider issue of how Chicago should strike a balance between supercharged economic growth and civilized historic preservation.

Which is exactly what these recent proposals do. Striking a balance means building tall where empty lot and parking garages now stand, so that the historic buildings everyone loves don't get torn down.
In what world does building on an empty lot count against preservation? They want to preserve dirty trash strewn lots? For their asthetic value?

Another meh Kamin piece that lends too much credence to NIMBY talking points. The argument about the historic district is about the only truly valid point of contention. Since it's not displacing anything historic on the streetwall I think there is sufficient ground for an exception to be made.

So weird to hear Blair utter the word "milquetoast"; an epithet I have long applied to him.

As long as Dearborn Park exists in it's current form the south loop is not allowed to complain about traffic or density. That is unless it's to say we need to connect the east west roads through Dearborn Park.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7218261)

100% agreed.

A rather meaningless article from Blair, as usual. If he wants to improve upon the designs, fair enough, but his other points are less than solid.

Quote:

Density alone is not the issue. The issue is how to make density livable. While the proposed South Michigan skyscrapers are appealing on many levels, much work still needs to be done before they strike the proper balance between finance and form, building and city, past and future.

I don't know what he's asking for here. Less density, more parking, wider streets, lower heights, less striking designs? None of these sound like winners for the city or the skyline.

So much watery talk in that article....and I just love how he completely takes off the table "highest and best use"' let alone property and zoning rights...like they don't matter. Eff that's annoying.

Long live the YIMBY and free market capitalism.

Ugh such a smarmy little sycophant.

I could barely even finish that article it was so bad.......has Kamin changed over the years? I seem to remember, like maybe 10-15 years ago (while certainly disagreeing with him in cases....uh, Soldier Field), that I respected him much more than I do today..........have I evolved in the intervening years, has Kamin devolved, or is it some combination of the two?

^I think it's kinda some of both Sam. He's always been sorta ignorant about architectural polemics and therefore has never been very good at translating those for his readers, but I also think his readers (of the Tribune) have evolved (or devolved) over the years and he has been going out of his way to cater to them...

Public outcry sells much better than profit motive...unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 7217971)

Quote:

Residents are right to ask city officials and the local alderman, William Burns, 4th, to assess the cumulative impact of the planned skyscrapers on everything from traffic to shadows.

I see that fucking ass-clown, NIMBY-elite, Blair (out-of-touch) Kamin hard at work being an idiot again...

Quote:

If there's a problem here, it's the lack of a graceful transition between the tower's finely grained base, which echoes the historic district's gridded facades, and its skyline-scaled top. Unlike with another building that grows outward as it rises, Walter Netsch's University Hall at the University of Illinois at Chicago, they resemble two separate structures, one stacked awkwardly on the other. With the design at an early stage, that shortcoming can be fixed.

Jesus. The arrogance of this guy is limitless.

Quote:

Yet there are potential negatives. According to architect Jim Plunkard, landmarks officials want the architects to de-emphasize the expressed bracing, which represents a marked departure from the historic district's more delicately scaled facades. More parking also would help. Neighbors howled Thursday night at the prospect of just 155 spots for the 454 apartments.

This city is so fucking stuck in the past and stupid it sometimes makes me wonder if we're living in some kind of sick Twilight Zone nightmare. It shouldn't be any wonder why New Yorkers and LAers view Chicago as fly-over territory. This bizarrely traditionalist, anti-modern, anti-sophisticated design mindset seems so deeply entrenched within the zeitgeist of this city, it's as if actually noteworthy architecture returning to Chicago is nothing more than a far-fetched fantasy. :rolleyes: Fucking shame.

I bet if the John Hancock Center were proposed today it'd be roll over by stupid... which is what I assume will happen with these two (potential gem) towers.

Quote:

No one is being a NIMBY in insisting that roads, public transit and other infrastructure keep pace with the new projects. City officials should independently assess everything from the shadows the towers will cast to their effect on traffic. Another issue: Will these towers open the floodgates for developers to erect even more high-rises behind preserved facades of small Streetwall buildings.

Oh, jeez. God forbid! :uhh:

Quote:

Density alone is not the issue. The issue is how to make density livable.

No Blair, you idiot. Density alone is exactly the single issue that has nimby idiots like you so uptight about new development. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise you delusional hack. :hell:

Traffic is an issue concerning our failing infrastructure and the boorish ineptitude of cdot; it has nothing to do with tall buildings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7218340)

No. He's always been a tool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 7218261)

I grew up over in that suburban pit. Dearborn Park can fuck off and die for all I care. It and Sandburg Village are an absolute cancer to the urban landscape of this city.

Quote:

Neighbors howled Thursday night at the prospect of just 155 spots for the 454 apartments.

I've reached the point in my life where I no longer want to instruct the ignorant, I just want to neuter them of any power. Anyone who complains about traffic impact then howls for 300 more spots is beyond redemption.

And then they will wonder why it isn't more affordable...go away nimbies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7219533)

I see that fucking ass-clown, NIMBY-elite, Blair (out-of-touch) Kamin hard at work being an idiot again...

Oh my fucking god. What's the best way to send this little shit some well-reasoned hate mail? Or should I take to twitter? :hell:

I don't mind NIMBY's being idiots in their own right as long as they have no real say or effect on the project. If it goes up it'll just make them mad :)

Viewing Page 10 of 143