CHICAGO | General Discussions

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I heard about this. I don't usually praise gangs, but good for them.

Reading up on the 1968 riots, south-side gangs also apparently prevented the large-scale devastation of the south side commercial corridors. At least according to Wikipedia (haven't tried to verify).

[ardecila]

Yeah almost zero damage in Pilsen here, the neighborhood was out in force last night protecting the businesses on 18th, including (reportedly) Alderman Sigcho. They set up dumpster barricades to stop the looters cars. Much respect to those guys.

The only vandalism I saw was at the shitty drive-thru McDonalds, which... good riddance.

[the urban politician]

Very disappointed in Lightfoot here. Police accountability is important, but that’s the long game.

The immediate and fundamental job of Government is to protect the public and the public’s property against crime and lawlessness. She failed. In fact, even while asking police to fight off these looters she’s telling people to call 311 if they feel like they’ve been mishandled by the police, effectively throwing her own officers under the bus This is not how you stop marauders and violent rioters.

A Mayor Daley would’ve deployed the resources available to him to prevent it from reaching this point much more swiftly. Overall Lightfoot is still a decent mayor, but she is absolutely the wrong type of person you want running the show right now.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Very disappointed in Lightfoot here. Police accountability is important, but that’s the long game.

The immediate and fundamental job of Government is to protect the public and the public’s property against crime and lawlessness. She failed. In fact, even while asking police to fight off these looters she’s telling people to call 311 if they feel like they’ve been mishandled by the police, effectively throwing her own officers under the bus This is not how you stop marauders and violent rioters.

A Mayor Daley would’ve deployed the resources available to him to prevent it from reaching this point much more swiftly. Overall Lightfoot is still a decent mayor, but she is absolutely the wrong type of person you want running the show right now.

I'm not sure Daley's response to 1968 riots is something we'd want to emulate. I found it strange the the police mostly ignored the looters and surrounded the peaceful protestors instead, for the most part. I'm not suggesting large-scale arrests---mere presence is enough to scatter most looters. There is probably a reasonable explanation, but it's not a good look... especially the looting on 35th street a block away from the CPD HQ.

[Donnie77]

out of town for the weekend, anyone tell me how bad it was here compared to other major cities?

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Donnie77

out of town for the weekend, anyone tell me how bad it was here compared to other major cities?

news makes it look pretty bad on south and west sides, after the downtown area was hit so hard

[Chi-Sky21]

It is very hard to stop 5 to 10 cars of people driving around just texting what to target next...they can go anywhere and hit quickly. The city simply does not have the resources to cover everywhere. And when they did they just drove to the neighboring suburbs and were and still are doing it there.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

It is very hard to stop 5 to 10 cars of people driving around just texting what to target next...they can go anywhere and hit quickly. The city simply does not have the resources to cover everywhere. And when they did they just drove to the neighboring suburbs and were and still are doing it there.

exactly what I have observed .

[SIGSEGV]

^ I hope they were at least able to get plates

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

^ I hope they were at least able to get plates

Supposedly many of the looters have removed their plates, since they know police are tied up with other things and aren't doing traffic duty.

[IrishIllini]

What about nationally? I did a quick search through the forum...didn't see anything.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

What about nationally? I did a quick search through the forum...didn't see anything.

If we are limiting this to only buildings that broke ground since 1/1/20, the only I know of is 6 X Guadelupe in Austin, TX. At 66 stories and 847 ft, it will be the tallest in the city when it tops out. Cranes have recently been installed.

https://i.redd.it/q394txyklma41.png

Rendering courtesy of Reddit: Source

[pianowizard]

^Just yesterday I was thinking that Austin may soon be cranking out more 800+ footers than Chicago!

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

What about nationally? I did a quick search through the forum...didn't see anything.

NYC's 3 Hudson Blvd broke ground in late 2017, but in early 2020, its planned height was increased just enough to become a supertall. See page 45 of this thread: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...140389&page=45

So in a way, we can think of this as the tallest (and the only supertall) that began construction after 1/1/2020. The 3 Hudson Blvd thread was certainly moved to the supertall sub-forum in Jan 2020.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

^Just yesterday I was thinking that Austin may soon be cranking out more 800+ footers than Chicago!

Anything is possible down the road, but current construction stats don't paint that picture.


# of 800+ footers:

Chicago:
Recently completed - 2
Under construction - 4
On hold - 1
Proposed - 3


Austin:
Recently completed - 0
Under construction - 1
On hold - 0
Proposed - 1

[Donnie77]

Austin growing up, nice center piece!

[RockfordSoxFan]

I hate to compare cities. But... Austin may be one sunbelt city that urbanizes just because of its demographics (young tech workforce). Right now though, its still a baby.
Austin 305 sq mi, population ~1,000,000. Metro ~2,200,000. Skyline, modest
Chicago 234 sq mi, population ~2,800,000. Metro ~9,830,000. Skyline, spectacular
Austin also has bizarre zoning to protect capitol views from around the city, so who really knows how its downtown will evolve as the city grows. My guess is probably more like Houston then Chicago.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by RockfordSoxFan

I hate to compare cities. But... Austin may be one sunbelt city that urbanizes just because of its demographics (young tech workforce). Right now though, its still a baby.
Austin 305 sq mi, population ~1,000,000. Metro ~2,200,000. Skyline, modest
Chicago 234 sq mi, population ~2,800,000. Metro ~9,830,000. Skyline, spectacular
Austin also has bizarre zoning to protect capitol views from around the city, so who really knows how its downtown will evolve as the city grows. My guess is probably more like Houston then Chicago.

This is getting way off topic, but I doubt that Austin progresses like Houston. Houston hasn't had much growth of its skyline in decades. The economy of Houston is not diversified enough. There's the oil and gas industry and medical industry. The latter doesn't really build a skyline. Hospitals are large in square footage but not in height.

Austin has the two things a city wants to sustain growth: the State Capital and the flagship public university. Those both bring in dollars. Large law firms demand commercial space. A highly-educated workforce like you get near a major university like UT-Austin demands commercial space.

Austin is not Chicago but I think a better example of a city skyline progression is Minneapolis or Seattle (not a state capital, but close enough + UW). In the next 50 years, Austin will have the most impressive skyline in Texas and one of the better ones in the United States. It would be great if they invested in a public transit system to prepare for that.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

This is getting way off topic, but I doubt that Austin progresses like Houston. Houston hasn't had much growth of its skyline in decades. The economy of Houston is not diversified enough. There's the oil and gas industry and medical industry. The latter doesn't really build a skyline. Hospitals are large in square footage but not in height.

Austin has the two things a city wants to sustain growth: the State Capital and the flagship public university. Those both bring in dollars. Large law firms demand commercial space. A highly-educated workforce like you get near a major university like UT-Austin demands commercial space.

Austin is not Chicago but I think a better example of a city skyline progression is Minneapolis or Seattle (not a state capital, but close enough + UW). In the next 50 years, Austin will have the most impressive skyline in Texas and one of the better ones in the United States. It would be great if they invested in a public transit system to prepare for that.

In Chicago you can have a tower which is littoral(y) defining the shore and never need to worry about more than the occasional rise in the river. No hurricanes, no rising ocean, better bet for the future.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

This is getting way off topic, but I doubt that Austin progresses like Houston. Houston hasn't had much growth of its skyline in decades. The economy of Houston is not diversified enough. There's the oil and gas industry and medical industry. The latter doesn't really build a skyline. Hospitals are large in square footage but not in height.

Austin has the two things a city wants to sustain growth: the State Capital and the flagship public university. Those both bring in dollars. Large law firms demand commercial space. A highly-educated workforce like you get near a major university like UT-Austin demands commercial space.

Austin is not Chicago but I think a better example of a city skyline progression is Minneapolis or Seattle (not a state capital, but close enough + UW). In the next 50 years, Austin will have the most impressive skyline in Texas and one of the better ones in the United States. It would be great if they invested in a public transit system to prepare for that.

Austin has a lot going for it. It's basically the only hip spot in a triangle with points at Kansas City, New Orleans and San Diego. There are numberless individuals in Oklahoma, Texas and the greater Southwest who don't want to leave the region they call home, but would like access to tech employment and urbane amenities. In other regions you could consider secondary options like Minneapolis, Providence or Sacramento and still find that, but in Texas, Austin is the only game in town. Considering how much population there is nearby, it's a tremendous advantage.

I've spent a lot of time in Austin and the downtown certainly has room on it's streets for bus rapid transit or streetcars. There are enough four lane, one way streets for two competing bus rapid transit or streetcar systems. But with absolutely nothing constraining sprawl and a Texas DOT that is openly hostile to anything other than new beltways, it would require a sea change for me to imagine enough transit construction that would allow Austin to have a CBD high rise district that would give the city a "skyline". But maybe I'll be surprised.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Austin has a lot going for it. It's basically the only hip spot in a triangle with points at Kansas City, New Orleans and San Diego. There are numberless individuals in Oklahoma, Texas and the greater Southwest who don't want to leave the region they call home, but would like access to tech employment and urbane amenities. In other regions you could consider secondary options like Minneapolis, Providence or Sacramento and still find that, but in Texas, Austin is the only game in town. Considering how much population there is nearby, it's a tremendous advantage.

I think you're overestimating the appeal of hipness - certainly the "weirdness" is a draw for Austin, but DFW and Houston have not been hurting with regard to growth. Plenty of people want other things out of a city. I do see maybe some correlation with highrise growth specifically, the people choosing to live in Austin tend to be more cosmopolitan than those in other Texas cities, with familiarity with NYC, Miami, Chicago, or other North American highrise cities and more likely to consider highrise living.

That said, Dallas' Uptown/Victory is no slouch as a highrise residential neighborhood and both Dallas/Houston will see continued demand for office highrises, assuming Covid doesn't kill the office highrise permanently.

I've spent a lot of time in Austin and the downtown certainly has room on it's streets for bus rapid transit or streetcars. There are enough four lane, one way streets for two competing bus rapid transit or streetcar systems. But with absolutely nothing constraining sprawl and a Texas DOT that is openly hostile to anything other than new beltways, it would require a sea change for me to imagine enough transit construction that would allow Austin to have a CBD high rise district that would give the city a "skyline". But maybe I'll be surprised.

Austin's light rail proposal is one of the better ones that I've seen in North America, they seem to have learned from the planning mistakes of Dallas and Houston's systems. If it passes and it gets built as proposed, it will be a strong backbone for regional growth. It's hard to build a dense skyline if every single building has to store and send out a huge fleet of cars every day. It only works in Miami because so many of the condos in those highrises are second homes.