Quote:
But most folks today—including the language in Chicago's preservation ordinance and regulations—think preservation of a district means that the toute ensemble has been deemed worthy of protection, including protection from insensitive new development of a vastly different scale. I challenge anyone to explain how a 1003-foot tower in this location, shooting straight up from the sidewalk with no setbacks, can be thought of as sensitive to its context. |
Quote:
I think that works when there is cohesiveness and interaction for a greater design (e.g. all of downtown Paris especially with the height limits). But here, it ends up being more a claim to a museum display (somehow exerting priority over urban growth), fighting off attempts to put a Ferrari in a chariot race exhibit. And all this in the midst of a skyscraper city. If the aversion to Big Jahn is for its imposing stature, then there should be a height limit to preserve the integrity of the district, not a zoning that lets it be wildly tall. And I fail to see how setbacks all the sudden redeem a building that would be still incredibly out of scale. At least there is reference to the streetwall in the cantilever's beginning. Edit: Its "context" is, bluntly, the city of Chicago |
Contextual Sensitivity
Quote:
|
Quote:
Given the location of the tower relative to the park it likely would only pose a major shadow issue in the late Fall and Winter when the Sun is setting in the Southwest or at least passing at a lower angle as it traverses through the Southwest sky. Given the height of the sun in August (when I was fervently praying for shade) I doubt this would even pose a shadow issue for Hutchinson Field which is directly adjacent to this site (I remember the sun cruising pretty high in the sky over that corner of the park). |
Quote:
Using the web site SunCalc.net you can get an idea of whre the sun will set relative to a position on a map. It is not as good as a 3-d sun study, but pretty interesting. |
@BlairKamin:
Height of Jahn's 1000 S. Michigan tower has been cut to 933 feet from 1,001 feet, according to City Council zoning committee agenda for tmrw |
^ I think that might be a typo he made. It reads for the document tomorrow that it would have a max residential height of 993 feet. That doesn't include the mechanical height, which would be 1030 feet.
https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...tions=&Search= |
^ Yes Kamin needs to read first then post. Height hasn't changed according to the document RandomGuy34 posted
|
We'll see. Landmarks my have sought a reduction in height. I just emailed Blair and he replied that his sources stated the 933'. That still may be to the underside of the top floor or it may be the building height. It's not too bad of a snip.
|
Quote:
Bottom of page 7 Zoning Agenda says 933' but clearly references document #02015-6394 filed on September 24th which is this document which has the height at 993' minus mechanical or 1030' |
Quote:
|
Hmmm I wouldn't really mind a slight height reduction
|
Height now 832 feet.
|
Quote:
|
If it's true, that sucks, but at least it would be more feasible to finance. I'll take better odds on having anything significant near that corner of the wall (but height would also be nice)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I really hope that isn't true. Chicago needs new towers to have significant heights, otherwise they'll be just another brick in the wall.
|
Pretty lame news if true.
800+ feet will be a nice peak, but 1000 would have been jaw-dropping. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 1:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.