CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

keep in mind, i'm not the one proposing this, it's coming from higher up, and i'm not neccessarily in favor oif it, i'm mjust relaying the info. i want to get the opinions of as many chicago regulars as possible before i form my own opinion. whatever we decide as a group will be what happens.

Why do the higher ups want to change again?

SSC individual building sub forum does not get enough posts to keep a converstion going IMP.

This is where I go to see the real up to date Chicago building scene, not SSC.

[M II A II R II K]

Originally Posted by bnk

Why do the higher ups want to change again?

SSC individual buildings do not keep enough posts to keep a converstion going IMP.

This is where I go to see the real up to date Chicago building scene, not SSC.

Actually.........

This whole idea is exploratory and more to do with inquiring, which is what is taking place here.

There may have been a need for extra space to discuss the lower height projects in more detail, as well as other local issues that pertain to Chicago. Even if that extra space existed it wouldn't make any difference to the setup that already exists now, those that want to post in an extra forum would have that available as an option.

[Jaroslaw]

Everything is great now. In fact, I'd move in the opposite direction, fold the proposed towers into the boom rundown, including the Park Tower and the MO. All except the Spire, which is actually a good example of where a mod should delete posts. In general, the more threads, the more "inflation", or a slow drift into purge-a-tory.

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Even if that extra space existed it wouldn't make any difference to the setup that already exists now, those that want to post in an extra forum would have that available as an option.

That's new. Yesterday's proposed change stated that "no duplication would be allowed." The above will create chaos.

[nomarandlee]

I vote for the change. While there are pros and cons I don't see too much harm if it just remains more an additional option like how M II A II R II K suggest. Though I do like the constant frenzy of information here it does get tedious to try and find past information posted here on the under 700ft projects. It seems that pretty much once there is a new page it may as well be in the history books while a individual threads would give a more coherent and chronicled past breakdown of a project.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

this is off topic, but i need input from all the regular readers of this and other chicago threads:

there has been talk of some potential strucutral changes to the way Chicago projects would be organized in this forum. essentially what is being proposed is the creation of a chicago-centric sub-forum within the midwest forum that would be a place to discuss all things chicago. all highrise projects under 700' could have their own individual project threads in that forum. the regular over 700' threads would remain where they are in the global forum and this compilation thread would remain here in the city compilations forum. and no duplication of threads would be allowed, meaning that if a given topic/project is being discussed at the global level, then it wouldn't be discussed in the chicago-centric sub-forum.

so what do you think? thumbs up, thumbs down? would this be a useful tool, or just make discussion more scattered and confusing? the more input i get, the better.

Bad idea...

I'm a member of both SSC and SSP and SSC has too many threads. There's one on each building, and it's a pain on the ass looking through them all which is why I usually don't. The smaller buildings don't get enough attention to warrent them having their own threads. The Boom Run Down is fine as it is. If people have questions about specific projects, they are asked and answered right here. Plus it seems like it would be a pain in the ass to have to moderate all of those different threads.

[LoyolaBeachView]

I'll chime in again. It doesn't seem there is an actual need for this change. I haven't seen a floodgate of comments on any one particular project under 700 feet. Perhaps the best policy is to judge each project on the merits, a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket height rule. For example, if Jeanne Gang were to design another "third school" building that was 400 feet--but absolutely riveting in design and brilliantly contextual (or just controversial)--then we should open a thread on it. It would be fairly easy to appraise each situation based on the number of comments it draws to the Chicago Boom thread.

Get my drift?

[X-fib]

There are more than enough sub sections in this forum as is so I vote no.

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I vote for the change. While there are pros and cons I don't see too much harm if it just remains more an additional option like how M II A II R II K suggest. Though I do like the constant frenzy of information here it does get tedious to try and find past information posted here on the under 700ft projects. It seems that pretty much once there is a new page it may as well be in the history books while a individual threads would give a more coherent and chronicled past breakdown of a project.

x10 for me!

[M II A II R II K]

No there is no intention whatsoever of steering posts out of the main sections. In fact we want to encourage traffic in the main sections. Nothing about the current setup is supposed to change.

This is only about creating extra space, if there is an established need for that.

[Nowhereman1280]

Well couldn't we just amend the Chicago main forum building requirements to 500' or 600' min or if its just a particularly interesting building, like something that is only 480', but a really really extraordinary design?

[Steely Dan]

i have to agree with the vast majority of everyone else here: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. creating individual project threads for every little pissant 14 story "ramada out near ohare" would be stupid and a waste of everyone's time. however, maybe we should discuss relaxing the 700' height limit for creating project threads and expand it to include highrise projects that may be shorter but are exceptionally noteworthy for other reasons. we've in fact broken the 700' limit in the past for B37, maybe there are other projects that are especially deserving as well? although, we'll need to set-up some kind of specific criteria......

in any event, i don't think creating a sperate chicago sub-forum within the midwest sub-forum is neccessary, chicagoans have already proven themselves quite averse to discussing topics in the midwest sub-forum, so i'm inlcined to believe that another sub-forum within that sub-forum would see even less traffic.

[M II A II R II K]

ok

as for the 700' foot thing unlike before there are now 2 highrise forums so lowering it for the more high profile projects could be a good idea.

[Norsider]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i have to agree with the vast majority of everyone else here: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. creating individual project threads for every little pissant 14 story "ramada out near ohare" would be stupid and a waste of everyone's time. however, maybe we should discuss relaxing the 700' height limit for creating project threads and expand it to include highrise projects that may be shorter but are exceptionally noteworthy for other reasons. we've in fact broken the 700' limit in the past for B37, maybe there are other projects that are especially deserving as well? although, we'll need to set-up some kind of specific criteria......

in any event, i don't think creating a sperate chicago sub-forum within the midwest sub-forum is neccessary, chicagoans have already proven themselves quite averse to discussing topics in the midwest sub-forum, so i'm inlcined to believe that another sub-forum within that sub-forum would see even less traffic.

Perhaps we eliminate height limits altogether? If a project is interesting, its thread will generate discussion. If not, its thread will die quietly. That way, the forum as a whole determines what is and what is not worthy of threadhood. Sometimes a shorter project is much more interesting than a non-descript taller project. For example, the ABN AMRO building is not 700 feet tall, but is, to me anyway, about 100 times more interesting than, say, the Elysian. If others feel the same way, then the ABN project thread would thrive. If not, then commenters will flock to the Elysian thread as well as others and my precious ABN thread will dry up. I think we let the process self-correct.

If there is a need for structure so that the boards don't get too mucked up, perhaps it can be in the form of very specific post formatting rules w/r/t title and labeling. Consistency should make it easier to wade thru lots of posts, so that way we'll be able to tolerate more posts.

And there is no need for a dedicated Chicago Forum buried under a bunch of headings. We already have a Chicago Forum: this very thread.

[museumparktom]

I don't think that you answered Lukecuj first question, which was is this for Chicago only.

Are you going to limit Chicago posts in the Main section to our numerous 700 ft + projects and allow Houston and LA and NY to post regarding their buildings under 700?

As it stands I like how it is now.

[Bucky]

I vote to keep forum the same.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

this is off topic, but i need input from all the regular readers of this and other chicago threads:

I like it the way it is now. I know in the case of Portland and San Antonio things go all over the board...some in the Northwest Section and some in this section. Hard to keep track of it all. People deciding if it is sub-forum or main forum stuff...

[Nowhereman1280]

In regards to this whole what should the limits/criteria be, I think it should be 500' (maybe 600') or a heavily photographed building. For example, Parkview West and 600 Fairbanks get a ton of photographic attention, therefore they deserve their own thread. Or another example, 640 on the park really should have had its own thread, its a very nice, prominent, and heavily photographed building, therefore there would have been more than enough discussion to warrant a thread.

As for determining what buildings get their own threads, I think if someone thinks that a certain building deserves a thread, then they should propose it here in the boom rundown, at which point we can all chime in on whether or not it needs one. Or perhaps we can make a new thread called "Chicago: New Thread Proposals" or something like that to keep any discussion about whether or not a building deserves its own thread separate from the rundown.

I don't know, does what I just said make any sense?

[M II A II R II K]

Sounds great

[Mr Downtown]

I find this forum very confusing compared to SSC because there's no way (that I've found) to see all the Chicago topics together.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

In regards to this whole what should the limits/criteria be, I think it should be 500' (maybe 600') or a heavily photographed building. For example, Parkview West and 600 Fairbanks get a ton of photographic attention, therefore they deserve their own thread. Or another example, 640 on the park really should have had its own thread, its a very nice, prominent, and heavily photographed building, therefore there would have been more than enough discussion to warrant a thread.

i don't think the so-called height cut-off of 700' should be lowered. and i don't think we should create project specific threads just because a certain building has a lot of pics taken of it or because it generates a lot of discussion. i think the major determining factor of whether a sub-700' project warrants its own thread is if it is of a very high or unique architectural character.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

As for determining what buildings get their own threads, I think if someone thinks that a certain building deserves a thread, then they should propose it here in the boom rundown, at which point we can all chime in on whether or not it needs one.rundown.

yes, that's the way it should be done. if someone feels a particular sub-700' project deserves a thread, then they should nominate it here and the ensuing discussion will sway me to either say yay or nay.

keep in mind, i'm not inclined to go about creating a bunch of new project specific threads, our current system has worked very well in my opinion, and this new exception is only going to be used for projects that are ground-breaking or of exceptionally high quality. previous sub-700' projects that would have qualified in my opinion: UBS tower, ABN AMRO, the sofitel, erie on the park, the contemporaine, etc.