CHICAGO | General Developments

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Exactly. This puzzled one of the commissioners, too, who asked where the elevation drawings were. The action was simply raising the height limits in the PD, which had been administratively increased (as a minor amendment) from 400 feet to 650 feet and then to 750 feet. So things like Central Station's purchase of the air rights over Indiana Avenue (for the cantilevered part of the tower) weren't even discussed.

So would this be considered spot zoning? What zoning classification did these two parcels have before the amendment to the PD?

[Mr Downtown]

Aldermen? This was Plan Commission, not City Council.

Spot zoning? That's usually more about allowing an apartment building or gas station in the middle of an all-single-family zone. It's not something that would really apply to anything in the Central Area. Well, I guess if the alderman downzoned a lot at Adams/Desplaines to single-family, that could also be challenged as spot zoning.

Central Station was probably mostly M2-3 before the PD was approved in 1990. Unlike most PDs, which spell out the details of a specific planned building, the Central Station PD obligated them to prepare a plan that would regulate the development. That plan set a height limit of 400 feet for this area, and said they would "minimize shadows on public or private open space." The 2004 Near South Community Plan repeated the 400-foot limit. But in the years since then, Central Station had sought and received "minor amendment" letters from DPD allowing them to go to 650 feet, and then to 750 feet. So to their attorney, the increase to 900 feet was merely another minor change, rather than 2.5 times the height that was allowed in the PD and the plan. Density, by the way, is entirely irrelevant to this debate because the increase in height is not adding any more units. They're presumably just bigger and more profitable condos.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Aldermen? This was Plan Commission, not City Council.

Spot zoning? That's usually more about allowing an apartment building or gas station in the middle of an all-single-family zone. It's not something that would really apply to anything in the Central Area. Well, I guess if the alderman downzoned a lot at Adams/Desplaines to single-family, that could also be challenged as spot zoning.

Central Station was probably mostly M2-3 before the PD was approved in 1990. Unlike most PDs, which spell out the details of a specific planned building, the Central Station PD obligated them to prepare a plan that would regulate the development. That plan set a height limit of 400 feet for this area, and said they would "minimize shadows on public or private open space." The 2004 Near South Community Plan repeated the 400-foot limit. But in the years since then, Central Station had sought and received "minor amendment" letters from DPD allowing them to go to 650 feet, and then to 750 feet. So to their attorney, the increase to 900 feet was merely another minor change, rather than 2.5 times the height that was allowed in the PD and the plan. Density, by the way, is entirely irrelevant to this debate because the increase in height is not adding any more units. They're presumably just bigger and more profitable condos.

Only a few people in the world care about shadows, you being one of them.

[Mr Downtown]

Please cite any recognized authority on urban design who doesn't think one of the most basic principles in a northern climate is to not shadow public parks and plazas. It was so important to planners that it was included as one of the nine development regulations in Central Station's master plan.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Please cite any recognized authority on urban design who doesn't think one of the most basic principles in a northern climate is to not shadow public parks and plazas. It was so important to planners that it was included as one of the nine development regulations in Central Station's master plan.

Please cite any recognized authority who considers a case of melanoma good for you.

I understand your argument, but you're just wrong.

Daley Plaza (shaded)
Connors Park (shaded)
Seneca Park (shaded)

Grant Park is over 300 acres, and you know that only a small portion would be shaded.

[Chicago Shawn]

^^As mentioned above plenty of successful urban spaces in this city are shadded most of the day. In fact after plan commission I noticed the sun was still able to reach the Dearborn Street in the heart of the Loop, depsite all of the high-rises.

If keeping sun in Grant Park is so important, then we should start cutting down the trees, which shade most of the park.

Central Park in NYC, one of the world's most famous parks and a heavily coveted public space is shaded by a tree canopy throughout most of it, and is ringed by high-rises; the tallest of which are at the SOUTH end of the park.

I am sorry but the argument over shaddows in DOWNTOWN are BS. Go out to the lakefront or Solidarity Drive for your Vitaman D, or perhaps out to the outter neighborhoods or suburbs, and be sure to stay away from the trees.

[honte]

I would argue that the "placement of the shadows" from GP4 is actually desirable. The park is unshaded in the summer mornings when most people crave the sun (shadows going toward Wabash). By the time the city is hot and sweaty, the shadows have moved into the park, giving people shade. It should work out nicely. At the least, it makes a bit more sense than having the tallest building at the corner of Columbus and Roosevelt.

Plus, is there even anything planted in the South end of Grant Park??

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by honte

I would argue that the "placement of the shadows" from GP4 is actually desirable. The park is unshaded in the summer mornings when most people crave the sun (shadows going toward Wabash). By the time the city is hot and sweaty, the shadows have moved into the park, giving people shade. It should work out nicely. At the least, it makes a bit more sense than having the tallest building at the corner of Columbus and Roosevelt.

Plus, is there even anything planted in the South end of Grant Park??

Exactly. I like the shadows in 90+ degree weather. And, the land being shadowed was added to Grant Park by Foggelson. It was not in the park before Central Station's development began. So really, what is the issue here? Its just trying to grab some justification of the South Loop NIMBYs getting all pissy because thier Bible of the Near South Plan has been violated. I am sure when the 16th/18th Street overpasses to LSD come up for consideration they will forget about that part of thier precious plan.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Please cite any recognized authority on urban design who doesn't think one of the most basic principles in a northern climate is to not shadow public parks and plazas.

^ All of my favorite parks & plazas in the world are very well shaded. Ever heard of trees?

Pathetically weak argument. Give it up

[cbotnyse]

Doesn't 600 N. LSD significantly shade Ohio St beach? where were the urban designers on that one?

[the urban politician]

^ Now see, there's a difference between a beach and a park/plaza.

Beach--sunbathing, playing in the sun, beach volleyball in the warm sand

Park/Plaza--relax, enjoy the respite from the city, sit in the shade & read a book

[VivaLFuego]

The concept that successful cities with happy residents are those with large unshaded open spaces is....dated. That's not to say open space is bad, but a great deal of damage to the urban fabric was done to U.S. cities from 1950-1970 in the name of creating pleasant open space. Open space was so valued that surface parking lots were considered a valuable improvement: not only solving the parking crisis on our packed streets, but allowing more light and a less crowded feel (see the travesty that is the Hyde Park parking lot betwen Harper Court and Lake Park Ave).

The advantage of tall and slender is that the shadows will also be so shaped: while casting a long shadow, it will function as more of a sundial, with a particular spot only be shaded for a short period in contrast to a solid 400-foot wall where the shadow would last several hours. Further, in the context of this specific location, no one uses the park between 11th and Roosevelt anyway, let alone in the dead of winter when there actually would be shadow for a large portion of the day.

Neighborhoods need some level of open space, particularly and especially playgrounds for children. But the concept that shadows ruin and rot a neighborhood resulted from a spurious correlation that, 50 years ago, was somehow deemed a causal relationship.

There are plenty of very dense cities throughout (northern) Europe that immediately prove otherwise, not even getting into the converse U.S. examples. I challenge MrD and other direct-sunlight proponents to cite an example of when the elimination/prevention of density, in and of itself, either improved livability or saved a neighborhood from deterioration. It's an incredibly tough relationship to prove, and ultimate will just reduce to differing personal preferences.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

Doesn't 600 N. LSD significantly shade Ohio St beach? where were the urban designers on that one?

Some elements of SOAR and Lake Point Towers did actually try to make a pretty big stink about it, but Natarus, bless his screwball heart, could at least be counted on not to pander - in contrast to his successor who got elected on a nearly explicit platform of ultimate and supreme pandering.

[Mr Downtown]

Downtown Chicago has fewer than eight days a year over 90 degrees, and fewer than 50 when shade would be preferred by any park users.

Urban design professionals distinguish between shade, which is generally a good thing to provide in part of an open space, and shadowing, which is always thought to diminish the quality of such a place.

William H. Whyte spent decades studying how people use—and refuse to use—plazas in New York. His work was made the basis of Manhattan’s current zoning rules. The Municipal Art Society mounted a huge protest and forced the redesign of Time Warner Center on Columbus Circle because it would shadow part of Central Park. The more access to sun, the better, and if there is a southern exposure, it should be made the most of. . . People do like warmth. In summer, they will generally sit in the sun as well as the shade. Only in very hot weather—ninety degrees or more—will the sunny spots be vacant. . . .Where the winters are long and the sun sets low in the sky, people cherish what sunlight there is. William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the Center, pp. 133-134

We know this in Chicago, too. It’s why Chase Plaza is so much better used than Daley Plaza. Go to Federal Plaza one lunch hour and observe where people actually choose to sit. San Francisco followed Manhattan’s lead in the mid-80s, and set up elaborate formulas for the location and height of new buildings to protect the city’s public spaces from shadowing. A city’s public parks, plazas, and playgrounds . . . . are a precious resource that should be protected from building shadows during periods of active use. Richard Hedman, Fundamentals of Urban Design, p. 119

A plaza should be located so as to receive as much sunlight as its surrounding environment will permit. Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, editors, People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space, p. 25

You can always count on Christopher Alexander to put it succinctly: People use open space if it is sunny, and do not use it if it isn’t, in all but desert climates. Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language, p. 514

VivaLFuego’s discussion of density and Hyde Park demolition is rather off-topic. No change in density or unit count was being proposed at Central Station. The number of units stays exactly the same, as does the distance between the buildings, whether the buildings are 650 feet or 900 feet.

[honte]

I, for one, will only sit in the shade in a plaza or park. Never have sunbathed in my entire life, nor had any desire to do so. Perhaps it was just too dark in the shade for Whyte to notice people like me through his heavily tinted glasses.

Grant Park, worst case scenario, will be 10% shaded. The 10% of the morons in this city like me who don't crave the sun can sit there while the rest of the city gets skin cancer. Great arrangement.

[honte]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Some elements of SOAR and Lake Point Towers did actually try to make a pretty big stink about it, but Natarus, bless his screwball heart, could at least be counted on not to pander - in contrast to his successor who got elected on a nearly explicit platform of ultimate and supreme pandering.

Yes, exactly, there were lots of sun studies and other things done to check this. San Francisco came up a lot in the debate.

Personally, I thought Natarus should have done more to appease them - in the form of insisting on a taller, more slender tower. (This was long before "tall and thin" was a city mantra.) But perhaps he saw through the argument to realize that most people only wanted to protect their views of the Lake and really only wanted a short, squat building there.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Downtown Chicago has fewer than eight days a year over 90 degrees, and fewer than 50 when shade would be preferred by any park users.

Urban design professionals distinguish between shade, which is generally a good thing to provide in part of an open space, and shadowing, which is always thought to diminish the quality of such a place.

William H. Whyte spent decades studying how people use—and refuse to use—plazas in New York. His work was made the basis of Manhattan’s current zoning rules. The Municipal Art Society mounted a huge protest and forced the redesign of Time Warner Center on Columbus Circle because it would shadow part of Central Park. The more access to sun, the better, and if there is a southern exposure, it should be made the most of. . . People do like warmth. In summer, they will generally sit in the sun as well as the shade. Only in very hot weather—ninety degrees or more—will the sunny spots be vacant. . . .Where the winters are long and the sun sets low in the sky, people cherish what sunlight there is. William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the Center, pp. 133-134

We know this in Chicago, too. It’s why Chase Plaza is so much better used than Daley Plaza. Go to Federal Plaza one lunch hour and observe where people actually choose to sit. San Francisco followed Manhattan’s lead in the mid-80s, and set up elaborate formulas for the location and height of new buildings to protect the city’s public spaces from shadowing. A city’s public parks, plazas, and playgrounds . . . . are a precious resource that should be protected from building shadows during periods of active use. Richard Hedman, Fundamentals of Urban Design, p. 119

A plaza should be located so as to receive as much sunlight as its surrounding environment will permit. Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, editors, People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space, p. 25

You can always count on Christopher Alexander to put it succinctly: People use open space if it is sunny, and do not use it if it isn’t, in all but desert climates. Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language, p. 514

VivaLFuego’s discussion of density and Hyde Park demolition is rather off-topic. No change in density or unit count was being proposed at Central Station. The number of units stays exactly the same, as does the distance between the buildings, whether the buildings are 650 feet or 900 feet.

Well, people have 320 acres to "choose" to sit in at Grant Park. They will be able to sit in the shaded shadow section or the bright sunny area.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

I, for one, will only sit in the shade in a plaza or park. Never have sunbathed in my entire life, nor had any desire to do so. Perhaps it was just too dark in the shade for Whyte to notice people like me through his heavily tinted glasses.

Grant Park, worst case scenario, will be 10% shaded. The 10% of the morons in this city like me who don't crave the sun can sit there while the rest of the city gets skin cancer. Great arrangement.

I agree.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Downtown Chicago has fewer than eight days a year over 90 degrees, and fewer than 50 when shade would be preferred by any park users.

You're giving averages.

And it's called global warming so the averages you stated will change.

[honte]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I'm curious what you think makes this structure so important. If you can answer this question in the 'General Developments' thread, I'd appreciate it.

TUP asked me above, in the transit thread, to explain why a Mies van der Rohe "shack" is of importance. I am going to try very briefly to do so here, in a limited amount of time.

First, it should be noted that almost every architectural historian who has lived past 1950 would agree that Mies was one of the three most important modern architects to have lived. Like him or hate him, you cannot deny this. Further, it is impossible to ignore the influence his work had on the profession, in virtually every corner of the globe.

Second, with that groundwork laid, it's important to understand what Mies was truly after in his work. One of the overriding missions in his career was to define / discover / identify a form of building that was appropriate to modern times. This went far beyond the aesthetic to much more philosophical roots: What does it mean to build, what impact does building have on society, how does building reflect technology and the time of its construction, how can the architect elevate building to the sublime realm of art? Mies wanted to find an inherent "language" in architecture, appropriate to modern times, that would be as solid and lasting as that of the Romans or ancient Greeks, and if you look at what's going on around us, in many respects he did just that.

As such, Mies's work - perhaps more than any other architect - must be seen as a continuum, requiring as much of our focus as Mies the man put into it. Something as mundane to the average civilian as the orientation of a wide-flange column could have serious philosophical meaning in his work, and Mies was the kind of guy who would spend days or weeks or years studying a simple problem like that. It is up to us to reach a level of comprehension deep enough before we judge it.

IIT was Mies's laboratory. It cannot be seen as a merely collection of Mies buildings, but rather must be seen as a whole composition. He spent several years just designing the master plan and not even building structures, something he called the "biggest decision I ever had to make." The arrangement of the buildings, the way they interact with one another, is in many regards as important as the buildings themselves. To remove a building in his hand from that composition, however minor, is to rob the composition of its richness. Plus, there is something great at IIT about seeing true masterpieces such as Crown Hall or the Commons along with the constantly evolving ideas that produced them. You might consider these small, minor buildings as "follies," as I said earlier, or maybe like "B-Sides and Outtakes" from your favorite band's re-release album.

Third, this "test cell" reveals some unique things about Mies's language and evolution of that language. I haven't seen the original plans (yet) nor do I know how much of what we're seeing is original (probably everything). But there are unique details on the building (the brick bond, the roof detail, the door) that I believe have a lot to say for those truly interested in understanding this man, and there are many such people. They flock to the IIT campus every day.

For these reasons (and others I'll probably regret forgetting at the moment) I have no doubt that the building is worth preserving. I hope this answered your question. I highly recommend Phyllis Lambert's essays in Mies in America, which address a lot of this in painstaking detail.