CHICAGO | Tribune Tower Addition | 1,442 FT | 113 FLOORS - Page 10

F1 Tommy · #**181** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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

Trump Chicago until they put up the big TRUMP sign, wich causes protesters to come and visit every time he Tweets something they don't like.

LouisVanDerWright · #**182** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 7:28 PM**

John Hancock for sure, Trump is great too, would be better if he actually leased up the retail.

Just because some post war supertalls had bad design, doesn't mean they all did. I would argue that the vast vast majority of lowrise midcentury design is also terrible to walk by. How many blank lavarock walls facing the street have you seen along Higgins?

I would also argue that Hancock addresses the parking podium issue better than any other building in the city. You literally wouldn't know it's there if you have been inside. In fact, the JHCs monumental size is what allows it to address that problem so we'll, super large floors in the base allow a podiun that's integrated into one monolithic form. Most smaller buildings can't do that and hence the podia we see all over the place.

Kumdogmillionaire · #**183** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 8:16 PM**

I wonder if Steely will tell us not to feed the troll this time? Or is it okay because Mr. Downtown is the one making goofy ass comments? I feel like Mr. Downtown makes the most NIMBY comments of any person on this forum ever. I mean really dude, you going to ramble about how much better places without supertalls are without really thinking through the fact that supertalls provide a need. Extreme density in extremely small areas. Niche neighborhoods and supertalls can exist in the same cities without fucking each other over, and never have I seen a supertall be proposed in Chicago that has threatened the fabric of a neighborhood.

Ugh, there I go again, feeding the troll

Steely Dan · #**184** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

I wonder if Steely will tell us not to feed the troll this time? Or is it okay because Mr. Downtown is the one making goofy ass comments? )

Mr. D is our resident crotchety old "get of my lawn" crank.

he's not trolling, that's just his particular brand of charm.

trolls are marked by their incessant need/desire to stir the "city vs. city" shit.

Kumdogmillionaire · #**185** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Mr. D is our resident crotchety old "get of my lawn" crank.

he's not trolling, that's just his particular brand of charm.

trolls are marked by their incessant need/desire to stir the "city vs. city" shit.

Fair enough, this isn't skyscrapercity after all, where they have boners for that

OrdoSeclorum · #**186** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleAle

Maybe this isn’t the forum for you.

I 100% agree with Mr. D. I like iconic skyscrapers, but that's not what makes a city great. Milwaukee Avenue in Wicker Park, Georgetown, Greenich Village, Armitage in Lincoln Park. The best neighborhoods to live in are fine grained, dense and midrise with narrow streets, little parking and few accommodations for cars. I wish it were legal to build the kinds of neighborhoods everyone is clamoring to live in. Permit smaller lots. Permit up to eight units on every lot anywhere in the city. Completely remove any and all requirements for parking. That would get me more excited than HQ2 landing here and the announcement of 10 new 2000 footers.

Kngkyle · #**187** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 8:58 PM**

The root of the problem is not the skyscraper. It is government regulation (and a car-obsessed American populace) mandating the accommodation of the automobile as priority number one. The best neighborhoods are those that were built before this was the case.

Mr Downtown · #**188** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 9:16 PM**

Yes, who can fail to be delighted by the fine-grained urbanism, studded with small shops and cafes, seen here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddguy

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. . . . I will admit that the supertalls I have visited that I have personal experience with were not very pleasant at street level . . . . But that does not mean they have to be built like that.

You gotta love the argument "OK, so it doesn't work so well in reality, but how would it work in theory?"

the urban politician · #**189** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 9:21 PM**

Why should any of this matter?

Cute little streetscapes that look like they were built by elven villagers are getting common and old.

I like walking in places that are terrifying, overpowering, and where the sun plays second fiddle to man's constructs.

And face it, so do you...

rgolch · #**190** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 9:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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?

You’re such a bore.....

Not every part of the city has to be cute, and livable and inviting. If you want that, move to Boston, or wherever else.

What supertalls provide are these larger than life structures. Anchoring points within the footprint of the city. Declarations that you’re somewhere bigger than life, and awe inspiring. When I jump on my bike in River North, head to the lakefront path, and ride north, when I do pull off and take in the city, what is my attention drawn too? Not your cute pedestrian, friendly structures you’re referring to, but rather the tallest and most architecturally impressive buildings in the skyline.

We need a mix of both in the city.

Domer2019 · #**191** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 10:08 PM**

What's right next to John Hancock? Water Tower Place and Michigan Ave. "Streetscapes" shouldn't be judged in a vacuum when there can still be a high density of amenities. Concrete isn't a harbinger of doom, and btw Potsdamer Platz is actually awesome. When I was there the expanses of pavement were occupied by a bierfest and a handful of 7 person conference bikes (naturally), not to mention the shopping, entertainment, Berliner Philharmonie, gaping at Jahn's DB Tower/Sony Center (a combo of 333 W Wacker and the Thompson Center) etc...

The bigger issue, which is something everyone here already knows, is parking podiums as ivory towers that don't encourage walkable lifestyles and foot traffic. It's on the developer, not on the FAR of the tower. Just look at the floor plans of One Chicago Square's street level floors. When you accommodate retail and parking concerns, you've succeeded.

LouisVanDerWright · #**192** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 10:11 PM**

Yeah, Michigan Avenue is a totally failed part of the city with it's giant mega flagships, throngs of shoppers, traffic jams of tourists, and expensive retail and residential real estate markets. No one wants to go there or live there because it's not thatched roof cottages like the good ole' days in the olde country...

Rail Claimore · #**193** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 10:14 PM**

Lots of mass in the central part of the skyline going up. Chicago is moving away from the "3 kings/3 peaks" skyline it seems. Though if this one is around 1400 ft to the roof, it will definitely stand above the other supertalls in the vicinity.

Steely Dan · #**194** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 10:20 PM**

^whoa!

holy blast fom the past!

rail, where have you been?

donnie · #**195** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 10:29 PM**

If this guy had it his way there would be cafes and restaurants around the base of ☢cooling towers!

Rail Claimore · #**196** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^whoa!

holy blast fom the past!

rail, where have you been?

Hey! Not too many places. I was lurking on and off for a few years rather than posting due to work and other things going on with my life. It's great to be back in an active form now.

Kumdogmillionaire · #**197** Posted **Jan 31, 2018, 12:25 AM**

Mr. Downtown pulling out the intentionally misleading screenshots of the Hancock. I respect the grind, but ignoring the Michigan avenue presence will make people annoyed more than anything. I honestly see nothing wrong with your screenshot of Trump's entrance. If elegant lobbies and valets are bad street interaction then everything along Central Park is garbage by your standard.

HomrQT · #**198** Posted **Jan 31, 2018, 12:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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?

I'm torn on this. I think the ideal height of buildings for a city is 4 to 8 floors like the majority of Paris. But I love supertall skyscrapers.

HomrQT · #**199** Posted **Jan 31, 2018, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie

If this guy had it his way there would be cafes and restaurants around the base of ☢cooling towers!

If we can get more use out of dead space why not?

HomrQT · #**200** Posted **Jan 31, 2018, 12:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah, Michigan Avenue is a totally failed part of the city with it's giant mega flagships, throngs of shoppers, traffic jams of tourists, and expensive retail and residential real estate markets. No one wants to go there or live there because it's not thatched roof cottages like the good ole' days in the olde country...

Walking a shopping district in "the olde country" is possibly a more pleasant experience though. Certainly better for your health than the Mag Mile.