Near South Side Data Centers
I still think that these massive data warehouses should be actively discouraged by the city from this area. I understand it is cheapest in terms of the fiber logistics. However, the demand I think is probably easily strong enough to make them still economical to build further west (don't forget certainly land on avg. will be cheaper), and doing the extra work/figuring out all the logistical issues/spending the additional money by the developers to run the cables west.
I mean, this is 2 brand new massive warehouses (from an urban activity/streetlife point of view, let's face it - this is effectively completely 'dead' space). Why don't we just build a few more in the surrounding blocks while we're at it - and the thing is, they very well might come - once the precedent has been set, and knowing the 'heard' behavior that we all know developers for all types and sub-types of property typically exhibit. Then we have a situation where this trend is running completely counter to the broader goals of the city of really enlivening and energizing the far south loop/whole motor row/convention center area into a real live/work/play district and destination. What's interesting is that PDNA was worried about the potential 'dead space' most of the year represented by the arena part of the McPier development. While I'm not necessarily a huge believer (there are exceptions) in the transformative positive urban impact of new sports/entertainment stadiums/arenas for cities, they're sure better then massive data centers! Yes they're of course quite necessariy economically for vibrant cities, but placement needs to be very critically selective, as they might be the ultimate 24/7 urban 'dead zones'..... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Remember this when it happens in 30-40 years :P |
Quote:
|
^10 South Canal isn't a data warehouse. . . it's the legacy AT&T long-lines wire center / CHCGILCL central office. . . there is a difference. . . [/nitpick]
. . . |
^ Right you are, though to the layman, it's a data enter. It's a pretty cool place inside, just a monstrosity on the outside. Funny, I know a Tom who manages the mechanical system upgrades in that building...
|
This is the McHugh hotel/data center/retail project along Michigan and Cermak:
http://i61.tinypic.com/2vi5gds.jpg http://i58.tinypic.com/2s1aq9w.jpg |
I hope these both get built, the more of these that chicago can host the more it becomes a nexus for IT jobs and related companies. Let's not underestimate the impact of Chicago landing the manufacturing hub, all that data and way to transmit it has to be housed somewhere and i doubt it will be on Goose Island.
|
Antunovich is the architect for the McHugh tower.
|
Quote:
Edit: After seeing ardecila's post, I'm not so psyched about this.. |
Quote:
Btw, do Washington/Franklin and Dearborn/Illinois house the same kinds of stuff as 10 S Canal? What about the Western Union structure at Congress/LaSalle? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Actually the tower as well has higher floor-to-floor hights than your average new construction hotel. Hotels, all else being equal, tend to be on the shorter side of new construction average residential standard.... Double vomit on the Antunovich selection. What's the deal with McHugh here? I wonder - what does it say (if we can read anything into it) that such a significant general contractor as McHugh (who has experience working with a broad range of local architecture firms) in one of the only or first quite high profile projects as principal developer selects an architect as demonstrably shitty as Antunovich for their project.......thoughts? Is it just as simple as being similar to a lot of traditional developers - wanting to take the 'safe', but design-troubled route with an architect that will presumably pliantly do as told, and not caring that much at the end of the day about design quality or innovation, etc |
I suspect, as disappointing as it is, it's solely due to Antunovich's fees are lower :/
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/w...5/Page-022.jpg The tower should be shifted west and the terrace should be on the roof. It's also too wide (341' in it's N/S axis). Seeing as it's not a McPier project, there won't be a skybridge connecting this to MP. Might as well make it 800 rooms to have a combined 2,000 with the Gensler tower. |
Quote:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...26#post6602526 . . . |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.