CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 333

orulz · #**6641** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^

No it won't flood very often, the main branch is pretty much tied to lake level which doesn't fluctuate very much.

I believe there are plans to rework the whole bridge in the near future, just like they did to LSD and Columbus and Wacker.

Yes I think it did have the same decorative railings...

Thanks. Regarding the flooding, we've discussed this before. Deep tunnel is the ultimate solution, but who knows how long it will be before that enormous project is done. So, until then, I figured that since a heavy but not ridiculously huge amount of rain can cause the riverwalk to flood to that depth, a smaller and far more common event could cause it to flood to the level of the under bridge connections. But I guess maybe only a really big rain event (say, a 1 year or a 5 year event) can cause enough rain to fall enough to cause a flood.

Abner · #**6642** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 4:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by munda

the good mayor gave me a gift

Yeah, great. Only like 20 years later than everybody else got them. I hope my area of the city will one day be as lucky as yours. Til then, I will keep hauling my stuff to the recycling center like it's the 1970s.

emathias · #**6643** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 10:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

...
No it won't flood very often, the main branch is pretty much tied to lake level which doesn't fluctuate very much.
...

It depends on what you mean by "very much." The lake at Calumet Harbor in the past 10 years has fluctuated by as much as 2 feet in a single 12-month span and historically (past century) you need to account for at least a 5-foot swing between long-term monthly lows and monthly highs. If you went with min-max within each month (and not just average), lake levels probably fluctuate up to 7 feet from one-day extremes over the long term.

I think the river is somewhat protected from the extremes, but I know I've seen it (the river) vary in level by a good 18 inches just since New Years.

trvlr70 · #**6644** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 2:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

as long as we're bringing back old neon, let's put those wonderful Magikist lips back up on the expressways.

Oh my God...I totally remember it. I would always notice when my Dad took me to see the Bulls play in the 70s.

Nowhereman1280 · #**6645** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

It depends on what you mean by "very much." The lake at Calumet Harbor in the past 10 years has fluctuated by as much as 2 feet in a single 12-month span and historically (past century) you need to account for at least a 5-foot swing between long-term monthly lows and monthly highs. If you went with min-max within each month (and not just average), lake levels probably fluctuate up to 7 feet from one-day extremes over the long term.

I think the river is somewhat protected from the extremes, but I know I've seen it (the river) vary in level by a good 18 inches just since New Years.

Yeah, a few feet does not count as "very much" given the fact that many rivers have floods that can be as much as 40 feet above the normal level.

Also remember that the river level can be controlled by the Corps of Engineers and drained into the lake or into the canal depending on if the lake is flooding or if the river is flooding.

In other words its very unlikely that the main branch ever fluctuates more than a foot or two because the highest it can get is the level of the canal (South Branch) or the level of the lake, whichever is lower.

The record high and low levels for the lake are only 8 feet apart, 576 is the low and 582 is the high. Over one year the average level might fluctuate 2 feet maximum, it takes an awful lot of water to make the lake change much more than that. Right now the lake is just under 578 feet, the long term average for April is 578.7 feet, so we are just under normal. I imagine with our particularly cold winter this year with the ice levels on Michigan relatively high, we should probably get above normal since surface evaporation was limited by the ice this winter.

The only big daily fluctuations that happen in the lake are weather system related and result in seiches. A seiche is a giant wave formed when water from one side of the lake is driven by high winds to the other side of the lake raising water levels. Its very similar to a Storm Surge caused by a hurricane. Seiches can be as high as 10 feet and are extremely dangerous. Luckily for Downtown Chicago, the locks at the mouth of the river are designed to block such surges from heading up (down???) river and into the downtown area.

orulz · #**6646** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

In other words its very unlikely that the main branch ever fluctuates more than a foot or two because the highest it can get is the level of the canal (South Branch) or the level of the lake, whichever is lower.

This picture from last month shows that the river was at least about 6 feet above normal. So you can't say that it never happens.

Also, given the level of the riverwalk connections under the bridges (at least under Michigan Ave) it looks like they will flood if the main branch fluctuates by as little as 3 feet? I'm not saying that the river ever really floods enough to cause $millions in property damage. I'm just seeing if anybody knows how often they'll have to close the riverwalk due to flooding.

Steely Dan · #**6647** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

In other words its very unlikely that the main branch ever fluctuates more than a foot or two

not true. as a downtown resident with a view over looking the river and as an avid kayaker of the river, i can tell you the the river level varies by much more than a foot. i'd estimate that after heavy rain events the river can be good 5-6 feet higher than its normal elevation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz

I'm just seeing if anybody knows how often they'll have to close the riverwalk due to flooding.

i don't have any hard data on river levels and on how often the river "floods", but i'd say you could expect that section of the riverwalk under the bridge to be closed maybe 2 or 3 times a year due to rain induced flooding. that's just my best guess as a river resident and frequent river kayaker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trvlr70

Oh my God...I totally remember it. I would always notice when my Dad took me to see the Bulls play in the 70s.

yep, there are a couple of generations of suburban chicagoans for whom those red Magkist lips signified the entrance to "the city" when arriving via one of the main expressways.

ChicagoChicago · #**6648** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

My compliments also, Shawn, on a very insightful summary of the interconnected factors shaping today's urbanism.

Just one note: the central area's high proportion of tax contribution is largely due to Cook County's system of assessing commercial property at a higher rate than residential. Actually, I'm pretty sure that a residential highrise contributes much less property tax than the same number of units and square footage distributed among single-family homes or small multifamily buildings. I pay only $2,000/year property tax on my 1100 sq ft downtown condo.

My 4 unit condo building contributes $42k in property taxes every year. That's $8k for the residential units, and $18k for the commercial unit. These units are 3br condos in Lakeview...not the multi-million dollar pads you'd think.

Rizzo · #**6649** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^

No it won't flood very often, the main branch is pretty much tied to lake level which doesn't fluctuate very much.

I believe there are plans to rework the whole bridge in the near future, just like they did to LSD and Columbus and Wacker.

Yes I think it did have the same decorative railings...

The ice is what worries me more. Sometimes those slabs can heave up damaging railings low to the water.

spyguy · #**6650** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 10:24 PM**

http://edwardlifson.blogspot.com/200...n-another.html

Urgent! Will Chicago tear down another Mies van der Rohe building?
Monday, April 06, 2009

...The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency determined the building had no real merit and gave the green light to tear it down to build the train station.

...Metra's studies and construction drawings are finished. Stimulus funds have been approved.

A contractor has not been chosen, but will be in the next couple of weeks. A conference will be held in two days at IIT ! to solicit minority subcontractors for this project financed with public dollars.
----

This is the image of the Metra station from our previous discussion.

laro3 · #**6651** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 11:30 PM**

any one have pictures of the new Gibson's by sox park.

cbotnyse · #**6652** Posted **Apr 6, 2009, 11:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by laro3

any one have pictures of the new Gibson's by sox park.

there is no Gibson's. A restaurant is planned next to the new gate, pictured here. But Gibson's is only a rumor, and doubtful.

Nowhereman1280 · #**6653** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 12:15 AM**

If the building is really that small, couldn't they move it elsewhere and use it for something else? I mean the small town I come from has a ferocious movement of preservationism and when a building absolutely has to be moved for something then they raise money and move the whole thing elsewhere. They actually have a whole park populated with buildings from the 1800's and early 1900's that they moved to avoid being destroyed. Couldn't someone find a use for this building elsewhere, I mean it sounds like it might not have any windows, but perhaps they could move it and make it into a cafe or a bar or something...

BWChicago · #**6654** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 2:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

If the building is really that small, couldn't they move it elsewhere and use it for something else? I mean the small town I come from has a ferocious movement of preservationism and when a building absolutely has to be moved for something then they raise money and move the whole thing elsewhere. They actually have a whole park populated with buildings from the 1800's and early 1900's that they moved to avoid being destroyed. Couldn't someone find a use for this building elsewhere, I mean it sounds like it might not have any windows, but perhaps they could move it and make it into a cafe or a bar or something...

Pictures here.

I don't think this would make any sense out of context.

Nowhereman1280 · #**6655** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 2:49 PM**

I will probably get flamed for saying this, but I have to agree that building has very little merit. OMG the only example of laying bricks in entirely the long direction in Mies work!!! I'm sorry, but I am going to have to say the windowless Mies building with no practical use remaining loses out to the brand new Metra station that can serve hundreds of citizens a day.

Also, we freaking have the plans to the thing, if we really get upset we tore it down in the future, its not like we can't rebuild it. I don't think they are going to stop making the lavish interior materials like CMUs and raw concrete any time soon...

I'm not going say the building has no value, but its wayyyy less valuable to the city and its citizens than a Metra Station is. Its not like we are tearing down the Barcelona Pavilion here!

That reminds me of an interesting side note. One of my professors had a near death experience. He said that heaven looks just like the Barcelona Pavilion!