CHICAGO | General Developments

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Although your points are valid, they are all, in aggregate, vastly outweighed by the overall positive environmental impact that densification of existing urban areas has - I don't care if it was built in the most inefficient manner imaginable - building tens or hundreds of thousands of new residential units, tens of millions of sq ft of new office space, etc in an existing downtown constitutes an exponentially lighter environmental footprint than that space being built in an outward suburban or exurban expansion

I basically agree, my main point is that density is not necessarily environmentally friendly in of itself, its density in relationship to location. An urban area is almost by definition designed for density so adding more units to a lot in these locations are almost typically green unless you start pushing it to the outer extremes. The infrastructure/energy usage gets divided amongst a larger pool of people so that energy tends to be used more efficiently. The infrastructure for a single family home on a large lot can be as efficient but because it doesn't have the inherent advantage of a large pool of users the energy usage of each particular piece of infrastructure (car, house etc) needs to be reduced to be comparable. Its possible, but tends to be difficult and in many cases counterproductive.

[SamInTheLoop]

Speaking of this project, see link for a rendering on Fitzgerald's website. Not a high-quality rendering mind you, and have no idea if it's the current plan, but is it just me or is there somewhat of a sterile, public-housing feel to this? Other issues too - glass coverage should be greater, I say bring the parking (with a much better design, mind you!) up to the street and put in retail along Clark - site plan-wise, let's take a cue here from the K Station site A twin-tower plan (not aesthetics-wise though!)....



http://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net/...ClarkPolk.html

[honte]

^ Thanks for that - new to me. Ironically, the simple box will be almost unique in the South Loop's skyline. I agree that the parking looks very unattractive.

There is also some interesting info on the Van Buren tower in West Loop. I am not sure if this is new or not?
http://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net/...s/otb1035.html

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Clark/Polk was approved with a 25% green roof, but now DPD is demanding 50%. So Avalon Bay is revising its site plan (less landscaping?) to save money, and probably asking the architects to specify cheaper materials as well. But think how much better the world will be with four more trays of half-dead Chia Pet up on the roof!

I do believe the Lennar project had more open space at ground level, as the parking was placed into podiums under the towers at a .7 ratio. Here we have two towers and a stand alone garage exploded out to a .95 ratio. Less green space on the ground, in exchange for more greenery on top.

BTW, it was cheap materials from the start on this one. And the "half dead chia pet" syndrome you describe is false. Its a drought tolerant plant, usually a verity of sedums that goes dormant in the summer. Its not supposed to be vibrant green in August.


Sam and Honte, both of those links are the current renderings of each project.

[honte]

^ Honest question from a non-botanist: If the thing is dormant during the times you need it most, isn't its usefulness largely diminished?

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Honest question from a non-botanist: If the thing is dormant during the times you need it most, isn't its usefulness largely diminished?

No, the sedium plants store water in little pods after removing it from the soil. If there is a lack of water, it just slows down the photosynthesis process. Much like natural prairie grasses, which store water in the massive root system below grade, and have evolved over 10,000 years to deal with the dry late summers, by sequestering water and rationing it when the drier season hits. The evapo-transpiration process still occurs, and still works to cool down the surface temperature.

Here is some more food for thought; most of the entire expanse of prairie from the great lakes west to the rocky mountains was plowed under and grazed off in a span of about 40 years, and Illinois actually had studies performed as far back as 1874 regarding local climate changes through disruptions of the hydrologic cycle from ripping out the native vegetation. That all occurred one farm at a time.

Anyway, just some tidbits from my studies in sustainability that came with the degree. I am in no way an expert on these issues, but it was part of the very core of the program, so I have studied up on this stuff quite a bit.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

If the previous Concord project received a density bonus because of green roof, then the revised project will need one too. Also, green roofs don't cost that much at all for a basic modular tray system which meets the requirements. They can easily recoup the cost of installing by charging an extra $10 dollars per month over two years, and that is being conservative. That does not include any cost savings from installation over time. And for those of you who claim the green roof will do little good:

-Longer roof life span, (saving money)
-Lower temperature air intake for roof mounted HVAC units. The difference can be up to 80 degrees on a summer day with full sun exposure (Saving money and energy)
-Some carbon sequestration (small amount, but better than nothing)
-Storm water management (HUGE benefit which few take notice of)

Green roofs provide significant benefit. Particularity in Chicago where we have a combined sewer system that backs up in heavy summer rains. IF the majority of our roofs were green in the city, we would not need Deep Tunnel and could have spent the couple billion dollars elsewhere. More areas to absorb storm water, including landscaped medians, porous paving, French drains and green roofs are the new answer to storm management, and in the future less taxation for continuing to expand the "big pipe" solution. In fact MWRDGC is taking a very serious look at sustainable storm water management since that major storm last August.

Chicago right now has more green roofs than any city outside of Germany. And it started one roof at a time. Give it more time, and with more coverage we will see some noticeable results.

So the follow-up question is, will Avalon get an additional density bonus in return for more green roof space? That would indeed be a reasonable concession, as otherwise it hurts their margin and changes the economics of the project (which we'll see in some combination of lower-quality finishes and higher rents). I thought I remember reading about this project, like the AMLI 900 project, that they were both decidedly targeted at the "mid-level" market, not luxury, which is a valuable rarity throughout this boom.

[SolarWind]

February 29, 2008

[ardecila]

I really like the way this tower is turning out.

[Taft]

^^Agreed.

My only concern is the large slab of concrete that is currently exposed on the (I think) South side of the building. From that angle, it is IMO detrimental to the glassy, lightweight aesthetic of the building. Anyone know what the final plans for this are? Paint?

Taft

[the urban politician]

What were they thinking 80 years ago, building no parking? Sigh...look at what they are making us do. We have to compensate for this clear error in planning. Luckily nowadays we still have room to build garages; the neighborhood is saved!

[Abner]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

No, the sedium plants store water in little pods after removing it from the soil. If there is a lack of water, it just slows down the photosynthesis process. Much like natural prairie grasses, which store water in the massive root system below grade, and have evolved over 10,000 years to deal with the dry late summers, by sequestering water and rationing it when the drier season hits. The evapo-transpiration process still occurs, and still works to cool down the surface temperature.

Here is some more food for thought; most of the entire expanse of prairie from the great lakes west to the rocky mountains was plowed under and grazed off in a span of about 40 years, and Illinois actually had studies performed as far back as 1874 regarding local climate changes through disruptions of the hydrologic cycle from ripping out the native vegetation. That all occurred one farm at a time.

Anyway, just some tidbits from my studies in sustainability that came with the degree. I am in no way an expert on these issues, but it was part of the very core of the program, so I have studied up on this stuff quite a bit.

No doubt, a rational developer/end-user would build a green roof for many projects since it is ultimately more efficient. Unfortunately, nobody takes them into account when considering the cost of a building, so they "look" more expensive. The woes of green building.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Abner

No doubt, a rational developer/end-user would build a green roof for many projects since it is ultimately more efficient. Unfortunately, nobody takes them into account when considering the cost of a building, so they "look" more expensive. The woes of green building.

Exactly. Unfortunately, most developers have no intentions of managing buildings they create, so they sell them off before they can see any benefits of adding the green qualities. Does anyone now if Avalon Bay retains their properties, or do they sell them off to pension funds and the likes? Thankfully, more and more buyers are seeing the benefits and efficiencies of green design for the longevity of their investment. I think we will soon reach a tipping point where a substantial portion of buyers will require LEED certification or some other standards of green design, especially as energy prices continue to climb.

[Mr Downtown]

Avalon Bay is a REIT that holds the properties it manages. I'm not sure how it's relevant whether its stock is predominantly owned this week by pension funds or wealthy individuals.

To Avalon Bay, a green roof is a very expensive way to achieve a very small benefit. Want less heat gain through the roof in the summer? Painting it silver or adding a layer of insulation is a lot cheaper. Want less stormwater released into sewers during an event? Put a rain barrel (or a retention pond) and a valve at the bottom of the drainpipe.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Avalon Bay is a REIT that holds the properties it manages. I'm not sure how it's relevant whether its stock is predominantly owned this week by pension funds or wealthy individuals.

To Avalon Bay, a green roof is a very expensive way to achieve a very small benefit. Want less heat gain through the roof in the summer? Painting it silver or adding a layer of insulation is a lot cheaper. Want less stormwater released into sewers during an event? Put a rain barrel (or a retention pond) and a valve at the bottom of the drainpipe.

True, but a green roof also significantly outlives a typical roofing membrane. So, more money upfront now, means less maintenance and repair work for years to come. The plant verity takes care of itself and needs very little attending too.

Also, a vegetative roof will still stay cooler than a reflective coating. It also provides insulation in the winter.

Anyway, that ends the discussion for me, time to move on.

[honte]

^ If anyone can PM me with scholarly studies pointing to longer life spans of green roofs or increased insulation potential, that would be appreciated. The only rigorous efforts I have found that discuss these matters point to exactly the opposite, although I frequently hear what Shawn is stating.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Speaking of this project, see link for a rendering on Fitzgerald's website. Not a high-quality rendering mind you, and have no idea if it's the current plan, but is it just me or is there somewhat of a sterile, public-housing feel to this? Other issues too - glass coverage should be greater, I say bring the parking (with a much better design, mind you!) up to the street and put in retail along Clark - site plan-wise, let's take a cue here from the K Station site A twin-tower plan (not aesthetics-wise though!)....



http://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net/...ClarkPolk.html

Garage looks so-so. I don't think it needs retail, as one half of Clark is already dead as a doornail because of Dearborn Park. At most, a couple small slots for neighborhood basics (e.g. dry cleaner, bodega). This street will never be a vibrant retail/consumption stretch. And oversaturation with retail space is decidedly not desirable, as it just leads to vacancy and prevents establishment of critical mass at key retail intersections (look at Canada, whose cities take the residential/retail balance seriously and it shows in their awesome retail districts even in low density neighborhoods. Contrast with the dreadful West Loop). Let the South Loop retail concentrate in Roosevelt Collection, or over along Wabash and Michigan.

Also, more glass-coverage = higher construction cost = higher unit rents. Desirable? I dunno, but I think people should be less hostile to developers trying to build units targeted at something other than the top end of the market, particularly with construction costs where they are. Conversely, too much painted concrete, of course, is hideous; back in the 60s (whose high-rises most of you guys trash), the monotony of painted concrete in mid-price-range highrises was broken with some interesting brickwork, often to great effect (look closely at some of the north lakeshore/Sheridan high-rises sometime....some real concrete/brick gems in there). And no, I don't mean po-mo a la Columbian.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by honte

^ If anyone can PM me with scholarly studies pointing to longer life spans of green roofs or increased insulation potential, that would be appreciated. The only rigorous efforts I have found that discuss these matters point to exactly the opposite, although I frequently hear what Shawn is stating.

I'd be interested to see these too. . . if they were truly more economical (e.g. longer replacement cycle leading to reduced overall cost of ownership) this would all be priced in and they would be included. I feel like at best, it could only be considered more economical from the developers standpoint if proponents of green roofs could clearly identify an external cost of non-green-roofs for which the developer is subsidized.

[the urban politician]

^ Retail districts certainly should be concentrated, but sometimes having even one corner 7-11 or similar convenience store in an otherwise mostly residential zone can go a long way towards reducing automobile trips

[Abner]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I'd be interested to see these too. . . if they were truly more economical (e.g. longer replacement cycle leading to reduced overall cost of ownership) this would all be priced in and they would be included. I feel like at best, it could only be considered more economical from the developers standpoint if proponents of green roofs could clearly identify an external cost of non-green-roofs for which the developer is subsidized.

This isn't to say anything about green roofs specifically, but no, most green features are actually not priced accurately, which is why they have not been adopted widely. People have a very hard time understanding or caring about benefits that accrue over a long period of time, plus many of the direct economic benefits (e.g. lower utility bills) are enjoyed by the tenant, not the owner, who has no interest in reducing tenants' utility bills. It's been shown again and again that when green features are designed into the building from the beginning, the increase in cost is minimal (one percent or less of total costs) and the features can pay for themselves very quickly. Unfortunately, when sustainable design is something tacked on at the end, like with this AvalonBay project, the added costs are much higher. This is one reason these "surprise" requirements may be counterproductive--they further the myth that sustainable building practices are exorbitantly expensive.