There are not many natural features to be found in the flatland prarries and corn fields of Illinois. To be sure the most stunning thing to see is the always changing hue of the giant ancient lake fading to sky along a razor thin line which sometimes disappears so that sky and water seem to be one. Its nature's most minimalist composition.
Is that a real proposal? Burnham proposed something similar in his Plan of Chicago, but it was never built.
Chicago's lack of natural features has always been its biggest weakness and its biggest strength. One of the big reasons I moved away was because I missed being near hills and the ocean, and I appreciate the history and much wider variety of neighborhoods and streetscapes here in NYC.
That being said, I'll admit there's nothing more incredible than flying into Chicago at night, with the utterly relentless street grid lit up and stretching to the horizon, with all the diagonal streets leading to the downtown core -- the only thing for hundreds of miles that has such a vertical emphasis. From above, Chicago almost looks like some futuristic alien city, or the main processing core of some huge supercomputer.
I actually find the lake to be an overwhelming natural feature, even when I can't see it (from Chicago) I sense it. What I miss about the west is mountains: always something on the horizon that is so sublimely larger than you as to make you feel fragile. I do get that from the lake.
Nothing in Indianapolis gives me that feeling, but I'm learning to appreciate the seasons. A more subtle reminder that my time on this planet is insignificant, in a good way.
i'm not a fan, chicago's green initiatives have turned the corner toward marketing. now, there are some really good green policies that operate well in the city, but to parade out a bunch of turbines like we're the coolest doesn't really grab me. the throw back to the burnham plan is what gives the proposal feasability in form and context, but i think it's too big of a formal element...
it'll be interesting to see what daley thinks, isn't that what really matters? (CCM?)
and how 'bout that Smith + Gill, they don't seem to be doin too bad...
I actually like this. Am not a huge fan of the turbines either, and postal is right, its a marketing campaign... if there were some other method of power generation possible from such a structure (waves? currents? solar?) then i think this could be an incredible thing.
I would like to see something like this take a risk and propose an innovative power generation program. Sort of like a massive test lab for new technologies.
As for it being too large a formal element. At this point, there is nothing in or around chicago that has not been irreparably manipulated or formalized already. cities are formal elements... the lakefront is no exception.
Having said that... its a slippery slope from "well we've already altered everything" to "why not just build a huge palm tree island in the lake?""
you know... LiG might be right there... hes already forcing further degradation of grant park. what happens when the polish history museum wants to move in to GP? What about the unfinished Media museum? we better start filling in the lake now so that land is ready for when the Blazekus museum of lithuanian culture needs to move.
The grant park thing - I love the new design but it can only fo in the park in opinion by Referendum. The park is the peoples and if the people say yes then its ok.
I think it's a pretty poor design. The cost to construct and maintain something of this magnitude would have to be enormous. I would need to see a pretty comphrensive analysis before I'd be convinced that the energy put into constructing it would ever be returned using wind and/or hydroelectric power generators. I also don't believe it would be a particularly nice place to jog or bike, it seems too exposed and at the same time uncomfortably remote. The only real benefit would be to the owners of boats in the marina, who may enjoy the new land features to view and visit before heading out onto the lake.
I agree Syn - even going out onto the Solidarity drive at night is erie. Although the outfit would have a good place to dump bodies. Anyways - I think the turbines are kitch - for what little energy they produce they'll destroy a spectacular natural view.
I have to agree, and it makes me appreciate Burnham's original scheme all the more. It has the look of yet another Richard M. Daley "Look At Me!" project with all the substance of a theme park attraction. (At least old man Daley, despite his many faults, built some infrastructure that provides real benefits to city residents, rather than just tourists and conventioneers.)
As others have mentioned, I doubt the wind turbines would justify the massive expense and disruption of the construction process. Also, hydro power isn't really feasible at that location, since the lake doesn't have tides or strong currents*.
Doesn't Chicago already get most of its juice from nuclear power? The condition of ComEd's nuclear plants and distribution infrasturcture are questionable, but at least it's not contributing to CO2 emissions. The wind turbine, at best, seem little more than a symbolic gesture.
* Most of the Great Lakes actually do have minuscule tidal changes and some currents, but not enough to make hydro power feasible.
It apparently would play a large role in Chicago's bid for the Olympics... see the description at ASGG
Although the turbines may not do much at first, a public project of this scale has the potential to introduce the idea of offshore wind energy to the public and make future large scale wind developments difficult to oppose... as long as the migratory bird routes can be avoided of course.
My suggestion above about hydro/solar/wind power generation was supposed to present the idea that something like this could be used as a functioning laboratory. Its likely that hydro or wave power generation at that location is NOT FEASIBLE NOW, but who's to say what technology might exist next year, or in 10 years, or in 100 years.
I personally like the idea of a public laboratory like that. Test new models, display new technologies. If this structure were flexible enough to accept advancement and alternate uses, i could see it being not only infrastructurally useful, but symbolically important.
We tend to forget the incredible importance of image, and to borrow a word from a good book, the imageability of ones contexts. Such "look at me!" projects might cater to tourists, but they define local identities.
If the advanced technology exists next year, I suggest we reconvene the tribal council at that time and have another vote on this plan. However, for the time being it doesn't fly. Concept testing is all fine and good, but this is a little larger scale than that, especially if you consider that the aesthetic is debatable at best. A lot of Chicagoans aren't going to want to see their water front permanently distorted like this.
Isn't the lake big enough that this project could enhance the view? (Except for that big feather-like thing at the apex - I don't get it at all.)
My personal favorite views of the lake are when seen through the buildings/in relation to the buildings. The enormous buildings are dwarfed by the lake, which makes the lake all the more sublime.
Exactly, SDR... For hydro power to work, you either need a flowing river that can be dammed, or significant tidal changes. Lake Michigan doesn't satisfy either condition. If they can somehow generate electricity from a relatively stationary inland lake, they'll get a Nobel Prize.
The wind turbines are more feasible, but they'd be much more efficient out in open farmland or several miles out into the lake, away from skyscrapers and other obstructions.
I certainly like the idea of wind turbines - although not right in front of downtown. There are massive abandonded parts of the city were steel mills once employed literally, 100,000 + people at one mill complex!! These areas near the south tip of the lake have a persistent wind rushing the lake of the lake from the north. i would imagine THAT wouldd be a good place for a wind farm and possibly something to give the depressed folks on the S.E. side something to be proud of too.
What can be said of this?
There are not many natural features to be found in the flatland prarries and corn fields of Illinois. To be sure the most stunning thing to see is the always changing hue of the giant ancient lake fading to sky along a razor thin line which sometimes disappears so that sky and water seem to be one. Its nature's most minimalist composition.
Is that a real proposal? Burnham proposed something similar in his Plan of Chicago, but it was never built.
Chicago's lack of natural features has always been its biggest weakness and its biggest strength. One of the big reasons I moved away was because I missed being near hills and the ocean, and I appreciate the history and much wider variety of neighborhoods and streetscapes here in NYC.
That being said, I'll admit there's nothing more incredible than flying into Chicago at night, with the utterly relentless street grid lit up and stretching to the horizon, with all the diagonal streets leading to the downtown core -- the only thing for hundreds of miles that has such a vertical emphasis. From above, Chicago almost looks like some futuristic alien city, or the main processing core of some huge supercomputer.
I actually find the lake to be an overwhelming natural feature, even when I can't see it (from Chicago) I sense it. What I miss about the west is mountains: always something on the horizon that is so sublimely larger than you as to make you feel fragile. I do get that from the lake.
Nothing in Indianapolis gives me that feeling, but I'm learning to appreciate the seasons. A more subtle reminder that my time on this planet is insignificant, in a good way.
This is in fact a real proposal released today from Smith Gill showing a 2 mile radiused causeway/ breakwall topped by hundreds of turbines.
Looks like a nice place to ride your bike by the water.
There's no volume, no landscape. It's pastiche with a twist. But they got a lot of press. I'll give 'em that and I'll get to work on my own.
i'm not a fan, chicago's green initiatives have turned the corner toward marketing. now, there are some really good green policies that operate well in the city, but to parade out a bunch of turbines like we're the coolest doesn't really grab me. the throw back to the burnham plan is what gives the proposal feasability in form and context, but i think it's too big of a formal element...
it'll be interesting to see what daley thinks, isn't that what really matters? (CCM?)
and how 'bout that Smith + Gill, they don't seem to be doin too bad...
I actually like this. Am not a huge fan of the turbines either, and postal is right, its a marketing campaign... if there were some other method of power generation possible from such a structure (waves? currents? solar?) then i think this could be an incredible thing.
I would like to see something like this take a risk and propose an innovative power generation program. Sort of like a massive test lab for new technologies.
As for it being too large a formal element. At this point, there is nothing in or around chicago that has not been irreparably manipulated or formalized already. cities are formal elements... the lakefront is no exception.
Having said that... its a slippery slope from "well we've already altered everything" to "why not just build a huge palm tree island in the lake?""
Don't give Daley any ideas.
you know... LiG might be right there... hes already forcing further degradation of grant park. what happens when the polish history museum wants to move in to GP? What about the unfinished Media museum? we better start filling in the lake now so that land is ready for when the Blazekus museum of lithuanian culture needs to move.
The grant park thing - I love the new design but it can only fo in the park in opinion by Referendum. The park is the peoples and if the people say yes then its ok.
I think it's a pretty poor design. The cost to construct and maintain something of this magnitude would have to be enormous. I would need to see a pretty comphrensive analysis before I'd be convinced that the energy put into constructing it would ever be returned using wind and/or hydroelectric power generators. I also don't believe it would be a particularly nice place to jog or bike, it seems too exposed and at the same time uncomfortably remote. The only real benefit would be to the owners of boats in the marina, who may enjoy the new land features to view and visit before heading out onto the lake.
I agree Syn - even going out onto the Solidarity drive at night is erie. Although the outfit would have a good place to dump bodies. Anyways - I think the turbines are kitch - for what little energy they produce they'll destroy a spectacular natural view.
reminds me somewhat of Boston's Castle Island/Pleasure Bay
i got an easy, two-word response to this one:
PARTY BOAT!!!!
It looks like it belongs in the UAE.
I have to agree, and it makes me appreciate Burnham's original scheme all the more. It has the look of yet another Richard M. Daley "Look At Me!" project with all the substance of a theme park attraction. (At least old man Daley, despite his many faults, built some infrastructure that provides real benefits to city residents, rather than just tourists and conventioneers.)
As others have mentioned, I doubt the wind turbines would justify the massive expense and disruption of the construction process. Also, hydro power isn't really feasible at that location, since the lake doesn't have tides or strong currents*.
Doesn't Chicago already get most of its juice from nuclear power? The condition of ComEd's nuclear plants and distribution infrasturcture are questionable, but at least it's not contributing to CO2 emissions. The wind turbine, at best, seem little more than a symbolic gesture.
* Most of the Great Lakes actually do have minuscule tidal changes and some currents, but not enough to make hydro power feasible.
It apparently would play a large role in Chicago's bid for the Olympics... see the description at ASGG
Although the turbines may not do much at first, a public project of this scale has the potential to introduce the idea of offshore wind energy to the public and make future large scale wind developments difficult to oppose... as long as the migratory bird routes can be avoided of course.
My suggestion above about hydro/solar/wind power generation was supposed to present the idea that something like this could be used as a functioning laboratory. Its likely that hydro or wave power generation at that location is NOT FEASIBLE NOW, but who's to say what technology might exist next year, or in 10 years, or in 100 years.
I personally like the idea of a public laboratory like that. Test new models, display new technologies. If this structure were flexible enough to accept advancement and alternate uses, i could see it being not only infrastructurally useful, but symbolically important.
We tend to forget the incredible importance of image, and to borrow a word from a good book, the imageability of ones contexts. Such "look at me!" projects might cater to tourists, but they define local identities.
If the advanced technology exists next year, I suggest we reconvene the tribal council at that time and have another vote on this plan. However, for the time being it doesn't fly. Concept testing is all fine and good, but this is a little larger scale than that, especially if you consider that the aesthetic is debatable at best. A lot of Chicagoans aren't going to want to see their water front permanently distorted like this.
Isn't the lake big enough that this project could enhance the view? (Except for that big feather-like thing at the apex - I don't get it at all.)
My personal favorite views of the lake are when seen through the buildings/in relation to the buildings. The enormous buildings are dwarfed by the lake, which makes the lake all the more sublime.
Hydro or wave power -- on a flat inland body of water ?
Exactly, SDR... For hydro power to work, you either need a flowing river that can be dammed, or significant tidal changes. Lake Michigan doesn't satisfy either condition. If they can somehow generate electricity from a relatively stationary inland lake, they'll get a Nobel Prize.
The wind turbines are more feasible, but they'd be much more efficient out in open farmland or several miles out into the lake, away from skyscrapers and other obstructions.
Thank god that Calatrava is doing a building here so Chicagoans can see what a hack Adrian Smith is
I certainly like the idea of wind turbines - although not right in front of downtown. There are massive abandonded parts of the city were steel mills once employed literally, 100,000 + people at one mill complex!! These areas near the south tip of the lake have a persistent wind rushing the lake of the lake from the north. i would imagine THAT wouldd be a good place for a wind farm and possibly something to give the depressed folks on the S.E. side something to be proud of too.
my daddio was one of the 100,000. now i gotta craish cuz im drivin to la porte tomorrow morning which is 14 miles from the lake.
It's very Dubai
...and there it is, the first Archinect use of "Dubai" as an adjective! Well-done, make!
Dubai-Dubai-do -- isn't that Sinatra ?
We could probably just make more efficient use of existing land but whatever. To follow on the above - Might as well just dubai it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.