CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

So you say you disagree?

Nah, I agree with what you're saying. Not a pretty shot of the city. Skyline and cityscape looks awkward

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Nah, I agree with what you're saying. Not a pretty shot of the city. Skyline and cityscape looks awkward

Aerials are tricky. You're moving fast and can literally circle the entire skyline multiple times in a few short minutes. You can have terrible shadows one moment, then get brilliant light illuminating your subject tower the next. Unless you're directing a pilot to get very specific shots that you've prepared for (i.e. a morning flight to get the east side of the skyline lit up) there's a certain "you take what's given to you" approach to aerial photography.

edit: I guess the other aspect of aerial photography is knowing when not to take a photo. That said. Sometimes even a 'bad' photo is good in the future when looking back for comparison or historical purposes.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

Aerials are tricky. You're moving fast and can literally circle the entire skyline multiple times in a few short minutes. You can have terrible shadows one moment, then get brilliant light illuminating your subject tower the next. Unless you're directing a pilot to get very specific shots that you've prepared for (i.e. a morning flight to get the east side of the skyline lit up) there's a certain "you take what's given to you" approach to aerial photography.

edit: I guess the other aspect of aerial photography is knowing when not to take a photo. That said. Sometimes even a 'bad' photo is good in the future when looking back for comparison or historical purposes.

Keep in mind Mr Shore is shooting during breaks from work - IIRC he is the traffic copter for WBBM - new radio 78. His flickr page is a gold mine https://www.flickr.com/photos/bartshore/

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by harryc

Keep in mind Mr Shore is shooting during breaks from work - IIRC he is the traffic copter for WBBM - new radio 78. His flickr page is a gold mine https://www.flickr.com/photos/bartshore/

That's sort of my point. He's taking what's available to him when he has the opportunity. He's not planning these flights to coincide with specific light to shoot a certain section/building in the skyline.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

Aerials are tricky. You're moving fast and can literally circle the entire skyline multiple times in a few short minutes. You can have terrible shadows one moment, then get brilliant light illuminating your subject tower the next. Unless you're directing a pilot to get very specific shots that you've prepared for (i.e. a morning flight to get the east side of the skyline lit up) there's a certain "you take what's given to you" approach to aerial photography.

edit: I guess the other aspect of aerial photography is knowing when not to take a photo. That said. Sometimes even a 'bad' photo is good in the future when looking back for comparison or historical purposes.

Yeah, that's sort of what I was getting at in my original comment to bhawk but I guess he didn't totally understand what I was saying. Good insight as always though into the nitty gritty details of the photog life though. Definitely didn't mean it as a slight either. The photo above it is art. Even on the ground you can take a shot you think is great and then it just doesn't materialize into what you thought it'd look like when you're editing on the computer back home. Adding velocity and absurd distances only further messes with that

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial

================================================================================================

Yeah, if only architects could be less creative and we could all reduce our creative impulses, the monotony would be a great liberation from the pain inflicted upon our

dulled minds!

Uniformity in architecture across a city has great visual appeal.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Uniformity in architecture across a city has great visual appeal.

For that we have Dubai - but this is Chicago - there is a bit of history.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by harryc

For that we have Dubai - but this is Chicago - there is a bit of history.

My mind went more to Paris. Or Rome. Or Prague. Or the countless other picturesque cities, towns, and villages that all share an overall uniform style of architecture. And clearly the general uniformity in their architecture makes for an amazing experience.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by glowrock

In that case, the alderman is an imbecile. I understand the need to keep some Loop-adjacent property available at a price-point where service-oriented companies can stay in business and thrive, but so much of the current land is in terrible repair and/or vacant of any building whatsoever.

It's not the alderman. North of Roosevelt is 25th Ward, so Solis was the alderman for many years and he rubber-stamped pretty much everything that was outside of the core Pilsen community. Now it's Sigcho, who looks to follow in Solis' footsteps when it comes to the non-Pilsen areas of his ward. He might take a progressive stance of "preserving good paying industrial jobs" in this area, but there's really not a lot of employment going on here except for the chain retailers... not the kind of jobs that get progressives excited.

No, I think it's the city's planning staff who want to keep this area off-limits to mixed-use development. The industrial and service businesses here, except for UPS, are largely a form of land banking for future retail development. The city has a very spotty record addressing the problem of retail deserts on the South and West Sides, so the next best thing is to have a regional shopping district at Roosevelt Road with plenty of room for growth. Plus the lowrise buildings do offer some affordable space to service businesses in the meantime.

[gebs]

That's pretty insightful. It's cool to be able to have a historical, birds-eye view of the city like this.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It's not the alderman. North of Roosevelt is 25th Ward, so Solis was the alderman for many years and he rubber-stamped pretty much everything that was outside of the core Pilsen community. Now it's Sigcho, who looks to follow in Solis' footsteps when it comes to the non-Pilsen areas of his ward. He might take a progressive stance of "preserving good paying industrial jobs" in this area, but there's really not a lot of employment going on here except for the chain retailers... not the kind of jobs that get progressives excited.

No, I think it's the city's planning staff who want to keep this area off-limits to mixed-use development. The industrial and service businesses here, except for UPS, are largely a form of land banking for future retail development. The city has a very spotty record addressing the problem of retail deserts on the South and West Sides, so the next best thing is to have a regional shopping district at Roosevelt Road with plenty of room for growth. Plus the lowrise buildings do offer some affordable space to service businesses in the meantime.

Agree on the City's past fails on retail deserts, but I don't know how that relates to this immediate area, which is still CBD-adjacent rather than South or West side proper. One could argue that the existing retail that has sprung up over the past 10 years or so (Best Buy, Walkgreens, Whole Foods, HomeGoods, Portillos) serves the immediate areas more so than what you mention, and even then, I suspect it's mostly commuter workers who populated the area pre-Covid. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Agree on the City's past fails on retail deserts, but I don't know how that relates to this immediate area, which is still CBD-adjacent rather than South or West side proper. One could argue that the existing retail that has sprung up over the past 10 years or so (Best Buy, Walkgreens, Whole Foods, HomeGoods, Portillos) serves the immediate areas more so than what you mention, and even then, I suspect it's mostly commuter workers who populated the area pre-Covid. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment?

Roosevelt Road attracts Black/brown shoppers from the South and West Sides (especially West) much more so than North/Clybourn, and prevents their sales tax dollars from being lost to the suburbs.

There is a long tradition of Black shoppers visiting Roosevelt Road, dating back to the days when it was largely a Jewish-owned shopping district around Maxwell St and people arrived by streetcar. This is despite the fact that the Roosevelt district is quite far from, say, North Lawndale or Auburn-Gresham.

Roosevelt is ALSO perfectly positioned to capture wealthier shoppers from gentrified areas like South Loop, West Loop, and Little Italy/Tri-Taylor, so national retailers are very comfortable opening there because the trade area demographics are strong. It's really a way for the city to address the retail needs of two very different communities at once. Letting in residential or mixed-use would complicate the continued development of the area as a regional shopping district... right now there are zero residents nearby to complain about semi truck deliveries or increased traffic.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Roosevelt Road attracts Black/brown shoppers from the South and West Sides (especially West) much more so than North/Clybourn, and prevents their sales tax dollars from being lost to the suburbs.

There is a long tradition of Black shoppers visiting Roosevelt Road, dating back to the days when it was largely a Jewish-owned shopping district around Maxwell St and people arrived by streetcar. This is despite the fact that the Roosevelt district is quite far from, say, North Lawndale or Auburn-Gresham.

Roosevelt is ALSO perfectly positioned to capture wealthier shoppers from gentrified areas like South Loop, West Loop, and Little Italy/Tri-Taylor, so national retailers are very comfortable opening there because the trade area demographics are strong. It's really a way for the city to address the retail needs of two very different communities at once. Letting in residential or mixed-use would complicate the continued development of the area as a regional shopping district... right now there are zero residents nearby to complain about semi truck deliveries or increased traffic.

I agree that there's a benefit to having a retail district around Roosevelt/Canal. I'm thinking more of the region North of Taylor. If you've ever taken a Megabus picking up on Polk, it really feels like a weirdly underutilized area.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Roosevelt Road attracts Black/brown shoppers from the South and West Sides (especially West) much more so than North/Clybourn, and prevents their sales tax dollars from being lost to the suburbs.

There is a long tradition of Black shoppers visiting Roosevelt Road, dating back to the days when it was largely a Jewish-owned shopping district around Maxwell St and people arrived by streetcar. This is despite the fact that the Roosevelt district is quite far from, say, North Lawndale or Auburn-Gresham.

Roosevelt is ALSO perfectly positioned to capture wealthier shoppers from gentrified areas like South Loop, West Loop, and Little Italy/Tri-Taylor, so national retailers are very comfortable opening there because the trade area demographics are strong. It's really a way for the city to address the retail needs of two very different communities at once. Letting in residential or mixed-use would complicate the continued development of the area as a regional shopping district... right now there are zero residents nearby to complain about semi truck deliveries or increased traffic.

Okay, I understand; I think you are correct about meeting the needs of different demographics, but I was not factoring in how living in a neighborhood that may be a retail desert would necessitate traveling further out for shopping needs. I admit I was ignorant in that regard about your initial comment.

[Barrelfish]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

My mind went more to Paris. Or Rome. Or Prague. Or the countless other picturesque cities, towns, and villages that all share an overall uniform style of architecture. And clearly the general uniformity in their architecture makes for an amazing experience.

Agree, these are all beautiful places with wonderful architecture where the whole is greater than the some of the parts

Chicago has a different approach, where we have a diversity of different types of architecture all mixed together. In this one spot on the Michigan Avenue bridge you have Beaux-Arts (London Guarantee Building), Art Deco (Carbon & Carbide), International Style (111 E Wacker), Neo-Gothic (Tribune Tower), Postmodern (35 W Wacker), Contemporary (Aqua and Vista), and many others. It's a very cool collective effect and a different way to get a whole greater than the sum of the parts.

[Chi-Sky21]

It is a little late for that in this area, a big chunk is retail in big stores with big parking decks. The Whole foods mall there, the Home Depot and the newer one ...all are like that.

[araman0]

Chicago definitely has a unique architectural "look", although that may be more noticeable in it's neighborhoods than it's downtown. Even newer constructions in the neighborhoods tend to conform to that look (which I think is amazing).

[Phil McAvity]

I think this new building really cements Chicago's reputation as having one of the best skylines in Illinois

[araman0]

Chicago's skyline is famously one of the best skylines in Illinois.

(Maybe even one of the best in America )

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by araman0

Chicago's skyline is famously one of the best skylines in Illinois.

(Maybe even one of the best in America )

Some might argue that Jacksonville has a better skyline:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7342...7i13312!8i6656