CHICAGO | NEMA Chicago | 896 FT | 81 FLOORS - Page 11

GregBear24 · #**201** Posted **Sep 26, 2015, 9:56 PM**

I agree with the early criticism in one respect: the pinnacles are absolutely horrible and resemble deformed, stunted middle fingers given to the city's front porch. I love the general forms, but the tops of these Vinoly designs are hideous. If he fixes those pinnacles and makes phase 2 a hundred feet taller, I'll be very pleased. Just a shame that the tops of these designs are so mis-shaped and ugly for my personal taste. Totally appreciate those who see no issue, but it bothers me too much to just keep lurking like I normally do. Had to express myself on this rare occasion.

untitledreality · #**202** Posted **Sep 26, 2015, 11:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I can't be the only person to recognize that the North elevation and physical model show a completely different upper 25~ floors than the renders can I? Nevermind that the loggias are not displayed in the renders, notice the varying termination points of the tubes, and the absence of the 'trellis' that everyone keeps complaining about.

pilsenarch · #**203** Posted **Sep 27, 2015, 1:37 PM**

^good point... at the very least, it implies that the design is probably still very fluid...

I do found it frustrating that the terraces/loggias are so difficult to read in some of the renderings and even in the model...

bcp · #**204** Posted **Sep 27, 2015, 4:28 PM**

Eh...this is beyond a nod..this is a Sears ripoff.

emathias · #**205** Posted **Sep 27, 2015, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality

I can't be the only person to recognize that the North elevation and physical model show a completely different upper 25~ floors than the renders can I? Nevermind that the loggias are not displayed in the renders, notice the varying termination points of the tubes, and the absence of the 'trellis' that everyone keeps complaining about.

The only difference I see is that in the model the "trellis" is fully enclosed. The rest looks compatible with the rendering to me.

Loopy · #**206** Posted **Oct 11, 2015, 10:39 PM**

The site today during the Chicago Marathon:

go go white sox · #**207** Posted **Oct 12, 2015, 1:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loopy

The site today during the Chicago Marathon:

Cool what's that vacant lot north west of from that site?

BVictor1 · #**208** Posted **Oct 12, 2015, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go go white sox

Cool what's that vacant lot north west of from that site?

That vacant lot is southeast. It's where the sales center for OMP and the other high-rises in the area used to be. Unfortunately the plan is to put a park on the site and wrap it with townhouses.

Randomguy34 · #**209** Posted **Oct 12, 2015, 5:15 PM**

^ I feel like they would be better off just replacing the park with another highrise and then just cap the Metra tracks adjacent to the skate park so that they can still have more, and I would say better, park space

BVictor1 · #**210** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 1:10 AM**

Going to Plan Commission in November.

BVictor1 · #**211** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 1:22 AM**

Bastards know my face... Look right at me and point at someone else during the brief question session.

Mr Downtown · #**212** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 12:41 PM**

This was not the Plan Commission hearing. It was a meeting for residents of the Prairie District. Last I heard, you were not one.

BVictor1 · #**213** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 1:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

This was not the Plan Commission hearing. It was a meeting for residents of the Prairie District. Last I heard, you were not one.

It was a meeting open to anyone bub, recognize...

I know where I live.

The City of Chicago is nobody's private domain. Any and every project affects us all on some way, shape, or form.

Closed off, suburbanized neighborhoods like Dearborn Park, where you live, effect us all as they wall off the street and mess up the grid, which is a hinder to all.

Regardless, I got some of the information I wanted and was able to contribute by expressing my displeasure for parking ingress/egress for 1320 S. Michigan crossing the sidewalk and not being from the alley, which many in the audience agreed with and themselves, didn't think to ask.

Me and you aren't going to get into a discussion that you'll end up losing.

Mr Downtown · #**214** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It was a meeting open to anyone

Which you weren't prevented from attending. You just weren't one of the actual neighborhood residents asked to give your opinion.

BVictor1 · #**215** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Which you weren't prevented from attending. You just weren't one of the actual neighborhood residents asked to give your opinion.

And yet I did... Eventually. Amazing how persistence works.

Again neighborhoods, especially the ones downtown and cities themselves aren't bubbles. Or at least shouldn't be.

rlw777 · #**216** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Which you weren't prevented from attending. You just weren't one of the actual neighborhood residents asked to give your opinion.

It's a PUBLIC meeting. The emphasis is on the neighborhood but any member of the public who is concerned about the neighborhood is allowed to go to the meeting and voice their opinion.

Mr Downtown · #**217** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 4:14 PM**

It is a delicate matter to offer advice to people who haven't asked for any.

If you're not being called on because they recognize you from previous meetings, you might not be doing it as skillfully as you should.

the urban politician · #**218** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It is a delicate matter to offer advice to people who haven't asked for any.

If you're not being called on because they recognize you from previous meetings, you might not be doing it as skillfully as you should.

I don't know about this particular meeting, but in general if public officials such as the Alderman are attending, then anybody who pays taxes in the city of Chicago has a right to be heard.

I pay more Chicago taxes than 99% of Chicagoans, and I don't even live in Chicago. I'm paying for cops, teachers, clean up, Alderman's salaries, and all of that corrupt crap that Chicago politicians deal out on a daily basis.

Fine, keep the machine going, keep taxing me more. But then I want more buildings on the tax rolls. To hell with your little neighborhood group, Mr. D. Downtown is where the real taxable dollars lie, and more development there is crucial to the financial well being of the city.

SamInTheLoop · #**219** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 4:54 PM**

^ That's right, every possible (legal) tactic that can add balance to narrow local nimby concerns and their influence on their alderman (due to the ever insidious aldermanic prerogative) should be deployed......

SamInTheLoop · #**220** Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 5:02 PM**

The more I see the renderings and model here, the less crazy I am about the design (and the more I miss the Saitowitz). I hope Vinoly further refines frankly..........oh, don't get me wrong, if this is final, and no further tweaks are in the cards, then build, build, build (the density here is fantastic) - but I really think this is inferior to Saitowitz' 'The Chicago'.....will have to wait and see how it turns out.......the Crescent Heights rep portrayed this as moving full-steam ahead as far as the capital being lined-up, amendment approvals coming by year-end, and the way he made it sound, as soon as they can get permits issued, they'll be in the ground.......so, maybe even February(ish) groundbreaking??

At any rate, the coming NIMBY battle I'm most jazzed-up about is the Jahn. That, to me, is the big one. That's one to really dig deep and pull out all the stops for!