CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Ryan81]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

Great render!!! Thanks for your work. Not to be overly critical but shouldn't the Spire twist clockwise instead of counter clockwise?

Haha, yeah, it should. The rendering I had handy had the shadow on the wrong side, so i flipped it, not realizing that the twists went the wrong way. I knew something looked wrong, just couldn't put my finger on it. Great catch!

[BVictor1]

DeStefano and Partners: Designs for a City


Thursday, October 4, 2007

Chicago Cultural Center
Washington & Michigan
Millennium Room
12:15 pm - 1:15 pm


DeStefano and Partners' President Scott Sarver and Avi Lothan will present the firm's recent and current projects in Chicago's downtown area as well as projects that are in the planning/design process.

The program will feature the firm's diverse practice with its commercial, residential and educational projects that support the City's lively 24/7 character.

This event is free and open to all. No reservations needed.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

^ There's also fencing going up around the buildings at 53rd and Cornell in preparation for demolition.

^ Eh? L3 hasn't even started sales!

[aaron38]

I'm just posting this because it made me laugh, it's so ridiculous. I went to set that skyline render as my wallpaper, and Windows stretched it vertically to make it fit, to insane proportions.

I dub this, the Chicago skyline fanboy's wet dream.

[Alliance]

Those are some big waves.

[Chi_Coruscant]

re: #3304

Wow, they're taller and skinnier.

[Neuman]

Well it does look that whatever site prep they did at 1260 West Madison is done, because they have a mobile tracked crane on site and assembled along with what looks like a caisson drill. Though I don't see the motor for the caisson drill as of yet.

[ih8spires]

Has there been anything new about the transmission/observation tower near the McCormik convention area? or was there even any truth to that tower being a realistic proposal?

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Neuman

Well it does look that whatever site prep they did at 1260 West Madison is done, because they have a mobile tracked crane on site and assembled along with what looks like a caisson drill. Though I don't see the motor for the caisson drill as of yet.

Has not been approved yet. The project will go to Plan Commisson on October 18, if it is not deffered again. Its been scaled down from two 13 story towers into two squatter 11 story buildings. Thank you WLCO dumb shits. I overheard this lady royaly pissed off at plan commison yesterday because this project was deffered. She must be a NIMBY wanting to bitch about how "out of scale" an 11 story building must be. Oh the horror, a mid-rise in Chicago's Central Area on our base line street for the address grid.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Has not been approved yet. The project will go to Plan Commisson on October 18, if it is not deffered again. Its been scaled down from two 13 story towers into two squatter 11 story buildings. Thank you WLCO dumb shits. I overheard this lady royaly pissed off at plan commison yesterday because this project was deffered. She must be a NIMBY wanting to bitch about how "out of scale" an 11 story building must be. Oh the horror, a mid-rise in Chicago's Central Area on our base line street for the address grid.

On a related note, the ridership(revenue) projections for the proposed Circle Line will only work out feasibly if the West Loop is rezoned for higher-density (residential and employment) value capture, so when that project gets shelved you can thank WLCO again.

[the urban politician]

^ While I can't stand WLCO, I still don't get that. Some of Chicago's most well transit-served neighborhoods (Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Wicker Park, Lincoln Square, etc etc etc) consist mostly of 4-6 story buildings and single family homes, perhaps some 3 flats here and there as well.

Why can't a neighborhood entirely made up of buildings less than 10 stories support a transit line? Look at London and Paris. Again, my question is perhaps a bit rhetorical, but I just want to emphasize that point.

WLCO may be a bunch of old farts with nothing better to do with their time, but I just don't see how a forest of highrises is necessary to justify transit

[VivaLFuego]

^Because most of Chicago isn't dense enough to actually support rail rapid transit (other than as a trunk line with feeder service, e.g. the Dan Ryan Red line).....and unless you create trip destinations along the line (e.g. significant office and retail density) there simply won't be a significant net gain in system ridership by building a new line where there is already bus and rail service.

Also, with modern zoning, I think a forest of highrises (Vancouver-style) actually is necessary when we're talking about a new-construction neighborhood supporting rail transit and pedestrian livelihood. Modern zoning has very high parking requirements, high open space and setback requirements, high minimum unit size, and a small maximum percentage of efficiency units (like 20%). All of these translate to both a low effective population density, and a general friendliness to automobile use. A neighborhood full of 3--story subdivided old flats with no accessory parking (Wicker Park, Lincoln Park) and 4+1s with inadequate parking (Lakeview, Lincoln Park) can clearly support transit, but in terms of new construction most zoning districts just won't cut it, since those lowscale transit-supportive land uses in those neighborhoods (or in European cities like you mention) are currently unbuildable.

You can't build new 4+1s full of efficiency units, and you can't build a 4-flat without 4 parking spots (or, if you're within a generous 600 ft of a transit station entrance, you can provide a mere 3 parking spots). And once you've got a neighborhood where basically every resident car-owner has off-street parking, then there's not much of an on-street (free) parking crunch, and you quickly lose incentives to take transit.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^Because most of Chicago isn't dense enough to actually support rail rapid transit (other than as a trunk line with feeder service, e.g. the Dan Ryan Red line).....and unless you create trip destinations along the line (e.g. significant office and retail density) there simply won't be a significant net gain in system ridership by building a new line where there is already bus and rail service.

Also, with modern zoning, I think a forest of highrises (Vancouver-style) actually is necessary when we're talking about a new-construction neighborhood supporting rail transit and pedestrian livelihood. Modern zoning has very high parking requirements, high open space and setback requirements, high minimum unit size, and a small maximum percentage of efficiency units (like 20%). All of these translate to both a low effective population density, and a general friendliness to automobile use. A neighborhood full of 3--story subdivided old flats with no accessory parking (Wicker Park, Lincoln Park) and 4+1s with inadequate parking (Lakeview, Lincoln Park) can clearly support transit, but in terms of new construction most zoning districts just won't cut it, since those lowscale transit-supportive land uses in those neighborhoods (or in European cities like you mention) are currently unbuildable.

You can't build new 4+1s full of efficiency units, and you can't build a 4-flat without 4 parking spots (or, if you're within a generous 600 ft of a transit station entrance, you can provide a mere 3 parking spots). And once you've got a neighborhood where basically every resident car-owner has off-street parking, then there's not much of an on-street (free) parking crunch, and you quickly lose incentives to take transit.

^ Thanks for clarifying. I hate to use pathetic anecdotal points, but I am aware of at least a handful of car owners in Chicago who still use transit. I realize that the total lack of car ownership is the ideal situation in which to support transit use, but I'm not sure if car ownership and transit usage are necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm curious to see the data regarding the percentage of people who use the L who also own cars.

Perhaps we can take this discussion to the "General Development" thread?

[harryc]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Thanks for clarifying. I hate to use pathetic anecdotal points, but I am aware of at least a handful of car owners in Chicago who still use transit. I realize that the total lack of car ownership is the ideal situation in which to support transit use, but I'm not sure if car ownership and transit usage are necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm curious to see the data regarding the percentage of people who use the L who also own cars.

Perhaps we can take this discussion to the "General Development" thread?

Own a car, have off street parking, still ride my bike to the El and take the El downtown.

When I lived in LakeView ( next to the Sheridan El ) 2/3 or better of the people owned cars, most took the El anyways.

The Chicago requirement for parking w each unit is a bit misleading, often that parking is at the expense of the on street parking that is now gone because of a stupid little driveway for each unit ( e.g. Fletcher W of Racine ).

[the urban politician]

Viva, and whoever else is interested, I have another comment about this topic in the "General Developments" thread, if you wouldn't mind checking it out

[BVictor1]

From 09/18/07


From 09/20/07


Reflection of the structure in a puddle

[Dan in Chicago]

Originally Posted by ih8spires

Has there been anything new about the transmission/observation tower near the McCormik convention area? or was there even any truth to that tower being a realistic proposal?

According to the architects, the project is in limbo right now. The consortium of broadcasters apparently hasn't united behind it yet, so there's no telling when/if it will happen. I assume, based on your name, that you don't want it to be built?

[ih8spires]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

According to the architects, the project is in limbo right now. The consortium of broadcasters apparently hasn't united behind it yet, so there's no telling when/if it will happen. I assume, based on your name, that you don't want it to be built?

Thanks Dan. Actually, I am excited for it to happen. I think it would be really cool to be out at say the Adler Planetarium and have something to look at looking southwest and not just northwest. I think this tower would do a lot to extend the skyline south along with the other south loop projects. Also, Imagine how Soldier Field is going to become part of instead of south of downtown. As far as my screen name goes, I just hate spires that are used to cheat and give a building a height figure that is really much higher than the building deserves. Luckily, Chicago is not guilty of that too often.

[Marvel 33]

These were the projects discussed yesterday at the September Chicago Plan Commission meeting:

• 6601-6647 North Kedzie Avenue
• 2701-2707 North Cicero Avenue
• 5600 North Sheridan Road
• 4734-58 West 43rd Street
• 243-359 West 127th Street
• 1800-1822 West Grace Street & 1801-1823 West Berenice Avenue
• 5201 South Western Boulevard
• 1117 South Central Avenue
• 240 West 104th Street
• 3021 West Caroll Avenue
• 1234-1260 West Adams Street
• Armitage Industrial Corridor
• DuSable Harbor and the Chicago River Locks

Here is the link to learn about the specifics: http://www.newcityskyline.com/ChicagoPlanCommissionUpdatesSeptember.html

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Alliance

First and foremost it destroyes the lakefront. (Millennium Park, The Art Institute expansion, then the Children's Museum, and now this? HELL NO. Whats next? Six Flags-Chicago Lakefront?)

COOL!!!

09/20/07