SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | General Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=105764)

UPChicago Dec 10, 2014 3:16 PM

WTH Did they install the wrong arches or something?

sentinel Dec 10, 2014 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6838204)
^Yes, same corner (Aldiplatz)—but what's happening with those parabolic arches seen in the photo? Will those really flatten out under load so much that they become bowstring trusses whose top chords are the circular arcs shown in the rendering? The arches look like they're already anchored to abutments much too close together for them to flatten that much.

I was thinking the same exact thing, and I just assumed it was the difference between the two views (the photo being more or less head-on vs the angled view of the rendering), although I'm probably wrong :shrug:

rlw777 Dec 10, 2014 3:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6838204)
^Yes, same corner (Aldiplatz)—but what's happening with those parabolic arches seen in the photo? Will those really flatten out under load so much that they become bowstring trusses whose top chords are the circular arcs shown in the rendering? The arches look like they're already anchored to abutments much too close together for them to flatten that much.

The angle at which the 606 meets Milwaukee makes the arches look more parabolic in that photo than what they really are. Though they are still quite a ways off from the rendering

PKDickman Dec 10, 2014 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 6838233)
The angle at which the 606 meets Milwaukee makes the arches look more parabolic in that photo than what they really are. Though they are still quite a ways off from the rendering

They seem a little taller, but that was a conceptual sketch. I imagine it changed when actual engineers started crunching numbers.
That said, most of what you see is due to foreshortening when viewed from the same angle it is pretty close.

Its purpose is to allow the removal of the support piers on Milwaukee.
Each span of the original bridge is made of 4 pieces. They put big honkin" fish plates at the joints, but I doubt that it could support its own weight without shearing off the bolts, hence the arch.

The original bridge has been raised about a foot and a half and the arches are anchored to the tops of the original beams, cables will carry the load.

UrbanLibertine Dec 10, 2014 4:13 PM

That's going to be a really nice entryway and exterior focal point for the 606.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 6838170)


mark0 Dec 10, 2014 5:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 6836318)
Uh, wrong. Traffic is absurd along Milwaukee from Division to Logan. It's especially bad between Division and North and then also between Armitage and Fullerton. On any given day that 2 mile stretch will take up to 30 minutes to pass! It is a serious problem as it is now, much less after MORE development along Milwaukee

I think the real problem on Milwaukee and most major intersections ( Im looking at you Chicago Ave. at LaSalle) is the lack of left turn arrows. This city is plagued by left turn lanes waiting a full light sequence to let one car turn, while the right lane is blocked by single right turner waiting for pedestrians. I cant fathom how Chicago is so poorly left turn laned in 2014. I've watched intesections be rebuilt 2 and 3 times in in my lifetime without addressing the turning situation.

PKDickman Dec 10, 2014 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark0 (Post 6838409)
I think the real problem on Milwaukee and most major intersections ( Im looking at you Chicago Ave. at LaSalle) is the lack of left turn arrows. This city is plagued by left turn lanes waiting a full light sequence to let one car turn, while the right lane is blocked by single right turner waiting for pedestrians. I cant fathom how Chicago is so poorly left turn laned in 2014. I've watched intesections be rebuilt 2 and 3 times in in my lifetime without addressing the turning situation.

I have noticed this on several diagonal intersections. I don't know why, perhaps timing is a mathematically insoluble problem. On Milwaukee it is aggravated by the bike lanes precluding rush hour parking bans.

Elston, Damen and Fullerton is another. Despite being labeled as the worst intersection, there is only one left turn signal.

I could fix that one for pocket change. Turn arrows, eliminate street parking on Damen as far as the expressway, and pass an ordinance making it illegal to make a left hand turn into a fried chicken stand.

Problem solved.

wierdaaron Dec 10, 2014 5:57 PM

If you'd like to see some choice quotes about MDP from outraged LSE residents: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141...gers-residents

I can't have my dog poop in the new 55 million dollar park, therefore it's stupid and ugly! Surprised nobody tried to bring up the first amendment.

Via Chicago Dec 10, 2014 6:07 PM

not a good season for Chicago historic buildings and fires

Quote:

Roofers blamed for extra-alarm restaurant fire
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...210-story.html

Chicago Firehouse, 1401 S. Michigan Ave.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5488873c/t...10/600/600x338
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5488873c/t...10/600/600x338

WHYYYYY is torch roofing still allowed

Mr Downtown Dec 10, 2014 6:09 PM

Be careful what you wish for. Left-turn arrows may reduce driver frustration at certain times of day, but they also reduce total intersection throughput (because of the time taken out of the signal cycle). For the same reason, they make intersections less friendly to pedestrians.

Until recently, Phoenix traffic engineers were quite proud of how few left-turn signals their city needed. It was considered a sign of a fully functioning dispersed grid of streets, as opposed to suburban-style networks where a small number of big arterials carry all the through traffic—requiring left-turn arrows and even dual turn lanes at major intersections.

sentinel Dec 10, 2014 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 6838502)
not a good season for Chicago historic buildings and fires


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...210-story.html

Chicago Firehouse, 1401 S. Michigan Ave.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5488873c/t...10/600/600x338
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5488873c/t...10/600/600x338

WHYYYYY is torch roofing still allowed

Good question - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the same thing that happened at Holy Name a few years back??

Via Chicago Dec 10, 2014 6:27 PM

yessir. and countles other buildings.

(actually, i dont know if Holy Name was roofing, but I know it was a restoration project using blowtoches)

UrbanLibertine Dec 10, 2014 8:56 PM

Anybody have a list of lower density/smaller residential developments or developers that have active websites or Facebook pages, similar to Flexhouse 2 or Basecamp, which post regular construction updates?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 6838541)
yessir. and countles other buildings.

(actually, i dont know if Holy Name was roofing, but I know it was a restoration project using blowtoches)


SamInTheLoop Dec 10, 2014 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6836062)
^The buyer is an immigrant from India. He founded Vistex, in Hoffman Estates. Just goes to show the American dream is still alive. He should be your inspiration rather than your envy.


In jest, right? Look, the American dream is probably a slippery and elusive concept. But suffice it to say, I think many more people would equate the American dream with things like each generation having a better quality of life than the one prior, that social mobility in society is high and widespread, that one's socioeconomic status as a child were not a major determinant of socioeconomic status later in life, that homeownership if so desired and a smallish number of children if so desired were financially feasible options, that obtaining a high quality education were both not prohibitiviely expensive - and not prohibitively expensive unless taking on the burden of a lifetime of high 5 or 6 figure debt, etc etc etc - than equate it with things like moving to this country to start a technology company and buy an 8 figure penthouse as a showplace for clients.......

......just sayin'

(by the way, I neither envy the guy nor admire nor look down on him or up to him....and I most certainly acknowledge the continuing importance of all kinds of immigration to the US and entrepreneurship and innovation, by the US and foreign-born....

Via Chicago Dec 11, 2014 1:29 AM

i dont know what it is with high end properties, but it wouldnt surprise me to see this guy spend millions of dollars furnishing this thing only to decide its not what he imagined and tries to sell...for a loss. theres no possible way to re-coup that kind of furnishing investment as everyones tastes are different and high end stuff especially tends to look outdated very quickly and too tied to the eccentricities of its owner. id like to hold out hope it will be done tastefully, but he is coming from Barrington Hills...

hey, its his money. just hope his employees are getting bonuses.

Rizzo Dec 11, 2014 1:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6838511)
Be careful what you wish for. Left-turn arrows may reduce driver frustration at certain times of day, but they also reduce total intersection throughput (because of the time taken out of the signal cycle). For the same reason, they make intersections less friendly to pedestrians.

Until recently, Phoenix traffic engineers were quite proud of how few left-turn signals their city needed. It was considered a sign of a fully functioning dispersed grid of streets, as opposed to suburban-style networks where a small number of big arterials carry all the through traffic—requiring left-turn arrows and even dual turn lanes at major intersections.

I wish ALL signaled intersections had turn arrows. They tell people what they are allowed to do vs what people THINK they can do. I've had way too many close calls with turning cars that failed to yield when I had a WALK sign. Why were they turning? Oh right, no left arrow available to direct traffic

Rizzo Dec 11, 2014 1:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron (Post 6838486)
If you'd like to see some choice quotes about MDP from outraged LSE residents: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141...gers-residents

I can't have my dog poop in the new 55 million dollar park, therefore it's stupid and ugly! Surprised nobody tried to bring up the first amendment.

Glad there will be no dogs allowed. Public space needs a break from animals. Kids should be able to play in open grass space without having to step in dog sh*t.

aaron38 Dec 11, 2014 3:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 6836745)
So you're implying that every single unit has someone from out of town or someone who is elderly or someone who is disabled visiting them at all times. Which is, I hope you realize, absolutely absurd.

Or their neighbors have cars so there isn't a spare spot for them to use. Or they do have a car because they have a small child. Or they work in the burbs. Or they want to be able to go shopping for something larger than a loaf of bread. Or they don't want their car broken into/crashed into. Or they'd like to be able to have someone visit on Christmas when it's snowing when street parking is impossible. I can go on. But one doesn't have to use a spot continuously for it to be a very useful thing to have.

We've visited friends in Brooklyn, 4 of us drive in versus flying. And it's their one off street parking spot that let us do that. They don't have cars, and we don't drive our car once in the week we're there. But that one spot makes the trip possible.
That spot doesn't make traffic in Brooklyn worse, doesn't make it a bad place for people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum (Post 6836830)
Rule of thumb: If a place is great for cars, it's bad for people.

At my house in the burbs, I can legitimately park 10 cars in the driveway, and 5 more on the street. (done precisely that for some pretty epic parties) And that's in a very dense, very pedestrian friendly Metra oriented suburban core that does a good job balancing people and cars. But if 10 cars per unit is a great place for cars, I just don't see why 1 isn't great for people versus zero.

I've noticed that many urban planners treat parking the exact same way that Republicans treat taxes. Just cut, cut, cut, cause as many problems as possible, and hope that browbeats people into acting the way you want them to.

OrdoSeclorum Dec 11, 2014 3:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 6839328)


At my house in the burbs, I can legitimately park 10 cars in the driveway, and 5 more on the street. (done precisely that for some pretty epic parties) And that's in a very dense, very pedestrian friendly Metra oriented suburban core that does a good job balancing people in cars. But if 10 cars per unit is a great place for cars, I just don't see why 1 isn't great for people versus zero.

I've noticed that many urban planners treat parking the exact same way that Republicans treat taxes. Just cut, cut, cut, cause as many problems as possible, and hope that browbeats people into acting the way you want them to.

If a developer wants to build more parking spaces, nothing's stopping him. He can build 300 spaces for 50 apartments if he likes. I think developers should be allowed to build as many parking spaces as he thinks the market wants. Almost everyone here believes that. The problem you're describing does not exist. The fact is that the "planners" you refer to in every instance mandate a minimum amount of parking, but not a maximum. In only a few places in this country (Manhattan, a couple historic districts, a few TOD zones) is it even permitted to not build a large amount of parking for residences. Think about that. Georgetown, Lincoln Park, Back Bay, The French Quarter--there's not a city in the country where it would even be legal to build those neighborhoods that are in demand and great to spend time in.

I don't want to limit parking; I simply don't want parking that developers don't want to build and that residents don't want to use or pay for to be required by law.

UPChicago Dec 11, 2014 3:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 6839328)
Or their neighbors have cars so there isn't a spare spot for them to use. Or they do have a car because they have a small child. Or they work in the burbs. Or they want to be able to go shopping for something larger than a loaf of bread. Or they don't want their car broken into/crashed into. Or they'd like to be able to have someone visit on Christmas when it's snowing when street parking is impossible. I can go on. But one doesn't have to use a spot continuously for it to be a very useful thing to have.

We've visited friends in Brooklyn, 4 of us drive in versus flying. And it's their one off street parking spot that let us do that. They don't have cars, and we don't drive our car once in the week we're there. But that one spot makes the trip possible.
That spot doesn't make traffic in Brooklyn worse, doesn't make it a bad place for people.


At my house in the burbs, I can legitimately park 10 cars in the driveway, and 5 more on the street. (done precisely that for some pretty epic parties) And that's in a very dense, very pedestrian friendly Metra oriented suburban core that does a good job balancing people and cars. But if 10 cars per unit is a great place for cars, I just don't see why 1 isn't great for people versus zero.

I've noticed that many urban planners treat parking the exact same way that Republicans treat taxes. Just cut, cut, cut, cause as many problems as possible, and hope that browbeats people into acting the way you want them to.

How long is your commute? How close is your nearest grocery store? How many bars/entertainment venues do you have around you?

Land in the suburbs just isn't as valuable as land in the city and if you have to drive to a pedestrian friendly suburban core how pedestrian friendly is it? A car doesn't make life more convenient. I own a car and live in the city, like a lot of people, but I often will leave my car at home and walk to the store or take the train because it is more convenient. Once I get older and more unable to walk maybe I will settle into a more suburban mentality. No one is trying to browbeat anyone if you want amenities in a compact location you live in a city, if you are worried about a car and how many people with cars can get to you you need to live in the suburbs.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:40 PM.

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