OK, Time for everyone's favorite game, Supertall Rumor Mill!!!
We've heard about Wolf Point recently, and Franklin Point about a month ago, but the rest of these are getting as stale as month-old bread. Are any of these more than myth at this point? Inquiring minds want to know.
OK, Time for everyone's favorite game, Supertall Rumor Mill!!!
94-Story Building near 353 N. Clark?
Am I missing any?
Almost certainly a misstatement by one of the Case guys, he said that was what they were doing next, next turned out to be the Spire.
__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Almost certainly a misstatement by one of the Case guys, he said that was what they were doing next, next turned out to be the Spire.
That's what I figure too, except it's awfully wierd to have just pulled the number 94 out of nowhere. But yes, since the talk was of going there next, and no such builidng has been approved, that one is the most likely of the bunch to be a myth.
Wolf Point proposal, a little concerned about the shadows and loss of view this project will cast on the new Kinzie neighborhood. Time to start passing around petitions for another got nothing better to do aldermanic pressure neighborhood group.
My letter to fioretti, i haven't sent it yet, so if you have any general critiques, PM me!
Dear Alderman Fioretti,
I am writing this letter to express my disappointment in your recommendation to down-zone the parcels for the proposed X/O Condominium project. The proposed zoning alteration shows a misunderstanding of basic urban principles and sets a dangerous precedent for future 2nd ward projects. Economic conditions, not political agendas, should determine the viability of new projects. While economic conditions fluctuate, the political decision rendered is often permanent, particularly if another building is built in its place.
I sent you an email between the general election and the run-off election applauding your stance on refusing developer contributions. I also asked you to not fall into the trap of opposing projects based on density but rather on the merits of the development itself. I was very appreciative of the phone message you responded with, stating that you agree with my stance. Independence from the wills of developers is certainly half the equation to forming an unbiased opinion of a project but so is independence from small groups of self-serving “community organizations”.
Speaking more generally, limiting density is a poor urban design principle to follow. Striving to add density and diversity should be the goal of every urban area. “Historic districts” that exist solely to preserve the quaintness or nostalgia of an area are a mirage of preservationists. Specifically, the site in question is currently occupied by surface parking. The proposed design possesses quality that will enhance the architectural significance of the 2nd ward, it must be encouraged to ensure that the next quality design will come to fruition. Certainly, the urban ill that is surface parking bears no historic quality and should be replaced by a building of the highest and best use for that site.
Lastly, the perception that the community is not welcoming new high-quality development is a dangerous one to set. The West Loop has seen the terrible reality of density limiting. Their streets are quiet, the buildings are of mediocre quality, all while the opportunity to grow wanes. The ancient Greek Alcaeus stated, “Not houses finely roofed, nor the stones of walls well built, nor canals, nor dockyards make the city, but men able to use their opportunity.” If we, as a ward, are to begin to limit this great opportunity that has been presented to us, we begin to limit what makes this city, Chicago.
Sincerely,
__________________ "Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world"- Frank Lloyd Wright
"A Chicago man knows he has a mission to accomplish in the world."- Pierre De Coubertin
My letter to fioretti, i haven't sent it yet, so if you have any general critiques, PM me!
Dear Alderman Fioretti,
I am writing this letter to express my disappointment in your recommendation to down-zone the parcels for the proposed X/O Condominium project. The proposed zoning alteration shows a misunderstanding of basic urban principles and sets a dangerous precedent for future 2nd ward projects. Economic conditions, not political agendas, should determine the viability of new projects. While economic conditions fluctuate, the political decision rendered is often permanent, particularly if another building is built in its place.
I sent you an email between the general election and the run-off election applauding your stance on refusing developer contributions. I also asked you to not fall into the trap of opposing projects based on density but rather on the merits of the development itself. I was very appreciative of the phone message you responded with, stating that you agree with my stance. Independence from the wills of developers is certainly half the equation to forming an unbiased opinion of a project but so is independence from small groups of self-serving “community organizations”.
Speaking more generally, limiting density is a poor urban design principle to follow. Striving to add density and diversity should be the goal of every urban area. “Historic districts” that exist solely to preserve the quaintness or nostalgia of an area are a mirage of preservationists. Specifically, the site in question is currently occupied by surface parking. The proposed design possesses quality that will enhance the architectural significance of the 2nd ward, it must be encouraged to ensure that the next quality design will come to fruition. Certainly, the urban ill that is surface parking bears no historic quality and should be replaced by a building of the highest and best use for that site.
Lastly, the perception that the community is not welcoming new high-quality development is a dangerous one to set. The West Loop has seen the terrible reality of density limiting. Their streets are quiet, the buildings are of mediocre quality, all while the opportunity to grow wanes. The ancient Greek Alcaeus stated, “Not houses finely roofed, nor the stones of walls well built, nor canals, nor dockyards make the city, but men able to use their opportunity.” If we, as a ward, are to begin to limit this great opportunity that has been presented to us, we begin to limit what makes this city, Chicago.
Sincerely,
^ Isn't the site of X/O actually a building, instead of a parking lot?
Anyhow, hurry up and send it
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:
My letter to fioretti, i haven't sent it yet, so if you have any general critiques, PM me!
Dear Alderman Fioretti,
I am writing this letter to express my disappointment in your recommendation to down-zone the parcels for the proposed X/O Condominium project. The proposed zoning alteration shows a misunderstanding of basic urban principles and sets a dangerous precedent for future 2nd ward projects. Economic conditions, not political agendas, should determine the viability of new projects. While economic conditions fluctuate, the political decision rendered is often permanent, particularly if another building is built in its place.
I sent you an email between the general election and the run-off election applauding your stance on refusing developer contributions. I also asked you to not fall into the trap of opposing projects based on density but rather on the merits of the development itself. I was very appreciative of the phone message you responded with, stating that you agree with my stance. Independence from the wills of developers is certainly half the equation to forming an unbiased opinion of a project but so is independence from small groups of self-serving “community organizations”.
Speaking more generally, limiting density is a poor urban design principle to follow. Striving to add density and diversity should be the goal of every urban area. “Historic districts” that exist solely to preserve the quaintness or nostalgia of an area are a mirage of preservationists. Specifically, the site in question is currently occupied by surface parking. The proposed design possesses quality that will enhance the architectural significance of the 2nd ward, it must be encouraged to ensure that the next quality design will come to fruition. Certainly, the urban ill that is surface parking bears no historic quality and should be replaced by a building of the highest and best use for that site.
Lastly, the perception that the community is not welcoming new high-quality development is a dangerous one to set. The West Loop has seen the terrible reality of density limiting. Their streets are quiet, the buildings are of mediocre quality, all while the opportunity to grow wanes. The ancient Greek Alcaeus stated, “Not houses finely roofed, nor the stones of walls well built, nor canals, nor dockyards make the city, but men able to use their opportunity.” If we, as a ward, are to begin to limit this great opportunity that has been presented to us, we begin to limit what makes this city, Chicago.
Sincerely,
Wow...excellent letter...I wouldn't change a thing. Good job!
Yeah, I went over to the site just the other week to check it and nearby construction out. Lexington Park Condos is coming along just down the street and is a pretty good design, btw. The X/O site I am pretty sure has this really ugly and massive low rise building on it if I was at the right spot. That building kicks the character of the "Historic Neighborhood" right in the balls, so I am puzzled by the die hard stance the "neighbors" are taking against X/O, which would raise the bar for the architectural quality in that area IMO.
welcome back from wherever you were. no posts from you in a month and we all got concerned. all is now well, you are an invaluable info source for this forum.
__________________ "Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.
Kinzie and Wells Apartment Tower - on Plan Commission Agenda
Looks like the apartment tower at the SE corner of Kinzie and Wells proposed by SA Lynd and hopefully still designed by Valerio Dewalt Train is on the August Plan Commission Agenda. This could be a very promising piece of infill.
Also on the agenda is the huge New City project.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
__________________ America's Tallest UC Nordstrom Tower, NY 1,550 ft UC 111 West 57 St, NY 1,431 ft UC One Vanderbilt, NY 1,401 ft UC 30 Hudson Yards, NY 1,296 ft UC Vista Tower, Chicago 1,1199 ft UC 45 Broad St, New York 1,115 ft UC 9 DeKalb Ave, New York 1,066 ft 53W53, New York 1,050 ft UC
I figured most people check the spire thread but i thought i would be sure everyone here is aware that there are going to be some forum people meeting at lower lake shore drive overlooking the spire site @6:30 tomorrow.
Alcohol consumption & good chicago conversation sure to follow!!
__________________ "Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world"- Frank Lloyd Wright
"A Chicago man knows he has a mission to accomplish in the world."- Pierre De Coubertin
Prev
Linear Mode
