CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Problem being, we need to view this in relative terms.

no, we don't need to do that.

you can look at things on a relative basis, if you want to, but it won't change the fact that chicago is potentially on the cusp of seeing the biggest skyscraper building boom in the city's history.

nothing that happens in china or the middle east or wherever can change that.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Also if you 'need' to view something in relative terms then you need to view it on per capita basis for it to be truly relative. On that basis pretty much no skyline on Earth save maybe oil-dick-measuring-contest Dubai competes with Chicago's skyline and certainly not with the highrise boom we are seeing.

[rgolch]

^Yeah, that’s it. I remember hoping it would help jumpstart some kind of innovation and growth for the city. But you don’t hear anything about it (unlike the tech incubator 1871, which gets a lot of attention).

[the urban politician]

Anyone hear the news about how Aldermen (who have nothing better to do since there are too many of them anyhow) want to rename Balbo Dr. after Ida B Wells?

Is anyone going to ask how that can be done when we already have a Wells St?

[left of center]

I'm fine with getting rid of the name Balbo, due to all the fascist connotations, whether they are deserved (he was Mussolini's air force marshall) or not (he was horrified by Mussolini's tilt towards Hitler, and was 'exhiled' because of this), so long as it finally ends all the bickering about it. The only option though should be 7th Street, the former name of Balbo Drive. Do it and more on; pretty sure the city council has much bigger problems to worry about than a WW2 era street name.

[LouisVanDerWright]

There's something about the light in this city, I don't know if its because all the buildings are aligned neatly on a grid, or how far north in the sky the sun gets this time of year, but damn the lighting gets good this time of year. Bvic's shots show it off in its full glory.

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

There's something about the light in this city, I don't know if its because all the buildings are aligned neatly on a grid, or how far north in the sky the sun gets this time of year, but damn the lighting gets good this time of year. Bvic's shots show it off in its full glory.

It's the sun angle. We really only get about 3 months of decent, easily photographable light falling on the north faces in summer.

It's a pain when clients want a north-facing property photographed anytime in late August through mid-March. Sometimes you get fleeting slivers of sun hitting the building until this time of year when you get a couple hours after sunrise and before sunset. Can be tricky.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

There's something about the light in this city, I don't know if its because all the buildings are aligned neatly on a grid, or how far north in the sky the sun gets this time of year, but damn the lighting gets good this time of year. Bvic's shots show it off in its full glory.

Agree.

Sometimes I wonder if Chicago's high ranking among world skylines has something to do with how the lighting hits our buildings rather than the architecture itself

[Notyrview]

I doubt it, any city at this latitude gets the same light - nyc, boston, philly, SF. It's the diversity of architecture plus the flatness of the lake and surrounding areas that really make the skyline stand out.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

I doubt it, any city at this latitude gets the same light - nyc, boston, philly, SF. It's the diversity of architecture plus the flatness of the lake and surrounding areas that really make the skyline stand out.

yup

[10023]

Originally Posted by Notyrview

I doubt it, any city at this latitude gets the same light - nyc, boston, philly, SF. It's the diversity of architecture plus the flatness of the lake and surrounding areas that really make the skyline stand out.

The flatness of the surrounding area doesn’t really help. The skyline would look so much more dramatic if Illinois had any topography whatsoever. But the lake definitely provides the best setting.

This thing is really going to have amazing, unobstructed views from basically every unit huh?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 10023

The flatness of the surrounding area doesn’t really help. The skyline would look so much more dramatic if Illinois had any topography whatsoever. But the lake definitely provides the best setting.

This thing is really going to have amazing, unobstructed views from basically every unit huh?

I dunno, there's something unique about a perfectly flat surface with a perfect square grid imposed on it with perfectly cubic boxes extruded vertically from that grid. Chicago is so square, lots of people note the lack of view terminating buildings, but that openness I think contributes to the lighting because the sun can freely stream down E-W oriented canyons and provide a shifting lighting effect on all the different elevations over the course of the year.

[kolchak]

Originally Posted by 10023

The flatness of the surrounding area doesn’t really help. The skyline would look so much more dramatic if Illinois had any topography whatsoever. But the lake definitely provides the best setting.

Although mountains would absolutely have an impact, it is also the lack of mountains that lead to the dramatically long, low sun angles and reflections at dusk -


Nick Suydam

I live in LA and even though there are mountains all around the impact visually is really no more dramatic than the clouds and sky can be in Chicago. In So-Cal its usually a boring, cloudless sky.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Clayco's website has a good image of their high-rise near Milwaukee/Western/Armitage.

High-rise?

Still, more buildings of that height creating a consistent street wall would be nice. That’s a great plan for the West Side, for the West Loop through the United Center area, in lieu of high-rises with several floors of parking.

[Jibba]

I noticed that slight misnomer when re-reading my post, but I left it as written. It's close enough, and it feels like a high-rise relative to the 2- and 3-story pitched-roof flats in the background.

And I agree, it's a good archetype--at least visually--for sites in outlying neighborhoods that are near transit nodes.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Jibba

I noticed that slight misnomer when re-reading my post, but I left it as written. It's close enough, and it feels like a high-rise relative to the 2- and 3-story pitched-roof flats in the background.

And I agree, it's a good archetype--at least visually--for sites in outlying neighborhoods that are near transit nodes.

Right. It’s basically standard building height for large European cities, which shows you how they get so much density and atreet activity basically without high-rises, because it’s buildings of that size one after another with no gaps.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

And yet it is also this building style that leads to these cities have astronomical housing prices since it leads to running out space quickly and then rampant NIMBY-ism(San Fran is the best example in the US). If Chicago wants to avoid this they will allow high rises to be built in many areas. Your obsession with Europe blinds you from its faults. Chicago ain't perfect, but those places aren't either.

Now, Chicago isn't about to run out of land, so it's a bit premature of a complaint for me to make, but as global warming causes mass emigrations inland and Chicago becomes the most important city in the US by 2100 that problem will arise.

Only small minds think in terms of their own lives, that's why Burnham is still such a monumental figure for us today. He planned hundreds of years down the line with his city planning for us

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

And yet it is also this building style that leads to these cities have astronomical housing prices since it leads to running out space quickly and then rampant NIMBY-ism(San Fran is the best example in the US). If Chicago wants to avoid this they will allow high rises to be built in many areas. Your obsession with Europe blinds you from its faults. Chicago ain't perfect, but those places aren't either.

Now, Chicago isn't about to run out of land, so it's a bit premature of a complaint for me to make, but as global warming causes mass emigrations inland and Chicago becomes the most important city in the US by 2100 that problem will arise.

Only small minds think in terms of their own lives, that's why Burnham is still such a monumental figure for us today. He planned hundreds of years down the line with his city planning for us

We definitely have a ton of land, but there is a more limited amount of land in desirable areas. Building short and squat means we burn up land faster and gentrification then pushes more people out of their homes and into further, fringe neighborhoods.

Building taller and denser will help keep people from getting pushed out of their homes, and overall keep housing prices affordable in the city. Clearly, we aren't going to be building high rises everywhere (nor should we), but in certain instances it should be encouraged, particularly anywhere near CTA/Metra stations (TOD), as well as along major commercial intersections.

Lol, while global warming worst case scenarios are thankfully a little while off (or maybe not, depending on how quickly we curb our usage of fossil fuels), we probably are poised to be a net beneficiary of rising sea levels. Of the 10 largest cities in the US (measured by metro population), 7 are coastal and the 2 that arent (Dallas and Atlanta) are in the South and may become unbearable to live in. Being on the shores of one fifth of the world's freshwater is also a huge benefit.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by left of center

We definitely have a ton of land, but there is a more limited amount of land in desirable areas. Building short and squat means we burn up land faster and gentrification then pushes more people out of their homes and into further, fringe neighborhoods.

Building taller and denser will help keep people from getting pushed out of their homes, and overall keep housing prices affordable in the city. Clearly, we aren't going to be building high rises everywhere (nor should we), but in certain instances it should be encouraged, particularly anywhere near CTA/Metra stations (TOD), as well as along major commercial intersections.

Lol, while global warming worst case scenarios are thankfully a little while off (or maybe not, depending on how quickly we curb our usage of fossil fuels), we probably are poised to be a net beneficiary of rising sea levels. Of the 10 largest cities in the US (measured by metro population), 7 are coastal and the 2 that arent (Dallas and Atlanta) are in the South and may become unbearable to live in. Being on the shores of one fifth of the world's freshwater is also a huge benefit.

While I personally support gentrification, I think you have to keep in mind what I said earlier: policies of downzoning and development restriction are inherently pro gentrification and will cause displacement. As a society are we prepared to go to the mat to push that issue, or is racial and income segregation preferable? I tend to think that gentrification is the only reasonable way to break up racial and income segregation, but that's just me. I mean the vast majority of anti-growth nuts like Carlos Rosa are stupid enough to think that their anti-growth policies slow gentrification so perhaps we should all be pushing for RS-3 zoning in literally all of Chicago until the entire city is nothing but mcmansions on 3 or 4 lots.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

And yet it is also this building style that leads to these cities have astronomical housing prices since it leads to running out space quickly and then rampant NIMBY-ism(San Fran is the best example in the US). If Chicago wants to avoid this they will allow high rises to be built in many areas. Your obsession with Europe blinds you from its faults. Chicago ain't perfect, but those places aren't either.

Not every European city has astronomical housing prices, and it's a fallacy to assume that a midrise housing form generates high prices. NYC has obviously allowed highrises in many parts of the city and keeps opening up more areas, yet their prices are also astronomical. Likewise, Prague has miles of beautiful midrise buildings but isn't expensive. The highrise building style originated as a response to scarcity of land, but arguably Chicago has no such scarcity. The only reason to build highrise is to maximize the utilization of amenities like lake views, costly transit stations and parks, etc... back in the days of river shipping it was a serious pain in the ass to cross the river, so literally nobody wanted to open their office outside the Loop, hence a scarcity.

Prices are set by supply and demand, if the city of Chicago opened a vast inland territory to midrise development it would take decades or centuries to build out all of that capacity, assuming current demand levels.