HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2018, 8:23 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,077
I don’t mind the shortening in this location. It’s still quite tall for the neighborhood. I would actually like to see the West Loop become a mid-rise neighborhood like SoHo.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2018, 3:03 PM
230Roberto 230Roberto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 149
Now we can expect a height reduction for 725 W. Randolph, which would be a total nightmare.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2018, 3:15 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by 230Roberto View Post
Now we can expect a height reduction for 725 W. Randolph, which would be a total nightmare.
Maybe a but but we'll still see a 40ish floor tower at 725. Which is probably what they really want to build in the first place...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2018, 9:21 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by 230Roberto View Post
Now we can expect a height reduction for 725 W. Randolph, which would be a total nightmare.
725 W Randolph is east of the cut off line for the NIMBYs at Halsted. There might be some push back from them, but they need to pick and choose their fights; I'd imagine they have bigger threats to try and contain ("won't somebody think of the children!?!"). My guess (and hope) is that 725 won't be reduced in height too much, if at all.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2018, 9:38 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,223
[QUOTE=the urban politician;8135294]Because NIMBYs are buttheads.


I agree about the tall and skinny theme should be the direction for alot of future buildings in this city but we have to play this game with the NIMBYS.. we can make a building initially really tall especially (relative to the areas) as in this case in the fulton market neighborhood because it will be too much for the NIMBYS to handle so we propose really tall...then say "ok we will compromise" and cut it down by 100 ft or whatever.. this lays the groundwork for the even taller buildings and gives developers a reference to point for future developments to bump up the height ...I just hope someday NIMBYS would be like 1000ft is too tall cut it down to 900ft for areas this far west
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2018, 10:54 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,767
Possible spoiler alert: the developers most likely wanted the height to be around 500' but artificially inflated the height to what was originally presented, in order to see how the NIMBY shitheads would react...knowing full well that they wouldn't bite, so they 'acquiesced' to something below 500' in order to make the NIMBYs feel like they won some sort of concession. This is not uncommon.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2018, 11:45 PM
marothisu marothisu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Possible spoiler alert: the developers most likely wanted the height to be around 500' but artificially inflated the height to what was originally presented, in order to see how the NIMBY shitheads would react...knowing full well that they wouldn't bite, so they 'acquiesced' to something below 500' in order to make the NIMBYs feel like they won some sort of concession. This is not uncommon.
LOL - not at all surprised. I kind of like it to be honest..
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2018, 1:40 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,130
Much better looking at this height, and they knew it all along. They made these changes almost instantaneously, telling me exactly what Sentinel is saying. They planned this out months ago
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2018, 6:59 PM
Siriusly Siriusly is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire View Post
Much better looking at this height, and they knew it all along.
How does it look "much better" at this height? Nothing changed except the spacing at the top levels where the arches appeared more pronounced and had better flow....Now it looks arbitrarily sheered off and cluttered.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2018, 7:05 PM
Siriusly Siriusly is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
Possible spoiler alert: the developers most likely wanted the height to be around 500' but artificially inflated the height to what was originally presented, in order to see how the NIMBY shitheads would react...knowing full well that they wouldn't bite, so they 'acquiesced' to something below 500' in order to make the NIMBYs feel like they won some sort of concession. This is not uncommon.
The ole switch-a-roo is definitely the most believed theory whenever there is a height reduction.

I just don't get why Related wouldn't propose '645 to get the '570 "they wanted to build all along."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2018, 7:07 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,776
I don't imagine this proceeding as revised. It's also still really cheesy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2018, 7:16 PM
Siriusly Siriusly is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
I don't imagine this proceeding as revised. It's also still really cheesy.
I actually like the materials, color, design and base, the way they borrowed from the EL tracks and all the but I have no clue what neighborhood destroying negatives a 570' building brings that a 495' building doesn't. These pointless power struggles are frustrating as hell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2018, 8:09 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siriusly View Post
How does it look "much better" at this height? Nothing changed except the spacing at the top levels where the arches appeared more pronounced and had better flow....Now it looks arbitrarily sheered off and cluttered.
I agree, I don't personally see how a height cut makes things "better" here.
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. The Smith Center - Las Vegas, Nevada - David M. Schwarz Architects - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2018, 8:24 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
I agree, I don't personally see how a height cut makes things "better" here.
Because there’s no better way to ruin a neighborhood than to make the skyline look unbalanced from a helicopter perspective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2018, 12:40 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siriusly View Post
How does it look "much better" at this height? Nothing changed except the spacing at the top levels where the arches appeared more pronounced and had better flow....Now it looks arbitrarily sheered off and cluttered.
Personal preference... The proportions were wacky at 570 feet. I like my towers to be a bit thicc
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 6:50 PM
ChiTownWonder's Avatar
ChiTownWonder ChiTownWonder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 618
I'm in support of the change. The tower is still vastly taller than anything around it, and it was widened by less than an adult humans arm span. I also don't think this throws off the balance of the skyline, it wont be visible from the iconic lake views, from the west it will blend in with the taller loop towers, and from the north and south it will only extend the skyline further west. I hope this one makes it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 9:47 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,892
Still taller than Skybridge and basically matches 727 W. Madison. And way better architecture than both IMHO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted May 21, 2018, 12:39 PM
rgarri4's Avatar
rgarri4 rgarri4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 872








__________________
Renderings, Animations, VR
Youtube
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted May 21, 2018, 2:28 PM
SteelMonkey SteelMonkey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 323
Great perspective on that last rendering. Really gives you a feel of how it will look should everything come to fruition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted May 23, 2018, 6:55 PM
gebs's Avatar
gebs gebs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: South Loop
Posts: 716
Tonight on another episode of "Of Course This Is Happening" with Obvi McEyeroll:

Fulton Market groups oppose developer's 43-story tower

"Two influential neighborhood groups have voiced their opposition to a 43-story condominium tower that Related Midwest wants to build in the heart of the West Loop neighborhood, saying it's too tall, among other things. At 495 feet, the high-rise at 170 N. Peoria St. would be the tallest structure in the Fulton Market District, dwarfing the historic low-rise industrial buildings nearby."


"After much thought and discussion with our members, WLCO and its members believe the zoning change request is materially out of character with the existing and proposed developments of the Fulton Market/West Loop neighborhood," Carla Agostinelli, executive director of the neighborhood group, wrote in a May 8 letter to Ald. Walter Burnett, 27th, who represents the area in the City Council. "It (is) WLCO's recommendation that the height of the Planned Development exceed no more than 200 feet."

Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:56 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.