As much as I like lighting, it is extremely harmful to the environment around us. We can't keep wishing for every building in the city to have extremely bright lights, it's just not environmentally sound. I'm not sure if anyone in this forum has ever researched the consequences of light pollution but they sure are scary. I think it's time to rethink that statement. . .

I realize it's early in the game, but that top needs work. I do like the vertical lines though. I hope it's blue glass with those lines being accented for contrast. I was hoping for more of a nod to the original Tribune Tower.

The entire facade lit up isn't even sensible as the building is set to be residences/ a hotel. Having just the crown, or top lit up can't be giving off nearly as much light as having the entire building facade lit up... I don't think One Museum Park gives off that much light? Does it? Also lighting a building of that size can't be cheap...

There is a compromise possible:

https://www.terrain.org/articles/15/kousky.htm

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...ent?oid=904999

I think thats fair, and a good step forward. How about this, what if during bird migration, all buildings in the city turned off their lights. Streetlights would be dimmed, and almost completely turned off, and blinds would be necessary on buildings. That way, we could have the best of both worlds. Part of the year would have lights on, the other part lights off. I mean, how sick would it be to see the Sears tower with the Milky Way in the background!!! I can dream, but that would be unbelievable. :cheers:

Fantastic models rgarri!!

So.... ahem...... is the model white for a reason :D?

Or did you choose not to use the color of the secret rendering you saw??

This is why spire heights are so ridiculous. No one is going to look at this and say "It's one foot shorter than Trump".

This would be amazing. So if this and the Chicago Square proposal are built, that would give the city 10 buildings over 300 meters? What are the chances of that 950 foot tall tower proposal at the river junction actually being over 300 meters also?

*Thank God for Chicago...with Chicago the Midwest has more buildings over 300 meters than the rest of the nation outside NYC, right? Someone has to continue to represent our region!

Yes, when someone like Amazon is considering where to employ thousands of workers, at the very top of their scoresheet is "number of buildings taller than 300 meters." Because everyone knows how pleasant and livable that makes a city.

I'm not much for height over human scale, but even I can't help but smile looking at that skyline model.

At a minimum, with so many pedestrians in the area, dimming the lights in the city isn't great from a safety standpoint. Furthermore, from a safety standpoint, a predictable dimming schedule will likely reduce safety from a crime standpoint and diminish the utility of certain preventative measures (such as cameras). Think about what happens during blackouts. Now imagine if those blackouts are regularly scheduled.

It will not make a bit of difference to Amazon, either way. So why even mention it. So why not have a taller skyline if it does not matter one way or another. Does taller mean less livable or pleasant? Tall buildings being built and being noticeable give an impression of prosperity, and impressions matter. JMHO.

*If they were being built at the expense of livability and pleasantness that would be a different story.

It's starting to look like that Will Smith movie set in Chicago in 2050 or something.

I, Robot.

I do like the Google image search results for "futuristic chicago": link

It's a reliable hodgepodge of current photography, renderings of potential/previous projects, post-apocalyptic ruin, and arcology-style futurism.

not quite. chicago currently has 6 towers "officially" 300m or taller (sears, trump, aon, jhc, 2 pru, & franklin center), with 1 more currently U/C (vista)

if trib 2 and OCS are both built to heights over 300m, that would make a total of 9 300+m towers in the windy city.

but there' always hope for an 10th. WPS might make it past 300m. related might try to take the spire site over 300m. OGP's future brother to the west is another possible contender. there's always the potential thompson center redevelopment?

and who knows what the future might bring? 5 months ago none of us had any idea that plans were being laid for super-talls at OCS and trib 2, so...........

I accidentally counted that Helmut Jahn Thompson Center 110 floor proposal in that one rendering. Given what people say about Related, I am dreading seeing the old Spire site proposal, after following that from it's inception to demise.

Yes, nearly always.

It’s the streetscapes that make a city pleasant and desirable, not the novelty or height of skyscrapers. Most people prefer the streetscape of Greenwich Village to that of Sixth Avenue in Midtown. The sterile plazas and towers of Bunker Hill or Figueroa Street pale beside the pleasures of LA’s Grand Central Market or Spring Street. We enjoy a walk through Oxford Circus more than one through the Isle of Dogs, the Left Bank more than La Défense, Hackescher Markt more than Potsdamer Platz, Nanjing-Lu more than Pudong.

Even leaving aside microclimate effects, small-scale residential buildings are more engaged with the street. They typically provide more architectural interest and landscaping. The residents offer more social control (eyes on the street) over the sidewalk only a few feet below than do skydwellers way up above a parking podium. As proven in public housing all over the world, highrises don’t work well for children or the poor. In recent decades, ground-floor retail has been out of fashion with developers and condo boards, resulting in bleak sidewalks even in the wealthiest districts.

Can you cite a single postwar supertall that you enjoy walking past? That you think makes a contribution to the streetscape?

The John Hancock Center

Actually a mix of building types and heights in an urban neighborhood is what I prefer. I like the juxtaposition of older buildings with newer buildings of different heights and styles, and different streetlevel activities and uses as well. Also in most cities retail should be concentrated on certain streets and not just stuffed into every nook and cranny(not talking about the exceptions like Manhattan here either). Not every building has to be right up to the street-breaks in the streetscape with building set back on occasion with seating, plantings, water features, etc. are pleasant as well-not all plazas have to be sterile and devoid of life. And interesting how all of your examples are all extremes-nothing in between..funny that.

And yes many supertall buildings were not built with the streetscape in mind-but that does not mean that they have to continue to be built that way. And nobody is advocating housing all the children in the World in highrises, are they? What percentage of the city of Chicago is covered in highrises?-what percentage of the population lives in highrises and exactly who are the expected tenants of these supertall buildings? Nobody is talking about leveling entire cities to build Le Corb nightmares or rehousing the population of Chicago in supertalls. No body is speaking in those extremes, so why are you mentioning them?

I will admit that the supertalls I have visited that I have personal experience with were not very pleasant at street level-especially the old WTC-that Austin J. Toba plaza was awful-windswept and desolate, with trash being swept up in small whirlwinds everywhere. But that does not mean they have to be built like that in massive sterile supercomplexes. We have learned from that-or at least we should have.

You make some good points that I agree with, I just do not think in extremes like that-I make my own decisions on what I like based on my own criteria. If those spaces that are devoid of highrises are what your prefer, fine. But yours is just an opinion just like mine.

And I would ideally like a mixed environment-I would not want to live in a museum city like Venice or much of Paris for that matter. And just how affordable are those tmuseum cities for children and the poor? Aren't they pretty much send to the outskirts?

I also do not like areas like Pudong or Dubai not only because they are harsh at street level, but because they are the skyscraper equivalent of botanical gardens, full of exotic species (many quite unattractive) that individually scream for attention but end up making a jarring and disturbing skyline statement.


*Since you mentioned NYC (Greenwich Village) explain to me the negatives of 9 Dekalb now under construction in Brooklyn. Tell me how what was there before surpasses and is better than what is going in now, and that any negatives of that building outweigh the positives.

Sort of a trick question, because supertalls bring things to their immediate area regardless of whether you like walking past them or not. I like walking past restaurants, bars, and stores that interest me; if the people living or working in that supertall contribute to helping bring people into the area that makes those things possible, then I like them regardless of how enjoyable, forgettable, or even detestable I find the 30 seconds it takes to walk past them.