Tall Buildings and the City: Improving the Understanding of Placemaking, Imageability, and Tourism [1st ed.] 9789811560286, 9789811560293

Citation preview

The Urban Book Series

Kheir Al-Kodmany

Tall Buildings and the City Improving the Understanding of Placemaking, Imageability, and Tourism

The Urban Book Series Editorial Board Fatemeh Farnaz Arefian, University of Newcastle, Singapore, Singapore, Silk Cities & Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL, London, UK Michael Batty, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, UK Simin Davoudi, Planning & Landscape Department GURU, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK Geoffrey DeVerteuil, School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Andrew Kirby, New College, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA Karl Kropf, Department of Planning, Headington Campus, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Karen Lucas, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Marco Maretto, DICATeA, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Fabian Neuhaus, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Vitor Manuel Aráujo de Oliveira

, Porto University, Porto, Portugal

Christopher Silver, College of Design, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Giuseppe Strappa, Facoltà di Architettura, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Roma, Italy Igor Vojnovic, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Jeremy W. R. Whitehand, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

The Urban Book Series is a resource for urban studies and geography research worldwide. It provides a unique and innovative resource for the latest developments in the field, nurturing a comprehensive and encompassing publication venue for urban studies, urban geography, planning and regional development. The series publishes peer-reviewed volumes related to urbanization, sustainability, urban environments, sustainable urbanism, governance, globalization, urban and sustainable development, spatial and area studies, urban management, transport systems, urban infrastructure, urban dynamics, green cities and urban landscapes. It also invites research which documents urbanization processes and urban dynamics on a national, regional and local level, welcoming case studies, as well as comparative and applied research. The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects, policy makers, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview of contemporary urban studies and innovations in the field. It accepts monographs, edited volumes and textbooks. Now Indexed by Scopus!

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14773

Kheir Al-Kodmany

Tall Buildings and the City Improving the Understanding of Placemaking, Imageability, and Tourism

123

Kheir Al-Kodmany Department of Urban Planning and Policy University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, IL, USA

ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic) The Urban Book Series ISBN 978-981-15-6028-6 ISBN 978-981-15-6029-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Acknowledgements

The author would like to genuinely thank Saadia Shah, a professional planner and editor for editing the manuscript. I would like also to sincerely thank anonymous reviewers for useful feedback. Further, earnest thanks go to the Springer Publisher’s staff and company. Last but not least, the author deeply thanks his spouse, Dr. Ahlam Al-Kodmany, for her wonderful support.

v

Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . 1.1 Overview . . . 1.2 Book Outline References . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1 1 7 12

2

Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5 Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.6 South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.7 Central America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.8 Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Why Tall Buildings? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Urban Population Increase . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Demographic Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Global Competition and Globalization . . . 2.3.4 Urban Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Urban Agglomeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.6 Land Price Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.7 Land Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.8 Climate Change and Energy Conservation 2.3.9 Infrastructure and Transportation . . . . . . . 2.3.10 International Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.11 Air Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 17 20 20 35 38 42 46 48 50 52 53 53 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 59 59

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

vii

viii

Contents

2.3.12 Human Aspirations and Ego 2.3.13 Emerging Technologies . . . 2.3.14 Profit and Greed . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

59 60 61 61 62

3

Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Placemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 What Is Placemaking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 The Power of Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 William H. Whyte’s Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Participatory Placemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Placemaking and Sense of Place . . . . . . . . 3.2.6 Placemaking and Tall Buildings . . . . . . . . 3.2.7 Placemaking and Public Spaces . . . . . . . . . 3.2.8 Placemaking and Virtual Environments . . . 3.3 Urban Imageability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Landmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5 Edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Urban Likability and Dis-Likeability . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Urban Symbolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Urban Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65 65 66 66 67 68 69 69 70 71 72 73 73 74 74 74 74 75 76 77 79 79

4

Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Traditional Tools and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Digital Tools and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Geographic Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 The Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Social Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Applied Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

83 83 85 86 86 88 100 110 116 116

5

Preliminary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park 5.2.2 Navy Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

121 121 126 126 129

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Contents

5.2.3 The Magnificent Mile Gateway . . . 5.2.4 Inner Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5 Water Tower Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.6 River Confluence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.7 Museum Campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.8 Urban Giants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.9 Grant Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.10 River City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.11 Chicago Riverwalk . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Organizing the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 The Chicago River (Water Path) . . 5.3.2 The Magnificent Mile (Land Path) . 5.3.3 The Chicago Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Chicago Skyline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ix

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129 132 136 136 136 139 139 142 142 142 146 151 151 152 153 153

The Chicago River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Sublime Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Trump International Hotel & Tower 6.3.2 330 North Wabash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Marina City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Elegant Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 LaSalle-Wacker Building . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 OneEleven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3 77 West Wacker Drive . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.4 Leo Burnett Building . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Exotic Confluence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 333 West Wacker Drive . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 225 West Wacker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3 191 North Wacker Drive . . . . . . . . 6.5.4 River Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.5 150 North Riverside . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.6 Boeing International Headquarters . . 6.5.7 Residences at Riverbend . . . . . . . . . 6.5.8 Wolf Point West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.9 Merchandise Mart . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Welcoming Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1 River View I and II . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2 The Regatta and the Chandler . . . . . 6.6.3 The NBC Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.4 Swissotel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

155 155 157 172 172 178 178 184 184 184 189 192 192 195 197 198 198 203 205 207 207 208 209 209 209 212 214

x

Contents

6.6.5 Illinois Center . . . 6.6.6 Lake Point Tower . 6.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

215 215 217 219

7

The Magnificent Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Grand Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 The Wrigley Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 The Tribune Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 LondonHouse Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4 333 North Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.5 Intercontinental Chicago Magnificent Mile . 7.3.6 Equitable Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.7 DuSable Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.8 Apple Michigan Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 City’s Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Chicago Water Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Water Tower Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Park Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.4 North Michigan Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.5 900 North Michigan Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.6 Palmolive Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.7 One Magnificent Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

221 221 223 223 223 236 246 249 253 257 259 264 266 269 271 275 277 282 286 289 290 292

8

The Chicago Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis . . . . . . 8.3 Graceful Sky Touch . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Willis Tower . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 311 South Wacker Drive . . 8.3.3 The Franklin Center . . . . . . 8.4 City’s Heart and Soul . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 Richard J. Daley Center . . . 8.4.2 James R. Thompson Center 8.4.3 Grant Thornton Tower . . . . 8.5 Loop Oasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Chase Tower . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 Inland Steel Building . . . . . 8.5.3 One South Dearborn . . . . . . 8.5.4 55 West Monroe . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

293 293 295 295 295 312 318 320 320 322 324 328 328 333 333 335

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

xi

8.6

City’s Political Pulse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.1 Chicago Federal Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.2 Monadnock Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Millennium Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.1 Crain Communications Building . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.2 The Heritage at Millennium Park . . . . . . . . . 8.8 Eclectic Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8.1 Aon Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8.2 Two Prudential Plaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8.3 One Prudential Plaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 Individual Landmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9.1 Legacy at Millennium Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9.2 Roosevelt University Academic, Student Life Residence Center (Wabash Building) . . . . . . . 8.9.3 Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies . . . . . . . . . 8.9.4 Aqua Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

339 339 342 345 345 348 350 350 351 353 357 357

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

360 361 363 367 367

The Chicago Skyline . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Skyline Views . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 Waterfront Views . . . . 9.2.2 Land Views . . . . . . . . 9.2.3 High Elevation Views . 9.3 Urban Design Elements . . . . . . 9.3.1 Natural Landscape . . . 9.3.2 Cityscape . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Pleasure and Interest . . . . . . . . 9.4.1 Setback and Stepback . 9.4.2 Height . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.3 Width . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

369 369 370 371 371 371 375 375 381 397 397 398 399 399 405

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 New Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Sustained Architectural and Engineering Legacy . 10.3 The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts 10.4 Urban Design Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.1 Context and Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.2 Volume and Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

407 407 409 413 420 421 421

9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xii

Contents

10.4.3 Evolution and Adaptation . . . . . . . . 10.4.4 Vertical Sprawl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.5 Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Applications to Lynch’s Imageability Model . 10.5.1 Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.2 Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.3 Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.4 District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.5 Landmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 Toward Building a Tourism Plan . . . . . . . . . 10.6.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6.2 Preliminary Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 Notes on Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7.1 Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7.2 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

422 422 422 423 423 426 427 428 429 430 430 431 435 435 437 438 439

Appendix A: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 Appendix B: Chicago History—Key Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract The chaotic proliferation of skyscrapers in many cities around the world is contributing to placemaking decline. This book examines the role of skyscrapers and open spaces in promoting placemaking in the City of Chicago. Chicago’s skyscrapers tell an epic story of transformative architectural design, innovative engineering solutions, and bold entrepreneurial spirit. The city’s public plazas and open spaces attract visitors, breathe life, and bring balance to the cityscape. Using locational data from social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, along with imagery from Google Earth, fieldwork, direct observations, in-depth surveys, and the combined insights from architectural and urban design literature, this study reveals the roles that socio-spatial clusters of skyscrapers, public spaces, architecture, and artwork play to enhance placemaking in Chicago. As the birthplace of skyscrapers, this study illustrates how Chicago remains a leading city in tall building spatial integration and architectural creativity. Focusing on some of the finest urban places in America, including the Chicago River, the Magnificent Mile, and the Chicago Loop, it offers meaningful architectural and urban design lessons that are transferable to emerging skyscraper cities around the globe.

1.1 Overview Today, many cities are building skyscrapers1 hastily due to forceful factors, including massive globalization, rapid urban population increase, intense urban regeneration, extensive agglomeration, soaring land prices, a dire need for land preservation, excessive greed, and immense vanity, among others. In the aftermath of 9/11, prominent scholars have speculated that the era of tall buildings has ended. For example, James Howard Kunstler and Nikos A. Salingaros, a few days after the event, on September 17, 2001, boldly expressed their apoplectic discontentment with tall buildings. They explained, “We are convinced that the age of skyscrapers is at an end. It must now be considered an experimental building typology that has failed. We predict that no new megatowers will be built, and existing ones are destined to be dismantled.” 1 Definitions

of high-rise buildings, tall buildings, skyscrapers, towers, and the like are provided in Appendix A. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_1

1

2

1 Introduction

However, these speculations did not materialize. What happened is exactly the opposite; the world witnessed an unprecedented pace in building high-rises reaching also unparalleled heights. Literally, since 9/11, the world has built more tall buildings and skyscrapers than it did throughout history. Globally, the world added 12,979 tall buildings to the 7,804 buildings that they constructed previously.2 Regarding height, since 9/11, cities have erected over 1361 towers with heights that exceed 200 m/656 ft, while they built only 284 before. Cities also constructed 150 supertalls (300+ m/984+ ft buildings) since the event, while they built merely 24 supertalls previously. Further, cities recently completed three megatalls (600+ m/1,969+ ft) and obviously built none before. The one-kilometer Jedda Tower3 partially fulfills Frank Lloyd Wright’s one-mile-tower vision. Overall, the world has completed a record number of ever-tall skyscrapers since the turn of the twenty-first century and this trend is likely to continue in the coming years (Chap. 2). Therefore, major cities all over the world are earnestly constructing tall buildings. For example, Asian cities, like Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Osaka, Bangkok, Seoul, Jakarta, Manila, and Singapore, have been very active in the construction of tall buildings. Besides, cities in North America, such as New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary, experience a renewed interest in building vertically. Furthermore, European cities that have historically banned tall buildings to protect their valuable built heritage, e.g., London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Moscow, and Warsaw, have recently embarked on constructing significant high-rises. Cities in the Middle East, such as Doha, Jeddah, Mecca, Riyadh, Kuwait, Dubai, and Abu Dubai, have been vigorously constructing some of the world’s tallest buildings. Interestingly, building tall exerts a rippling effect as it has been transmitted to second-tier and third-tier cities in several countries around the globe. As such, building skyscrapers is no longer restricted to major cities (Al-Kodmany 2018a; Mossessian 2015; Risen 2013). Numerous cities, however, are grossly unprepared to accommodate tall buildings. The current chaotic proliferation of tall buildings may precipitate another type of sprawl, “vertical sprawl,” with consequences similar to or worse than “horizontal” sprawl. Described as “curse-able” habitats, “vertical slums” have prevailed in many places. Certainly, the risk of exerting negative externalities on the urban fabric will increase, if skyscrapers are built without considering their environmental impact, their ability to adapt to changing economic conditions, social life, population density, demographics, and functional requirements (e.g., Hack 2019; Krummeck and MacLeod 2015; Southworth 2011; Yeang and Powel 2007). Generally, urban designers, planners, and sociologists, among others, express critical views and concerns about vertical urbanism. They have critiqued high-rise environments for diminishing livability and damaging sense of place. High-rises often harm the unique character of a place, shatter the social fabric, and even degrade public health. Scholars critique this building typology for being expensive to build, operate, and eventually to demolish. While it is thrilling and exciting to see skyscrapers manifest triumph of 2 These

figures are based on the CTBUH Skyscraper Center, https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/. construction is on hold.

3 Currently,

1.1 Overview

3

architecture and engineering, they simultaneously express global inequality and the deepening of socio-economic divide. In addition, there is a concern about tenants’ safety. Environmentally, tall buildings overshadow streets and neighboring buildings and alter wind patterns and speed, thereby inconveniencing pedestrians and hampering natural ventilation (e.g., Alexander et al. 1987; Banerjee et al. 2018; Gehl 2010; Cullen 1996; Fathy 1969; Jacobs 1961; Lynch 1981; Kunstler and Salingaros 2001; Mumford 1961). Most challenging, as buildings are attaining greater heights, much of these problems are multiplied many folds. Similarly, planning organizations and urban design movements see a profound mismatch between high-rise developments and people’s need. For example, New Urbanism (e.g., Calthorpe 1993; Duany et al. 2009; Talen 2009, 2018); Environmental Design Research Association (e.g., Sanoff 1991; Nasar 1998; Rapoport 1997; Weidemann and Anderson 1979); Societies for Studying the Traditional Environment (e.g., Alexander et al. 1977; Alsayyed 2014; Kostof 1991; Rapoport 1997; Riley 2017); and Landscape Urbanism (e.g., Waldheim 2016) largely stress the social pitfalls of vertical urbanism. High-rises are individualistic, introverted structures that make people feel they are living in “vertical silos,” physically, socially, and psychologically. They separate tenants from the social life outdoors, detach tenants from street life, reduce tenants’ participation in public spaces, and weaken propinquity. People on the ground level get spatially disoriented as they are engulfed in masses of glass and steel canyons. Overall, plenty of research critiques high-rise urbanism but fewer tackles the challenge of finding solutions. The crux of the matter is that today tall buildings are inevitable and planners and architects need to find ways to mitigate their massive problems. The problem that this research tackles is placelessness and the questions that it investigates are: can we reinvent and reimagine high-rise cities so that they promote a sense of place4 ? How can we create tall buildings that are particular to a place? Indeed, a review of architecture and urban design literature reveals a significant research gap on the nexus of tall buildings and placemaking. Much of the research on tall buildings has focused on purely building’s issues such as structural systems and materials; mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP); technological innovations and smart material; Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotic construction, and digital modeling (e.g., Ali 2020; Ali and Moon 2007; Baker 2009; Boake 2017; Nawy and Scanlon 1992; NEHRP 2002; Sanner et al. 2017; Schueller 1996; Schumacher 2017; Giachetti and Gianni 2019; Perez et al. 2019; Trabucco 2020). Some studies have addressed other topics such as wind and hurricane resistance; earthquake resiliency; vertical transportation; facade design; green walls; safety, security, terrorist attack, and evacuation response (e.g., Alaghmandan et al. 2016; Condit 1988; DeLuca and Foster 2019; Dutton and Isyumov 1990; Ghosh et al. 2005; Grange and Savage 2018; Hadjisophocleous and Noureddine 1999; Hlushko 2004; Isner and Klem 1993; Meacham and Johann 2007; Wood 2014; Wong et al. 2016). Other

4 Although there could be subtle differences in the meanings of the terms “placemaking” and “sense

of place,” this research uses them interchangeably. See Chap. 3 for details.

4

1 Introduction

research has focused on retrofitting tall buildings; analyzing affordable housing policies, and examining building codes and regulations (e.g., Baldridge 2019; Katz 2020; Goldstein and Salvia 2019; Gregory 2003). Of course, other studies have examined more comprehensive topics, such as sustainability of tall buildings (e.g., Al-Kodmany 2018b; Boeri 2016; Du et al. 2016; Fry 2017; Parakh 2019; Safarik 2019; Wood et al. 2014). Therefore, research that examines the role of tall buildings in enhancing sense of place is lacking. Certainly, because of their towering height and imposing mass, skyscrapers can inherently be “placebreakers” rather than “placemakers.” As such, the rapid pace of building tall is contributing to immense placelessness. This problem is exacerbated as new high-rises are being planted without contextual considerations—they are often out of place, scale, and context. Ergo, cities need to learn the art of spatial integration of tall buildings in an urban environment so that they promote rather hurt sense of place (e.g., Krummeck and MacLeod 2015; Mossessian 2015; Parakh 2015; Safarik et al. 2016; Godschalk and Rouse 2015; Heller et al. 2008). Applying sound architectural and urban design techniques during the planning phase is necessary to help prevent or reduce potential problems associated with vertical urbanism. With a focus on placemaking, this research attempts to address an urban design and planning knowledge gap by using the City of Chicago as a case study. The City of Chicago is the birthplace of skyscrapers (Hunt and DeVries 2017). With its long history and rich experiences with tall buildings, Chicago presents a unique case study for the examination. Many visitors, residents, professionals, and public officials express appreciation of the city’s architecture and urban design (Bruegmann 2012). As such, this study aims to “dig deep” to identify the spatial structure and distinctive characteristics that contribute to the uniqueness of the city. Besides examining iconic skyscrapers, the study attempts to uncover the spatial organization of tall buildings and open spaces, in which they crucially shape the city image. Therefore, the study analyzes visual relationships and decodes visual cues among the various elements of the city to improve our understanding of placemaking. By examining the morphology of the city, the study illustrates how the interplay of vertical and horizontal planes can foster harmonious relationships between tall buildings and open spaces. That is, the spatial arrangements of tall buildings and open spaces create vivid nodes, paths, edges, landmarks, and districts, resulting in a memorable/imageable city. Various research methods were applied, and findings indicate that Chicago continues to serve as a remarkable urban design model that offers inspirational ideas to twenty-first century, emerging skyscraper cities. The findings also identify the elements that Chicago needs to capitalize on to improve tourism. This study sees placemaking and tourism intimately intertwine. Increasingly, planners perceive placemaking as a vehicle for enhancing tourism and argue that cities that manage to distinguish themselves through their unique characteristics are likely to attract tourists. Conversely, cities that look alike are likely to fail to attract tourists. Edward T. McMahon, an Urban Land Institute’s expert, sums this notion by stating, “The more one city comes to look and feel just like every other city, the less reason

1.1 Overview

5

there is to visit. On the other hand, the more a city does to enhance its uniqueness, whether that is cultural, natural or architectural, the more people will want to visit.” McMahon brings the City of Paris as an example to illustrate his point, suggesting that because of its distinctive character, Paris ranks first in the world in attracting tourists—the estimate is over 30 million visitors per year (The Local 2019). People, particularly visitors, look for a vivid urban identity, clear reference points, and strong spatial orientation. Achieving urban distinctiveness requires cities to plan for making their image inspiring and memorable (Madden 2011; Stegner 1987). Indeed, “Tourism is about visiting places that are different, unusual and unique” (McMahon 2012) and “Tourists simply won’t go to a city that has lost its soul,” as renowned travel writer and expert Arthur Frommer explains (Kemp and Stephani 2011, p. 16). These views are also shared by Florida (2014), an urban theorist and author of The Rise of the Creative Class, as well as by prominent architects, planners, and sociologists (e.g., Adi et al. 2016; Friedmann 2005; Kelbaugh 2019; Murray and Osmond 2018; Pérez 2018; Vescovi 2013). Ergo, it is important to strengthen Chicago placemaking. Cities are competing over tourism by capitalizing on a niche, and Chicago should follow suit. For example, Las Vegas and, more recently Macau, focus on gambling; Miami on beaches and cruises; Beijing, Guangzhou, and Bangkok on their historic heritage; Orlando and recently Shenzhen on mega theme parks; and London on nightlife, English pub culture, and other cultural attractions. Perhaps, Chicago should capitalize on its architectural assets, particularly skyscrapers, and should improve its public spaces to achieve more significant tourism. Chicago skyscrapers represent influential architectural schools of thought, directions, and movements, including Art Deco, International Style, Modernism, Postmodernism, and Contemporary. Besides, Chicago is home to an outstanding cohort of architects, extending over multiple generations. Today’s Chicago architectural firms continue building on the legacy of prominent architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, Daniel Burnham, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, among many others. Similarly, Chicago’s legacy includes a prescient commitment to improve public spaces, dating back to the 1909 Burnham Plan. World-class access to the city’s natural amenities is worth leveraging and increasingly crucial to Chicago’s Central Business District (CBD). As residential populations increase in the central area and international visitors travel to Chicago in abundance, open spaces are essential to improve social life and boost tourism. Indeed, “the appearance and treatment of the spaces between and around buildings are often of comparable importance to the design of the buildings themselves” (Vescovi 2013, p.14). For Chicago, improving tourism revenue is important because the city has been facing cycles of economic uncertainty.5 For example, for three consecutive decades, between 1950 and 1980, Chicago faced financial hardship caused by deindustrialization and “white flight.” Consequences were manifested in poverty, blight, the proliferation of slum-like conditions in neighborhoods and population loss, estimated about 22 percent. In 1981, Richard C. Longworth wrote a book titled Chicago, City on the Brink that illustrated the acute nature of economic problems that Chicago 5 Appendix

B offers key dates of the history of Chicago.

6

1 Introduction

faced. He stated, “The City of Chicago has become an economic invalid. The condition may be permanent — unless the people responsible for its economic future can reverse the long, steady, and seemingly endless slide. … Chicago’s basic problem is that it is losing industries, stores, and jobs. Because of this, it is losing tax money. Because of this, it won’t be able to support itself, to pay for the services of a going city. … [Eventually] the city becomes a backwater…The cycle has been going on for twenty years…There is no reason to think it will ever turn around” (Longworth 1981, p. 37). Of course, earlier, during the Great Depression of the 1930s and World War II (1939–1945), Chicago experienced acute economic tumult (Marshall 2017). Economically, tourism is increasingly important. Joseph Cortright, a Brookings expert and leading economic analyst, emphasizes in his writing that tourism has become a game-changing factor in boosting international commerce and providing substantial income to many countries. The World Bank and the World Travel and Tourism Council confirm that tourism is the largest industry in the world (WTTC); it is larger than that of the automobile, oil product, or food. The United Nations World Tourism Organization approves this notion by stating, “Over the decades, tourism has experienced continued growth and deepening diversification to become one of the fastest-growing economic sectors in the world. Modern tourism is closely linked to development and encompasses a growing number of new destinations. These dynamics have turned tourism into a key driver for socio-economic progress” (UNWTO). Consequently, cities are competing to improve their global positions vis-à-vis tourism (Heller et al. 2008; Southworth 2011). After experiencing waves of physical and social declines caused by decades of irrepressible sprawl, Chicago resolves to boost its economic vitality and improve local identity. It intends to become an attractive place for the creative class, investors, and tourists. Reviving Chicago’s CBD is in line with regional strategies to mitigate sprawl (Hunt and DeVries 2017). Indeed, “No urban proposal relevant to North America can overlook the power of the American dream of dispersal and openness and that contemporary concepts must, therefore, reconcile the forces of concentration and dispersal” (Safdie 1998, p. I). An earnest commitment to revive Chicago’s CBD has been stressed by several key city officials, administrators, and mayors, including current Mayor Lori Lightfoot and previous mayors, Rahm Emanuel, Richard M. Daley, Eugene Sawyer, and Harold Washington (Ehrenhalt 2013; Bruegmann 2012). As epicenters of social life and global economy, many cities have been using digital technologies and “Big Data” to improve understanding of urban experiences. In his research on cyburban semiotics, Timothy Jachna explained, “The superimposition of digital technologies upon the physical space of the city is restructuring the urban experience and overriding or altering urban semiotic systems and patterns” (2004). According to Jachna, communication media enabled by the cellular phone network and the Internet pose the challenge of changing the way cities are understood, lived in, and experienced. Therefore, tapping into continuously generated “Big Data” is a useful undertaking for planners. It helps them remain updated and informed on ways to improve existing conditions and tourists’ experiences (García-Palomares et al. 2015; Girardin et al. 2008; Modsching et al. 2008; Shoval et al. 2011). A continuous flow of data reflects a changing city in real time, illustrates emerging urban patterns,

1.1 Overview

7

and grants new perspectives on civic activities (Tasse and Hong 2017; Zhang et al. 2018). Consequently, this research takes advantage of new digital data to improve placemaking. It relies on locational data from social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to reveal popular socio-spatial clusters in the City of Chicago (Fig. 1.1). The locational data of photographs were visualized by using geographic information systems, which helped in producing heatmaps that showed the spatial distribution of posted photos. The geo-intensity of photographs illustrated the areas that are most visited (hotspots) in the city. The study results indicated the city’s most popular places. The findings reveal that social media plays an essential role in promoting places, thereby sustaining a greater interest in the city generating a stream of visitors to public places. Increasingly, large photo databases of urban places on social media are useful sources for studying the built environment. Consequently, planners should tap into the public’s digital engagement in city spaces to improve tourism. The study findings contend that sound spatial planning intertwined with thoughtful architectural design can promote placemaking. This research hopes that good placemaking will become the norm, not the exception, and ill-conceived developments will become less common in future cities.

1.2 Book Outline This book gathers, collates, and examines large data and interdisciplinary research on urban theories (placemaking, imageability, symbolism), substantive topics (tall buildings, sustainability, public participation, and tourism), and information technology (Internet, social media, and GIS). To ease navigating complex materials, the book organizes information into two parts. The first part presents introductory chapters that familiarize the reader with the research backgrounds, the recent upsurge in constructing high-rises, theoretical frameworks embraced in this research, popular methods for gathering public input, and applied methods. It also presents the preliminary findings. The second part offers a detailed account of the research results. It weaves multiple sources (architecture and urban planning literature, respondents’ feedback, direct observations, etc.) to explain the contribution of socio-spatial clusters and individual buildings to placemaking. This part elucidates innovative architecture, creative engineering, and sustainable urban design that prevail in Chicago. The last chapter, “Chicago as a Placemaking Model,” highlights crucial placemaking lessons and suggests a pathway for future research. Part I Chapter 2 offers a fresh account on current tall building developments around the globe. By analyzing extensive data, the chapter contrasts building activities before and after the turn of the new century. It gives a brief review of the development of high-rise buildings in world’s continents, including Asia, Middle East, Europe, North America, South America, Central America, Africa, and Oceania. Importantly, it lays out the driving forces of constructing tall buildings, such as the rapid increase of

8

1 Introduction

Fig. 1.1 With the proliferation of mobile devices, more people take photographs of the built environment and share them on social media. Studying these photographs may improve our understanding of placemaking (Photograph by author)

1.2 Book Outline

Fig. 1.1 (continued)

9

10

1 Introduction

urban population, demographic change, global competition and globalization, urban regeneration and agglomeration. Overall, the chapter alerts about the massive vertical developments that are taking place in numerous cities around the globe. Chapter 3 presents the theoretical framework of this research. It proposes a placemaking conceptual model that illustrates the interrelatedness of various theories on urban imageability, likeability, symbolism, placemaking, sustainability, and public participation. It hypothesizes that participatory placemaking promotes a healthier social life, economy, and environment, which collectively support tourism and sustainability. The chapter closes by stressing that establishing sound spatial relationships between public places and tall buildings is essential to placemaking. Chapter 4 summarizes key methods of collecting public opinion about the urban environment. Undoubtedly, people’s needs and preferences continue to be underrepresented in the planning process and planners argue that it is essential to devise methods that allow residents to voice their opinions on existing conditions or proposed plans. Effective communication is vital to successful public participation. For the sake of simplicity, this chapter classifies communication methods into three categories: one-way, two-way, and three-way. Notably, the chapter offers inspiring examples of the use of the Internet and social media for supporting public participation. Finally, it explains the methods employed in this study, while the following chapters present the findings. Chapter 5 presents the preliminary findings of this research. It explains the use of social media data and the role of geographic information systems in visualizing it. The produced heatmaps help in identifying ten major socio-spatial clusters in the Chicago’s CBD. Importantly, field surveys validated these clusters. For illustration purposes, a sample of respective photographs of these clusters is provided. Further, the identified socio-spatial clusters are regrouped based on Kevin Lynch’s imageability elements: paths (the Chicago River and the Magnificent Mile) and a district (the Chicago Loop), which contains significant socio-cultural nodes in the form of popular plazas. Finally, the study examines “a compound edge” (the Chicago Skyline). These elements are detailed in the following four Chaps. (5, 7, 8, and 9). Part II Chapter 6 focuses on urban developments around the Chicago River, the birthplace of the City of Chicago. It offers first a brief history of important projects and forces that made Chicago a global city. Next, it examines the spatial arrangements of tall buildings along this water path and analyzes significant edges and clusters that support placemaking. Based on the research preliminary findings, the chapter discusses in-depth four unique groups of tall buildings, including a “Sublime Edge,” “Elegant Edge,” Exotic Confluence,” and “Welcoming Gateway.” It also brings a detailed architectural account on tall buildings that form these clusters. Lastly, the chapter illustrates how neighboring high-rises evoke captivating spatial dialogues. Overall, iconic buildings and intriguing spatial patterns in conjunction with a unique natural setting and public places promote the Chicago River as a stunning example of placemaking. Chapter 7 examines the Magnificent Mile, one of the most popular commercial places in North America. The chapter first offers a brief history of its development

1.2 Book Outline

11

and the factors that made it significant. Visual and spatial analysis indicates that tall buildings along this vital path create two remarkable clusters, the “Grand Gateway” and the “City’s Signature.” Near the intersection of the Chicago River with Michigan Avenue, an outstanding group of tall buildings forms one of the most elegant urban spaces in the city. Similarly, a group of tall buildings near the historic Chicago Water Tower forges a unique place. In both cases, tall buildings exhibit authentic architectural styles and exceptional spatial compositions, which collectively evoke a strong sense of place and identity. Overall, a provocative spatial mosaic of vibrant public plazas, vital commercial activities, and iconic buildings along the Magnificent Mile contribute to splendid placemaking. Chapter 8 investigates the Chicago Loop, the city’s Central Business District (CBD). A large concentration of tall buildings in a relatively small area (about a square mile) reinforces a powerful downtown image. The chapter first explains briefly the history of development of the Loop. Next, based on the preliminary research findings, it examines in-depth several outstanding clusters of tall buildings, including “Graceful Sky Touch,” “City’s Heart and Soul,” “Loop Oasis,” “City’s Political Pulse,” “Millennium Gateway,” and “Eclectic Edge.” Further, the chapter reports on delightful public plazas in the Loop that promote vibrant social life and support placemaking. On the skyline, key skyscrapers form major focal points and create a dynamic silhouette. Overall, the Loop evokes a powerful skyscraper CBD image. Chapter 9 examines the Chicago Skyline. Read as a unit, a skyline forms a potent urban symbol that manifests citizens’ achievements, economic status, cultural ambition, and lifestyle. An imageable skyline boosts the city’s reputation, reinforces civic life, and fosters pride. It also helps residents and visitors to better orient themselves within the city and to navigate through it. According to Kevin Lynch, a modern skyline is a “vertical edge” created by tall buildings. By analyzing Chicago Skyline, this chapter attempts to extract useful placemaking and urban design lessons. Chapter 10, the last chapter, offers critical placemaking messages. Undoubtedly, individual landmark buildings and significant public spaces in the City of Chicago are already known. However, this study delineates spatial clusters of landmark buildings and public places, amenities, parks, and museums that collectively foster a unique sense of place. The chapter also charts urban design guidelines and initiates an urban tourism plan for Chicago. Further, it engages the reader with a critical discussion on using social media for public participation. In sum, as many cities all over the world rush to construct tall buildings, Chicago remains a quintessential model that can inform and inspire to better integrate “urban giants” into their respective urban contexts. Appendix A defines key terms such as tall buildings, high-rises, skyscrapers, towers, and the like. Appendix B offers key dates of the history of Chicago. Appendix C provides a quantitative measure of the global development of tall buildings in the twenty-first century.

12

1 Introduction

References Adi P, Hergiawan D, Zakaria A and Siswotomo P (2016) Connectivity in future density Indonesia Archipelago. In: CTBUH 2016 conference proceeding, pp 361–368 Al-Kodmany K (2018a) The vertical city: a sustainable development model. WIT Press, Southampton, UK Al-Kodmany K (2018b) Skyscrapers in the twenty-first century city: a global snapshot. Buildings 8(12):1–45 Alaghmandan M, Elnimeiri M, Krawayk R, Buelow PV (2016) Modifying tall building form to reduce the alongwind effect’. CTBUH J 2:34–39 Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New York City, NY Alexander C, Neis H, Anninou A, King I (1987) A new theory of urban design. Oxford University Press, NYC Ali MM, Moon KS (2007) Structural developments in tall buildings: current trends and future prospects. Archit Sci Rev 50(3):205–223 Ali MM (2020) The bridge: joining east-west nations and cultures while treading life’s difficult path. Publisher, Ali. MM Alsayyad N (2014) Traditions: the “real”, the hyper, and the virtual in the built environment. Routledge, London, UK Baker W, James P, Tomlinson R, Weiss T (2009) Case study: Trump international hotel and tower. CTBUH J 3:16–22 Baldridge S (2019) Affordable high-rise workforce housing: essential to the future of cities. Ctbuh.org/papers Banerjee T, Hack G, Southworth M (Guest Editors) (2018) Introduction to the special issue. J Am Plan Assoc 84:3–4, 214-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1526102 Boake T (2017) Unpacking composite construction: global trends. Ctbuh.org.edu Boeri S (2016) Toward a forest city. CTBUH Research Paper. CTBUH.org/papers Bruegmann R (2012) Art Robert Deco Chicago: designing modern America. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT Calthorpe P (1993) The next American metropolis: ecology, community, and the American Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, NYC Condit CW (1988) The two centuries of technical evolution underlying the Skyscraper. In: Beedle LS (editor-inchief) Second century of the Skyscraper. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, pp 11–24 Cullen G (1996) The concise townscape. The Architecture Press, Boston, MA DeLuca A, Foster J (2019) Hanging out with façade inspectors. CTBUH J Issue III:54–56 Du P, Wood A, Stephens B (2016) Empirical operational energy analysis of downtown high-rise vs. suburban low-rise lifestyles: a Chicago case study. Energies 9:445 Duany A, Speck J, Lydon M (2009) The smart growth manual. McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-137675-5 Dutton R, Isyumov N (1990) Reduction of tall building motion by aerodynamic treatments. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 36(2):739–747 Ehrenhalt A (2013) The great inversion and the future of the American city. Vintage, NYC Fathy H (1969) Architecture for the poor. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Florida R (2014) The rise of the creative class. Basic Books, NYC Friedmann J (2005) Globalization and the emerging culture of planning. Prog Plan 64:183–234 Fry T (2017) Remaking cities: an introduction to urban metrofitting. Bloomsbury Academic, NYC García-Palomares JC, Gutiérrez J, Mínguez C (2015) Identification of tourist hot spots based on social networks: a comparative analysis of European metropolises using photo-sharing services and GIS. Appl Geogr 63:408–417 Gehl J (2010) Cities for people. Island Press, Washington, DC

References

13

Ghosh SK, Fanella DA, Liang X (2005) Seismic and wind design of concrete buildings. International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL Giachetti and Gianni (2019) Wind effects on permeable tall building envelopes: issues and potentialities. CTBUH J Issue III:20–27 Girardin F, Fiore F D, Ratti C, Blat J (2008) Leveraging explicitly disclosed location information to understand tourist dynamics: a case study. J Locat Based Serv:41–56 Godschalk DR, Rouse DC (2015) Sustaining places: best practices for comprehensive plans. PAS Report 578. https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9026901/ Goldstein E, Salvia M (2019) Eliminate the “Void Loophole”? CTBUH J Issue III. Ctbuh.org/papers Grange, J, Savage O (2018) A vertical transportation analytical tool for the construction of tall buildings. CTBUH J Issue III: 20–25 Gregory R (2003) Wind sock. Archit Rev 214(3):69–73 Hack G (2019) Site planning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Hadjisophocleous GV, Noureddine B (1999) Performance criteria used in fire safety design. Autom Construct 8(2):489–501 Heller J, Manus C, Nikitas C (2008) San Francisco: promoting tall buildings through sustainable incentives. In: Proceedings of the 8th CTBUH world congress on tall and green: typology for a sustainable urban future, Dubai, UAE, 3–5 March, pp. 373–379 Hlushko A (2004) Mechanical, electrical, and fire protection design, building security: handbook for architectural planning and design. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp 23.1–23.15 Hunt B, DeVries JB (2017) Planning Chicago. Routledge, London Isner MS, Klem TJ (1993). Fire investigation: report on the world trade center explosion and fire. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 26 Feb Jachna T (2004) Cyburban semiotics. First published at COSIGN 2004. https://www.academia.edu/ 947003/Cyburban_Semiotics. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House Publishing, New York City, NY Katz S (2020) Bringing an Icon into the future: Willis Tower. CTBUH Research Paper. Ctbuh.org/papers Kelbaugh D (2019) The Urban Fix: resilient cities in the war against climate change, heat. Routledge, London Kemp R, Stephani C (2011) Cities going green. McFarland and Company, Jefferson, North Carolina Kostof S (1991) The city shaped: urban patterns and meanings through history. Little, Brown and Company, NYC Krummeck S, MacLeod B (2015) Capturing the placemaking potential of the new skyscraper city. In: Proceedings of the CTBUH 12th World Congress in New York City, NY, Oct 26–30, pp 258–265 Kunstler JK, Salingaros NA (2001) The end of tall buildings, Planetizen, September 17, https:// www.planetizen.com/node/27 Longworth RC (1981) City on the Brink. Chicago Tribune, Chicago Lynch K (1981) A theory of good city form. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Madden K (2011) Placemaking in urban design. In: Banerjee T, Loukaitou-Sideris A (eds) Companion to urban design. Routledge, NYC, pp 654–673 Marshall A (2017) The resilient city: New York is a city that survives, thrives – and plans, Planning, the Magazine of the American Planning Association, January, pp 2–10 McMahon ET (2012) The distinctive city. Urban Land Institute. https://urbanland.uli.org/develo pment-business/the-distinctive-city/# Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Meacham BJ, Johann MA (2007) Extreme event mitigation in buildings - analysis and design. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA Modsching M, Kramer R, Hagen KT, Gretzel U (2008) Using location-based tracking data to analyze the movements of city tourists. Inf Technol Tour 10:31–42 Mossessian M (2015) Horizontal-Vertical, defining the ground. CTBUH Research Paper. Ctbuh.org/papers

14

1 Introduction

Mumford, L (1961) The city in history: its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York Murray P, Osmond L (2018) Debating tall: is polycentrism the way forward? CTBUH J Issue IV:12–15 NEHRP (2002) Recommended provisions for seismic regulation for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington DC Nasar J (1998) The evaluative image of the city. Sage Publications, London Nawy EG, Scanlon A (eds) (1992) Designing concrete structures for serviceability and safety, SP-133. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI Parakh J (2019) The future of sustainable cities and how tall building urbanism has evolved. Ctbuh.org/papers Parakh J (2015) The network of urban spaces surrounding tall buildings. In: Wood A, Malott D (eds) Global interchanges: resurgence of the skyscraper city. In: Proceedings of CTBUH 2015 New York conference, Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats, New York, pp 212–217 Perez RIP Rabunal JR Garcia-Vidaurrazaga (2019) Using AI to simulate urban vertical growth. CTBUH J Issue III:44–51 Pérez F (2018) Riyadh: The metamorphosis of a city from centerless to polycentric. CTBUH J Issue IV: 30–35 Rapoport A (1997) Human aspects of urban forms. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK Riley R (2017) The Camaro in the pasture: speculations on the cultural landscape of America. The University of Virginia Press, Fairfax, VA Risen C (2013) The rise of the supertalls. Popul Sci. https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/ 2013-02/rise-supertalls/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Safarik D (2019) Best tall buildings 2019: dominant trends. CTBUH J Issue II. CTBUH.org/papers Safarik D, Ursini S, Wood A (2016) Megacities: Setting the scene. CTBUH J: 30–39 Safdie M (1998) The city after the automobile: an architect’s vision. Routledge, London Sanner J, Snapp T, Fernandez A, Weihing D, Foster R, Ramage M (2017) River beach tower: a taller timber experiment. CTBUH J Issue II:40–46 Sanoff H (1991) Visual research methods in design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NYC Schueller W (1996) The design of building structures. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Schumacher P (2017) High intensity urban order. In: CTBUH 2016 conference proceedings, pp 123–131 Shoval N, McKercher B, Ng E, Birenboim A (2011) Hotel location and tourist activity in cities. Ann Tour Res 38:1594–1612 Southworth M (2011) Beyond placelessness: place identity and the global city. In: Banerjee T, Loukaitou-Sideris A (eds) Companion to urban design. Routledge, New York City, NY, pp 495– 509 Stegner W (1987) The American West as living space. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan Talen E (2009) Urban design reclaimed: tools, techniques, and strategies for planners. American Planning Association, Planners Press, Chicago Talen E (2018) Neighborhood. Oxford University Press, NYC Tasse D, Hong JI (2017) Using user-generated content to understand cities. In: Thakuriah P, Nebiyou T, Zellner M (eds) In seeing cities through big data. Springer, Switzerland The Local (2019) Record breakers: Why France is still the most visited country on earth. https:// www.thelocal.fr/20190410/france-retains-crown-as-most-visited-country-on-earth Trabucco D (2020) Robotics in construction: The next 50 years. In: CTBUH 2019 10th world congress, pp 269–274 United Nations World Tourism Organization. https://www.unwto.org/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Vescovi F (2013) Designing the urban renaissance. Springer, London United Nations World Tourism Organization. https://www.UNWTO.org Waldheim C (2016) Landscape urbanism. Princeton University, Princeton Press, A General Theory

References

15

Weidemann S, Anderson J (1979) Resident heterogeneity in multifamily housing: a source of conflict in space, housing research and development program. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign World Travel & Tourism Council, https://www.wttc.org/ Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Wong MS, Hassel R and Yeo A (2016) Garden city, megacity: rethinking cities for the age of global warming. Ctbuh.org/papers Wood A, Henry S, Safarik D (eds) (2014) Best tall buildings: a global overview of 2014 Skyscrapers. Routledge, New York City, NY Wood B (2014) Empirically evaluating the livability of local neighborhoods and global cities. CTBUH J 2017 Issue IV:40–47 Yeang K, Powell R (2007) Designing the Ecoskyscraper: premises for tall building design. Struct Des Tall Build 16:411–427 Zhang S, Han B, Wang D, Ouyang Z (2018) Ecological wisdom and inspiration underlying the planning and construction of ancient human settlements: case study of Hongcun UNESCO World Heritage Site in China. Sustainability 10:1345

Chapter 2

Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Abstract This chapter offers a fresh account on current tall building developments around the globe. By analyzing extensive data, the chapter contrasts building activities before and after the turn of the new century. It gives a brief review of the development of high-rise buildings in world’s continents, including Asia, Middle East, Europe, North America, South America, Central America, Africa, and Oceania. Importantly, it lays out the driving forces of constructing tall buildings, such as the rapid increase of urban population, demographic change, global competition and globalization, urban regeneration, and agglomeration. Overall, the chapter alerts about the massive vertical developments that are taking place in numerous cities around the globe.

2.1 Introduction Surprisingly, the twenty-first century is witnessing an unprecedented acceleration in skyscraper buildings.1 Despite pessimistic views suggesting the end of the tall building era in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy that destroyed much of the World Trade Center in NYC, cities are building excessively tall buildings to greater heights. As mentioned in Chap. 1, in the aftermath of 9/11, renowned scholars have announced “the end of tall buildings” era (Kunstler and Salingaros 2001). They predicted that the age of building high-rises has come to a grinding halt, and that it will be discontinued and never return.2 However, their predication proved to be incorrect. Since then, the world has built more tall buildings and skyscrapers than it did throughout history. Globally, since 9/11, the world added 12,979 tall buildings to the 7,804 that they built 1 Data comes from two major sources: the CTBUH Skyscraper Center (https://www.skyscraperce nter.com/) and Emporis (https://www.emporis.com/). 2 Appendix A offers definitions of skyscrapers, tall buildings, high-rise, towers, and the like, and Appendix C provides a detailed quantitative measure of the global development of tall buildings in the twenty-first century.

Parts of this chapter were published in Al-Kodmany (2018a) Skyscrapers in the Twenty-First Century City: A Global Snapshot. Buildings, 8(12), 175; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8120175. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_2

17

18

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

previously. Construction workers are currently erecting 2,816 tall buildings, while developers have proposed 3,043 tall building projects. Furthermore, architects and planners have presented 2,112 visionary projects. As mentioned earlier, scholars also predicted that cities will never build megatowers. However, since 9/11, cities have erected over 1,361 towers with heights that exceed 200 m/656 ft, while they built only 284 before. Cities also constructed 150 supertalls (300 + m/984 + ft buildings) since the event, while they built merely 24 supertalls previously. Further, cities recently completed three megatalls (600 + m/1,969 + ft), and obviously built none before. In fact, the term “megatall” was invented to describe an unprecedent height category for buildings with height of 600 m/1,969 ft or greater. In the past decade, Dubai, UAE, built the 828 m (2,717 ft) Burj Khalifa; Mecca built the 601 m (1,972 ft) Makkah Royal Clock Tower, and Shanghai built the 632 m (2,073 ft) Shanghai Tower. The City of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, has started building the next tallest skyscraper, Jeddah Tower to soar one kilometer in the sky. As noted by research conducted by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the 70 years (between 1931 and 2001) before the tragic event of 9/11, the height of tallest building increased only 230 feet (70 m). However, afterward, between 2001 and 2015, the height of the tallest building has increased by 1,234 feet (376 m). Buildings under construction will reach greater heights, and both proposed and visionary projects suggest building even higher. Projecting these planning and construction activities into the future reveals that cities will host thousands of taller buildings (Risen 2013). Notably, the last few years have witnessed an accelerated pace of tall building construction. According to the CTBUH (2015) Year in Review Report, year 2015 was remarkable since the world has constructed 106 tall buildings with a height 200 m or greater, surpassing the previous year record of 99 buildings. The year 2016 witnessed even greater activities in the construction of tall buildings than in previous years. According to the CTBUH (2016) Year in Review Report, year 2016 was also even more remarkable for the world constructed 128 buildings of 200 + m height. Similarly, the year 2017 witnessed the construction of even higher numbers of tall buildings of all categories. For example, in the 200 + m (656 + ft) category, the world built 144 buildings, which is higher than the 128 buildings constructed in 2016. In the 300 + m (984 + m) category, the world constructed 126 buildings, which is up from 111 in 2016. Year 2018 was also remarkable. The world constructed 143 buildings of 200 + meters and completed 18 supertalls, the highest number ever. During this year, China constructed the world’s tallest, the 528-m (1,732-ft) China Zun in Beijing. Likewise, year 2019 was extraordinary for constructing tall buildings. The world built 126 buildings of 200 + meters and completed 26 supertalls, the most in any year. Again, China erected the world’s tallest for 2019, the 530-m (1,738-ft) Tianjin CTF Finance Centre. Certainly, taller buildings attract global attention. The tallest building in the world until 1998 was the 442 m (1,451 ft) high Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) in Chicago, Illinois. The Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia snatched the title in 1998 by standing at 452 m (1,483 ft). Soon after that, in 2004, Taipei 101 in Taipei, Taiwan, surpassed the Petronas Towers by soaring to a height of 509 m (1,670 ft) to

2.1 Introduction

19

Table 2.1 Tall buildings in 2000 and 2020. In recent years, we have been building more tall buildings of greater heights. Figures in bold indicate the totals, which represent all recorded buildings with a height greater than 50 m (164 ft) Building height (meters/feet)

# of tall buildings completed 1885–2000

# of tall buildings completed 2000–2020

50+/164+

7,513

13,159

100+/328+

3,649

6,591

150+/492+

1,139

4,508

200+/656+

261

1,384

250+/820+

68

407

300+/984+

24

151

350+/1,148+

10

52

400+/1,312+

4

28

450+/1,476+

2

17

500+/1,640+

0

10

550+/1,804+

0

8

600+/1,969+

0

3

become the world’s tallest building. It retained the title until Dubai completed Burj Khalifa in 2010, which rises to a height of 828 m (2,717 ft). Completed in 2015, the Shanghai Tower in Shanghai, China rises to 632 m (2,074 ft) and is the world’s second tallest building. Recently, Seoul has completed the 555 m (1,821 ft) Lotte World Tower, which became the tallest building in South Korea and the world’s fifth tallest. Nevertheless, Jeddah Tower3 (formerly Kingdom Tower) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia will surpass Burj Khalifa by reaching an unprecedented height of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) and will become the world’s tallest building when completed in 2021 (Al-Kodmany 2018b) (Table 2.1). Architects and engineers believe that we can build even taller than the Jeddah Tower; currently, construction is on hold due to financial crisis. For example, William Baker, a chief structural engineer for Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM) explains in a recent article by Berg (2012) titled “Is there a limit to how tall buildings can get?” that “We could easily do a mile… We could do probably quite a bit more.” It is remarkable to consider that it took 80 years (1930–2010) to build the first 50 supertalls while it took merely 5 years (2010–2015) to construct the next 50 supertalls (Gabel 2016, p. 38; Risen 2013). Some of the tall buildings under construction will soar even higher than the existing tallest buildings. Indeed, the entire world is witnessing an upsurge of building skyscrapers with greater heights (Li et al. 2017) (Table 2.2). Figures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10 illustrate ten examples of the world’s tallest buildings that were constructed in the twenty-first century. They are presented based on their height order. Note that these “urban giants” are major gamechangers in their respective cityscape, and as such, they have a profound impact on 3 The

building construction is currently on hold.

20

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.2 The world’s ten tallest buildings in 2020. Note that most of these buildings are in Asia and the Middle East—North America has only one #

Building name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Burj Khalifa

Dubai (AE)

828

2,717

163

2010

2

Shanghai Tower

Shanghai (CN)

632

2,073

128

2015

3

Makkah Royal Clock Tower

Mecca (SA)

601

1,972

120

2012

4

Ping An Finance Center

Shenzhen (CN)

599

1,965

115

2017

5

Lotte World Tower

Seoul (KR)

555

1,819

123

2017

6

One World Trade Center

New York City (US)

541

1,776

94

2014

7

Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre

Guangzhou (CN)

530

1,739

111

2016

8

Tianjin CTF Finance Centre

Tianjin (CN)

530

1,739

97

2019

9

CITIC Tower

Beijing (CN)

528

1,731

109

2018

10

TAIPEI 101

Taipei (CN)

508

1,667

101

2004

placemaking. Indeed, these buildings are architecturally iconic and represent major engineering feat and scientific triumph. However, from an urban design point of view, they are mostly out of place, scale, and context.

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities Continental shares of tall buildings in the twentieth century reveal that North America has championed building tall by constructing about 3,867 buildings, while other continents lagged. However, in the twenty-first century, tall buildings exhibit a geographic shift from North American to Asia (Table 2.3).

2.2.1 Asia Overall, Asia accounts for a great share of the newly completed tall buildings of the world. Also, “under construction,” “proposed,” and “visionary” categories demonstrate that Asia takes the lead. Regarding height, Asia also has been championing the race. It has constructed in recent years more supertalls (300 + m/ 984 + ft) than any other continents. Among all Asian countries, China stands out as the epicenter of high-rise construction—a phenomenon that moved from the first-tier to secondtier and third-tier cities. Li et al (2017, p. 32) explains, “High-density vertical urban developments are shaping the future identities of these cities by way of their strategic

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

21

Fig. 2.1 Burj Khalifa in Dubai, UAE (828 m/2,717 ft)—the world’s tallest building (Photograph by author)

22

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Fig. 2.2 Shanghai Tower in Shanghai (632 m/2,073 ft)—the world’s second tallest building and tallest in China (Photograph by author)

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

23

Fig. 2.3 Ping An Finance Center in Shenzhen (562 m/1,844 ft)—the second tallest building in China (Photograph by author)

24

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Fig. 2.4 One World Trade Center in New York City (541 m/1,775 ft)—the tallest building in the Northern Hemisphere (Photograph by author)

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

25

Fig. 2.5 Shanghai World Financial Center (492 m/1,614 ft)—the second tallest building in Shanghai (Photograph by author)

26

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Fig. 2.6 International Commerce Center in Hong Kong (484 m/1,588 ft)—the tallest building in the city (Photograph by author)

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

27

Fig. 2.7 KK 100 in Shenzhen (442 m/1,450 ft)—the second tallest building in the city (Photograph by author)

28

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Fig. 2.8 432 Park Avenue in New York City (426 m/1,398 ft)—the second tallest residential building in the world (Photograph by author)

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

29

Fig. 2.9 Trump International Hotel & Tower (423 m/1,388 ft)—the second tallest building in Chicago (Photograph by author)

30

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Fig. 2.10 Almas Tower in Dubai, UAE (360 m/1,181 ft)—one of the most iconic buildings in the city (Photograph by author)

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities Table 2.3 Tall buildings in 2000 and 2020. The table organizes data based on the world’s continents, listed alphabetically. Note the geographic shift from North America to Asia. The figures include all recorded buildings with a height greater than 50 m (164 ft)

Continent

Africa Asia Central America Europe Middle East North America

31 # of tall buildings completed 1885–2000

# of tall buildings completed 2000–2020

116

72

1231

5,000

31

132

975

1,925

87

890

4,312

2,550

Oceania

525

705

South America

527

1,885

7,804

13,159

Total

locations, massive scale, significant functional mix, and large social, economic, and environmental impact.” Meanwhile, tall building projects have been proliferating in established skyscraper cities. Overall, starting the twenty-first century, China has built 52% of all Asia’s tall buildings. The rest of Asia (31 countries) shares the remaining 48%. The CTBUH enlightens that China leads the world by far concerning completions of 200 + m (656 + ft) buildings. China counted for 58% of all world’s tall buildings of this height category (62/106) in 2015, and in 2016 it counted for 66% (84/128). Indeed, China achieved significant leaps in this height category where the total number of buildings more than doubled between 2000 and 2020 (Tables 2.4 and 2.5).

2.2.1.1

Shanghai

As a major global city, Shanghai has been among the most active cities in constructing tall buildings. Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Shanghai adds 156 skyscrapers to the 69 skyscrapers it built previously. Furthermore, 63 of these skyscrapers are in the Lujiazui Financial District. About 40 skyscrapers are located immediately west of the district across the Huangpu River and the rest of these buildings proliferate throughout the city. In addition, 37 of the added 47 200 + m skyscrapers are located in the Lujiazui District and the rest are placed immediately west of the district across the river. Three of the five added supertalls (Shanghai Tower, Shanghai World Financial Center, and Jin Mao) are also located in the Lujiazui District, which create a strong focal point in the city’s skyline. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 235 m to 365 m (771 ft to 1,198 ft), equaling a 160% increase (Table 2.6). Certainly, Shanghai is one of the most active cities in building significant skyscrapers and it has been transformed from a polycentric to a super polycentric city.

32

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.4 Tall buildings in 2000 and 2020. The breakdown is based on world continents (listed alphabetically) and buildings’ heights (listed in an ascending order). Note that this table reports on only 100 + m buildings, which feature greater recording accuracy and inclusiveness. Figures in bold indicate the totals Continent

Height (m/ft)

Africa

100+/328+

81

45

200+/656+

1

3

300+/984+

0

0

600+/1,969+

0

0

100+/328+

945

4,098

200+/656+

95

990

300+/984+

10

117

Asia

600+/1,969+ Central America

Europe

Middle East

0

1

10

81

200+/656+

0

23

300+/984+

0

0

600+/1,969+

0

0

100+/328+

324

650

200+/656+

10

43

300+/984+

0

8

600+/1,969+

0

0

100+/328+

57

573

200+/656+

4

175

300+/984+

3

34

0

2

100+/328+

2,026

1,464

200+/656+

137

118

300+/984+

13

15

600+/1,969+ Oceania

South America

# of tall buildings completed 2000–2020

100+/328+

600+/1,969+ North America

# of tall buildings completed 1885–2000

0

0

100+/328+

190

245

200+/656+

13

26

300+/984+

0

1

600+/1,969+

0

0

100+/328+

170

400

200+/656+

2

6

300+/984+

0

1

600+/1,969+

0

0

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

33

Table 2.5 Asia’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building name

1

Shanghai Tower

Shanghai (CN)

632

2,073 128

2015

2

Ping An Finance Center

Shanghai (CN)

599

1,965 115

2017

3

Lotte World Tower

Seoul (KR)

555

1,819 123

2017

4

Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre

Guangzhou (CN)

530

1,739 111

2016

4

Tianjin CTF Finance Centre

Tianjin (CN)

530

1,739

97

2019

6

CITIC Tower

Beijing (CN)

528

1,731 109

2018

7

TAIPEI 101

Taipei (CN)

508

1,667 101

2004

8

Shanghai World Financial Shanghai (CN) Center

492

1,614 101

2008

9

International Commerce Centre

484

1,588 108

2010

1,513

2018

10 Vincom Landmark 81

City

Height (m/ft)

Hong Kong (CN)

Ho Chi Minh City (VN) 461

Floors Completion

81

Table 2.6 Shanghai’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Jin Mao Tower

421

Shanghai Tower

632

2

International Ocean Shipping Building

232

Shanghai World Financial Center

492

3

BOCOM Financial Towers

230

Jin Mao Tower

421

4

Bank of China Tower

226

Shimao International Plaza

333

5

World Finance Tower

212

Zhenru Center

330

6

Xinjinqiao Mansion

212

Sinar Mas Center 1

320

7

Golden Bell Mansion

208

Plaza 66

288

8

Nan Zheng Mansion

205

Tomorrow Square

285

9

Lippo Plaza

204

Hong Kong New World Tower

278

10

HSBC Tower

203

Shanghai Wheelock Square

271

2.2.1.2

Beijing

Beijing, China’s capital, has recently engaged in a race with its rival city, Shanghai, in building significant tall buildings. Completed in 2018, China Zun Tower (CITIC Tower) is Beijing’s flagship building. It is part of a 30-hectare master plan for the central business district, where 20 tall buildings ranging from 150 m to 350 m in height will cluster around Zun Tower (Gable 2016). China Zun Tower rises to 528 m (1,732 ft) and is currently the tallest building in Beijing and the six tallest in China. Overall,

34

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.7 Beijing’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Jing Guang Center

208

CITIC Tower

528

2

Capital Mansion

183

China World Tower

330

3

China World Trade Center I

155

China World Trade Center Phase 3B

296

4

China World Trade Center II

155

Fortune Financial Center

267

5

China Merchants Group Tower

148.1

Samsung China Headquarters

260

6

Beijing Silver Tower

145

Beijing Greenland Center

260

7

China Life Tower

131

Beijing Yintai Centre—Park Tower

250

8

Beijing Kerry Centre Office Building

124

Sunshine Insurance Headquarters

243

9

Henderson Center

110

Beijing Television Center

239

10

Henderson Center

110

Z14 Plot Tower 1 and 2

238

in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Beijing adds 55 skyscrapers to the 10 skyscrapers it built previously. Almost all of these buildings are located in close proximity (within a square mile) in the east side of the city center. Eight of the 200 + m buildings are located in this area including one supertall building. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 147 m to 291 m, equaling a 200% increase (Table 2.7).

2.2.1.3

Shenzhen

Certainly, an important emerging global skyscraper city is Shenzhen. Since becoming China’s first Special Economic Zone, Shenzhen has witnessed an unprecedented urban growth and expanded in population from 300,000 people to more than 10 million people in just 35 years. Shenzhen has built significant skyscrapers. Located in the center of Shenzhen and completed recently, Ping An Finance Center (PAFC) rises to 599 m (1,965 ft), which ranks the second tallest building in China after Shanghai Tower. Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Shenzhen adds 172 skyscrapers to the 20 skyscrapers it built previously. This sudden and massive increase in skyscrapers has not only reinforced existing spatial clusters but also created totally new ones (Graham 2016). The locations of the new 79 200 + m skyscrapers stretch across the two far ends of the city, east and west. The locations of the newly constructed five supertalls reinforce “downtown” clusters. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 231 m to 393 m, equaling a 170% increase (Table 2.8).

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

35

Table 2.8 Shenzhen’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Shun Hing Square

384

Ping An Finance Center

599

2

SEG Plaza

292

KK100

442

3

Shenzhen Special Zone Daily Tower

260

China Resources Tower

393

4

Panglin Plaza

240

Shum Yip Upperhills Tower 1

388

5

Guotong Building

201

Shun Hing Square

384

6

United Plaza A

195

Shenzhen Center

376

7

New Era Plaza

189

Hanking Center Tower

350

8

Shenzhen Development Bank

184

One Shenzhen Bay Tower 7

341

9

Shenzhen International Science and Technology Building

182

Shimao Qianhai Project Tower 1

330

10

Electronics Science and Technology Building

181

Hon Kwok City Center

329

2.2.1.4

Bangkok

Bangkok, the capital of Thailand, is also an emerging skyscraper city in Asia. Recently, Bangkok has completed its tallest building, which is the 314-m (1031-ft) MahaNakhon. Completed in 2018, the Magnolias Waterfront Residences Tower 1, however, has snatched the tallest building title from MahaNakhon by rising higher by merely one meter. Other important towers include Capella Residences (300 m/983 ft), Magnolias Waterfront Residences Tower 2 (280 m/919 ft), and Canapaya Residences I (253 m/830 ft). Lately, SOM has unveiled a vision for a 16-hectare “skyscraper village” in the city. Named “One Bangkok,” it will house more than 60,000 people and integrate a variety of parks and plazas, which will total eight hectares. Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Bangkok adds 95 skyscrapers to the 27 skyscrapers it built previously. The new buildings are located in close proximity to older ones, reinforcing the image of the city’s downtown. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 205 m to 274 m, equaling a 134% increase (Table 2.9).

2.2.2 Europe European cities that have historically banned tall buildings to protect their valuable built heritage, e.g., London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Moscow, and Warsaw, have resumed constructing tall buildings. In her article “Development of High-Rise Buildings in Europe in the 20th and 21st centuries,” Joanna Pietrzak writes (2014, p. 31), “It was not until the 1950s that Europe began to construct buildings taller than

36

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.9 Bangkok’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Baiyoke Tower II

304

Magnolias Waterfront Residences Tower 1

315

2

Empire Tower

227

MahaNakhon

314

3

Jewelry Trade Center

221

Baiyoke Tower II

304

4

Sinn Sathorn Tower

195

Four Seasons Hotel and Private Residences and Capella Hotel

300

5

Thai Wah Tower II

194

Mandarin Oriental Residences Bangkok

269

6

United Center

187

The River South Tower

258

7

Abdulrahim Place

187

Canapaya Residences I

253

8

Tipco Tower

180

State Tower

247

9

Kasikorn Bank Head Office

177

Waldorf Astoria + Magnolias Ratchaprasong

242

10

Sathorn House

174

Eastin Grand Hotel Phayathai Bangkok

240

100 m (328 ft). By 2013, skyscrapers had been constructed in over 100 European cities located in 30 different countries, and the trend towards the expansion of highrise construction continues.” European cities have completed a record number of skyscrapers since the turn of the twenty-first century and this trend is likely to continue in the coming years. Europe had merely two 250 + m (820 + ft) tall buildings before the twenty-first century. However, in 2020, Europe has 23 buildings of this height category (Table 2.10).

2.2.2.1

London

As a global financial hub, London has been facing an increased demand for commercial office space. Consequently, it has been constructing significant skyscrapers (Graham 2016). Despite the recent Brexit fears and continuing objection by local communities, tall building construction in London continues with full force. In his article “London’s Future Skyline: the 455 New Skyscrapers Turning our Capital into Manhattan,” Scott (2017) explains, “More tall buildings were constructed in London last year than ever before with 26 opening their doors and 455 more in the pipeline, according to new industry research.” Among the significantly tall buildings completed recently in London are The Shard (306 m (1,004 ft)) in 2013, 110 Bishopsgate (230 m (755 ft)) in 2011, Leadenhall Building (224 m (735 ft)) in 2014, and 20 Fenchurch (160 m (525 ft)) in 2014 (Shuvalova 2015). Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, London adds 80 skyscrapers to the 23 skyscrapers it built previously. Furthermore, 21 of these new skyscrapers are located in Canary

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

37

Table 2.10 Europe’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Lakhta Center

St. Petersburg (RU)

462

1,516

86

2018

2

Multifunctional Highrise Complex—Akhmat Tower

Groznyj (RU)

435

1,427

102

2020

3

Federation Towers—Vostok Tower

Moscow (RU)

374

1,227

95

2016

4

OKO—Residential Tower

Moscow (RU)

354

1,160

90

2015

5

Mercury City Tower

Moscow (RU)

339

1,112

75

2013

6

NEVA Towers 2

Moscow (RU)

338

1,109

77

2020

7

Varso Tower

Warsaw (PL)

310

1,017

53

2020

8

Stalnaya Vershina

Moscow (RU)

309

1,013

72

2015

9

The Shard

London (GB)

306

1,004

73

2013

10

Capital City Moscow Tower

Moscow (RU)

302

990

76

2010

Warf, a new mixed-use area east of London’s downtown, while the rest are scattered in the downtown north and south of the Thomas River. London added only eight 200 + m skyscrapers including four in Canary Wharf and four in the downtown with only one of a height greater than 300 m. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 142 m to 281 m, equaling a 198% increase (Table 2.11). Table 2.11 London’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

One Canada Square

236

The Shard

306

2

Tower 42

183

Twentytwo

278

3

Guy’s Tower

143

One Canada Square

236

4

CityPoint

127

Landmark Pinnacle

233

5

Euston Tower

124

Salesforce Tower

230

6

Cromwell Tower

123

The Leadenhall Building

224

7

Lauderdale Tower

123

Newfoundland

220

8

Shakespeare Tower

123

Valiant Tower

215

9

Millbank Tower

119

One Park Drive

205

10

Aviva Tower

118

25 Canada Square

659

38

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

2.2.2.2

Moscow

Among all Russian cities, Moscow has been very active in constructing tall buildings. New buildings are spread out in multiple centers, reinforcing the polycentric nature of the city. Remarkably, Moscow International Business Center (also known as Moscow City) has some of Europe’s tallest buildings with the following ranks: first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh. When completed in 2016, Federation Towers—Vostok Tower (374 m/1,227 ft) became the tallest building in Russia and Europe. In 2019, Moscow also completed the tallest building in Europe, the Lakhta Center (462 m/1516 ft). Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Moscow adds 151 skyscrapers to the 31 skyscrapers it built previously. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 164 m to 314 m, equaling a 191% increase (Table 2.12).

2.2.3 North America In North America, there is a shift from auto-dependent sprawl to sustainable compact development. Compact, mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented places offer significant environmental, economic, and social benefits. Consequently, major cities such as New York City, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary have been constructing significant tall buildings around mass transit nodes (Table 2.13). Table 2.12 Moscow’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

MV Lomonosov State University

239

Lakhta Center

462

2

Radisson Royal Hotel

206

Federation Tower

374

3

Kotelnicheskaya Naberezhnaya

176

OKO—Residential Tower

354

4

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

172

NEVA Towers 2

345

5

Kudrinskaya Square

156

Mercury City Tower

339

6

Gazprom

151

Stalnaya Vershina

309

7

Central Tourist House

138

Capital City Moscow Tower

302

8

Red Gate Square

138

NEVA Towers 1

297

9

Hilton Moscow Leningradskaya

136

Grand Tower

283

10

NII Delta Business Center

132

Naberezhnaya Tower Block C

268

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

39

Table 2.13 North America’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

One World Trade Center

New York City (US)

541

2

Central Park Tower

New York City (US)

472

1,776

94

2014

1,550

95

3

111 West 57th Street

New York City (US)

2020

438

1,438

80

2020

4

432 Park Avenue

5

30 Hudson Yards

New York City (US)

426

1,396

85

2015

New York City (US)

387

1,268

73

6

2019

Vista Tower

Chicago (US)

362

1,186

98

2020

7

Comcast Technology Center

Philadelphia (US)

342

1,121

59

2018

8

Wilshire Grand Center

Los Angeles (US)

335

1,099

73

2017

9

3 World Trade Center

New York City (US)

329

1,079

69

2018

10

Salesforce Tower

San Francisco (US)

326

1,070

61

2018

2.2.3.1

New York City

Notably, New York City experienced a rapid pace of building exceptional high-rises. From 1930 to 2015, the city completed 56 200 + m (656 + ft) buildings while, in the third quarter of 2015, the city had 25 200 + m buildings under construction, which is almost half the figure that it took 85 years to complete. Similarly, between 1930 and 2015, the city built eight supertalls (300 + m). Additional 14 such buildings were constructed by 2020. NYC is likely to build 56 200 + m buildings in the next 5 years in addition to the 43 ones that it built since 2000 (Shuvalova 2015). Currently, NYC holds 32% of all North America’s 200 + m buildings (63/196) and shortly will have 35% (90/255). Furthermore, NYC holds six out of the 10 tallest skyscrapers in North America. Overall, NYC “remains the world’s skyscraper capital and a long-time established center of global business,” as Barkham (2017) and colleagues explain in their article titled “Reaching for the Sky: The Determinants of Tall Office Development in Global Gateway Cities.” Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, New York City adds 304 skyscrapers to the 590 skyscrapers it built previously. Most of these buildings reinforce existing clusters in Midtown, Lower Manhattan, and along Central Park (Leonard and Porter 2016). Specifically, the city’s new 38 200 + m skyscrapers reinforce existing clusters in which 20 are located in Midtown and 16 in Lower Manhattan. Similarly, all new eight 300 + m skyscrapers reinforce these two clusters, six in Midtown and two in Lower Manhattan. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 314 m to 398 m, equaling a 127% increase (Table 2.14).

40

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.14 New York City’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

One World Trade Center

417

One World Trade Center

541

2

Two World Trade Center

415

Central Park Tower

472

3

Empire State Building

381

111 West 57th Street

435

4

Chrysler Building

319

432 Park Avenue

426

5

70 pine

290

30 Hudson Yards

387

6

The Trump Building

287

Empire State Building

381

7

601 Lexington

279

Bank of America Tower

366

8

Comcast building

259

3 World Trade Center

329

9

CitySpire

248

53 West 53rd

320

10

28 Liberty

248

Chrysler Building

319

2.2.3.2

Chicago

Although Chicago and the State of Illinois at large have been losing population in the past two decades, Downtown Chicago has been gaining population and is building new skyscrapers. City planners focus on reviving the Loop Community (Chicago’s CBD) because they view it to be critical for the city’s long-term sustainable economic growth. Salient examples of skyscrapers (under construction and completed) include Studio Gang’s 98-story Vista Tower, Rafael Viñoly’s 76-story One Grant Park, HPA’s 56-story Essex on the Park, Robert M. Stern’s 67-story One Bennett Park, Pickard Chilton’s 52-story River Point, and Goettsch Partners’ 53-story 150 North Riverside. Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Chicago adds 117 skyscrapers to the 207 skyscrapers it built previously. Most of these buildings reinforce existing clusters in the CBD. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 308 m to 326 m, equaling a 106% increase (Table 2.15).

2.2.3.3

Miami

Miami has been experiencing a boom in high-rise construction. Among the significant towers rising in the city are Panorama Tower, Brickell Flatiron, One Thousand Museum, Miami Worldcenter, and Grove at Grand Bay. Soaring to 252 m (828 ft), Panorama Tower has snatched the city’s tallest building title from the 240 m (789 ft) Four Seasons Hotel & Tower. Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Miami adds 93 skyscrapers to the 27 skyscrapers it built previously. All new skyscrapers reinforce existing skyscraper clusters in the downtown and along the Atlantic shore. Many of the new skyscrapers fill spatial gaps, in which they collectively create a stronger continuous skyline. Three of the five 200 m + skyscrapers are

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

41

Table 2.15 Chicago’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Willis Tower

442

Willis Tower

442

2

Aon Center

346

Trump International Hotel and Tower

423

3

875 North Michigan Avenue

344

Vista Tower

363

4

The Franklin—North Tower

307

875 North Michigan Avenue

344

5

Two Prudential Plaza

303

The Franklin—North Tower

307

6

311 South Wacker Drive

293

Two Prudential Plaza

303

7

900 North Michigan Avenue

265

311 South Wacker Drive

293

8

Chase Tower

265

NEMA Chicago

270

9

Water Tower Place

262

900 North Michigan Avenue

265

10

Park Tower

257

Chase Tower

265

Table 2.16 Miami’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Southeast Financial Center

233

Panorama Tower

252

2

Miami Tower

191

Four Seasons Hotel and Tower

240

3

Santa Maria

159

Southeast Financial Center

233

4

Stephen P. Clark Center

155

Brickell Flatiron

224

5

One Biscayne Tower

150

Marquis

214

6

Miami Center

148

One Thousand Museum

213

7

701 Brickell Avenue

137

Paramount Miami Worldcenter

213

8

Two Tequesta Point

125

Wells Fargo Tower

200

9

Courthouse Center

123

900 Biscayne Bay

198

10

The Palace

122

Elysee

198

located in the southern part of the downtown and two are in the upper part. Before and after 2000, the city has no supertall buildings. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 154 m to 219 m, equaling a 142% increase (Table 2.16).

2.2.3.4

San Francisco

San Francisco has been building significant high-rises near the Transbay Transit Center, e.g., Oceanwide Center by Foster + Partners and Heller Manus, and Waldorf Astoria Hotel. Transbay Transit Center has three important buildings including Salesforce Tower, 181 Fremont, and Transbay Center Residential Tower. Recently

42

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.17 San Francisco’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Transamerica Pyramid Center

260

Salesforce Tower

326

2

555 California Street

237

Transamerica Pyramid Center

260

3

345 California Center

212

181 Fremont

245

4

101 California Street

183

555 California Street

237

5

50 Fremont Center

183

345 California Center

212

6

575 Market Street

175

Millennium Tower

197

7

Four Embarcadero Center

174

Park Tower at Transbay

185

8

One Embarcadero Center

174

One Rincon Hill South Tower

184

9

44 Montgomery

173

101 California Street

183

10

Spear Tower

172

50 Fremont Center

183

completed, Salesforce Tower (326 m (1070 ft)) has become the city’s tallest building. Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, San Francisco adds 29 skyscrapers to the 67 skyscrapers it built previously. All these buildings reinforce the current skyscraper cluster in the downtown area and they are located within one square mile. They are also in close proximity to major mass transit services. In addition, the city’s only two 200 + m skyscrapers, including the 300 + m Salesforce Tower, are located at the epicenters of these transit areas. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 194 m to 221 m, equaling a 114% increase (Table 2.17).

2.2.4 Middle East Significantly, before the turn of the century, the Middle East built only 87 tall buildings, and in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, it adds over 890 tall buildings. Currently, the Middle East has 34 supertalls and two megatalls. Cities in the Middle East such as Dubai, Abu Dubai, Doha, Jeddah, Mecca, Riyadh, Kuwait, Tel Aviv, and Beirut have been among the most active in building significant skyscrapers. For example, Mecca and Dubai have built two of the world’s three megatalls, Makkah Royal Clock Tower and Burj Khalifa, respectively—the third is Shanghai Tower in Shanghai, China. It was planned that by 2020, Jeddah will add to the Middle East another megatall (the new world’s tallest building called Jeddah Tower soaring 1,000 m (3,280 ft)). Unfortunately, after building dozens of floors, the construction was halted due to financial crises. Doha, Qatar’s capital city, had no skyscrapers before the turn of the century, and in 2020 it has 39 skyscrapers. Likewise, Abu Dhabi, UAE’s capital city, had merely one skyscraper before the turn of the century

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

43

Table 2.18 The Middle East’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building name

1

Jeddah Towera

Jeddah (SA)

1,000

3,281

167

2020

2

Burj Khalifa

Dubai (AE)

828

2,717

163

2010

3

Makkah Royal clock Tower

Mecca (SA)

601

1,972

120

2012

4

Entisar Tower

Dubai (AE)

520

1,706

111

2020

5

Marina 106

Dubai (AE)

445

1,460

104

2019

6

Diamond Tower

Jeddah (SA)

432

1,417

93

2019

7

Marina 101

Dubai (AE)

427

1,399

101

2017

8

Princess Tower

Dubai (AE)

413

1,356

101

2012

9

Al Hamra Tower

Kuwait City (KW)

413

1,354

80

2011

10

23 Marina

Dubai (AE)

392

1,287

88

2012

a Construction

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

is on hold

and now has 31 skyscrapers. Similarly, before the turn of the century, Manama, Bahrain had no skyscrapers. However, it now has 15 skyscrapers (Table 2.18).

2.2.4.1

Dubai

Among all Middle Eastern cities, Dubai has been the most conspicuous “instant” skyscraper city. Not long ago, Dubai was an unnoticeable, small village with no tall buildings at all. Today, it is home to the world’s tallest building known as Burj Khalifa (828 m (2,716 ft)) as well as other remarkable skyscrapers (Leonard and Porter 2016). Today, Dubai is home to the greatest number of 200 + m and 300 + m buildings, which makes Dubai to surpass major skyscraper cities in the world including Hong Kong, New York City, Chicago, and Shanghai. Among the remarkable towers in Dubai are the 111-story Entisar Tower (2020), the 104-story Marina 106 (2019), the 80-story S Residence (2020), 74-story The Address Jumeirah Resort and Spa at Jumeirah Beach Residence (2020), the 74-story Al Habtoor City Tower 1 (2017), the 74-story Al Habtoor City Tower 2 (2017), and the 20-story Opus (2018). Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Dubai adds 319 skyscrapers to the 28 skyscrapers it built previously. 144 of these skyscrapers are built along Shaikh Zayed road by stretching southwest and connecting to the new “downtown” near Burj Khalifa. Significantly, 174 skyscrapers were built away from the downtown (about 10 miles southwest) in new districts such as Dubai Marina. Fifty-seven 200 + m skyscrapers (including 17 supertalls) are placed near Burj Khalifa while 34 skyscrapers (including 10 supertalls) are located in Dubai Marina. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 198 m to 424 m, equaling a 213% increase (Table 2.19).

44

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.19 Dubai’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Emirates Tower one

355

Burj Khalifa

828

2

Burj Al Arab

321

Marina 101

425

3

Emirates Tower two

309

Princess Tower

413

4

Al Saqr Business Tower

158

23 Marina

392

5

Saeed Tower I

150

Elite Residence

381

6

World Trade Center

149

The Address Boulevard

370

7

Paloma Tower

146

Almas Tower

360

8

Deira Tower

135

Gevora Hotel

356

9

Ghaya Residence

131

JW Marriott Marquis Hotel Dubai Tower 1

355

10

API World Tower

131

JW Marriott Marquis Hotel Dubai Tower 2

355

2.2.4.2

Doha

Doha is also among the most active cities in building significant skyscrapers in the Middle East. In the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Doha adds 48 skyscrapers to the only one it built previously. Overall, all these new skyscrapers concentrate in the downtown region. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 115 m to 243 m, equaling a 211% increase (Table 2.20). Table 2.20 Doha’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Ritz Carlton Hotel

115

Aspire Tower

300

2

N.A.

N.A.

Kempinski Residences and Suites

253

3

N.A.

N.A.

Palm Tower 1

245

4

N.A.

N.A.

Palm Tower 2

245

5

N.A.

N.A.

World Trade Center Doha

241

6

N.A.

N.A.

Doha Tower

238

7

N.A.

N.A.

Hilton Double Tree Sinyar Tower

230

8

N.A.

N.A.

Al Faisal Tower

227

9

N.A.

N.A.

Al Asmakh Tower

227

10

N.A.

N.A.

Qatar Petroleum District Tower 7

223

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

45

Table 2.21 Riyadh’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Al Faisaliah Center

267

PIF Tower

385

2

NCCI Towers North

101

Burj Rafal

308

3

NCCI Towers South

101

KAFD World Trade Center

304

4

N.A.

N.A.

Kingdom Centre

302

5

N.A.

N.A.

Al Faisaliah Center

267

6

N.A.

N.A.

GCC Bank Headquarters

264

7

N.A.

N.A.

Tamkeen Tower

258

8

N.A.

N.A.

Al Majdoul Tower

244

9

N.A.

N.A.

Samba Bank HQ Tower

231

10

N.A.

N.A.

Rafal Living Tower

213

2.2.4.3

Riyadh

Riyadh, the Capital of Saudi Arabia, is also experiencing an unprecedented pace of building significant skyscrapers. Being the seat of government, this “conservative” city has recently broken its long tradition of maintaining a low-rise city profile. In the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Riyadh adds 43 buildings to the only three skyscrapers it built previously. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 156 m to 278 m, equaling a 178% increase (Table 2.21).

2.2.4.4

Tel Aviv

As Tel Aviv urbanizes rapidly, its skyline exhibits more tall buildings. Among the recently completed towers are Azrieli Sarona (238 m/781 ft), the Midtown Office Tower (196 m/643 ft), and the Alon Tower A and B (162 m (530 ft)). Towers under construction include the Midtown Residential Tower (196 m (643 ft)) and the Sitonai Market Tower I and II (160 m (525 ft)). Overall, in the first two decades of the twentyfirst century, Tel Aviv adds 42 skyscrapers to the 11 skyscrapers it built previously. Though the city has only two 200 + m skyscrapers called the Azrieli Sarona (2017) and ToHA Tower 1 (2020). The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 136 m to 192 m, equaling a 142% increase (Table 2.22).

46

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.22 Tel Aviv’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Azrieli Center Circular Tower

187

ToHA Tower 1

285

2

Azrieli Center Triangular Tower

169

Azrieli Sarona

238

3

Shalom Meir Tower

142

Midtown Office Tower

196

4

Tel Aviv Towers I

140

Midtown Residential Tower

196

5

Tel Aviv Towers II

140

Azrieli Center Circular Tower

187

6

Marganit Tower

138

Azrieli Center Triangular Tower

169

7

Levinstein Tower

124

Electra Tower

169

8

Isrotel Tower

108

Alon Tower A

162

9

Dizengoff Tower

106

Alon Tower B

162

10

Rubenstein House

102

Sitonai Market Tower I and II

160

2.2.5 Oceania Australian cities, such as Sydney, Melbourne, Gold Coast, and Brisbane, are taking the lead in building tall (Table 2.23).

2.2.5.1

Melbourne

Melbourne, the coastal capital of the southeastern Australian state of Victoria, has been very active in constructing tall buildings. It has begun constructing the 317 m (1,040 ft), 100-story Australia 108, which will be among the tallest building in Oceania when completed in 2020. Other notable towers under construction Table 2.23 Oceania’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Q1 Tower

Gold Coast (AU)

323

1,060

78

2005

2

Australia 108

Melbourne (AU)

317

1,039

100

2020

3

Brisbane Skytower

Brisbane (AU)

270

887

89

2018

4

Aurora Melbourne Central

Melbourne (AU)

269

881

88

2019

5

300 George Street Tower 1

Brisbane (AU)

262

860

81

2018

6

1 William Street

Brisbane (AU)

260

852

46

2017

7

Prima Pearl Apartments

Melbourne (AU)

254

833

72

2014

8

Infinity

Brisbane (AU)

249

817

81

2014

9

Victoria One

Melbourne (AU)

246

806

75

2018

10

Soleil

Brisbane (AU)

243

797

79

2012

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

47

Table 2.24 Melbourne’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

120 Collins Street

265

Australia 108

317

2

101 Collins Street

260

Eureka Tower

297

3

Rialto Towers

251

Aurora Melbourne Central

270

4

Bourke Place

224

120 Collins Street

265

5

Telstra Corporate Building

218

101 Collins Street

260

6

Melbourne Central

211

Prima Pearl Apartments

254

7

Sofitel Hotel—Collins Place

188

Rialto Towers

251

8

ANZ Tower—Collins place

188

Queens Place North Tower

250

9

80 Collins Street (Old Tower)

182

Premier Tower

249

10

385 Bourke Street

169

Victoria One

247

include the 88-story Aurora Melbourne Central (2019), the 78-story Premier Tower (2020), the 75-story Victoria One (2018), and the 71-story Swanston Central (2019). Recently, Melbourne completed the 69-story Vision Apartments (2016), the 68-story 568 Collins Street (2015), and the 59-story Abode318 (2015). Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Melbourne adds 116 skyscrapers to the 36 skyscrapers it built previously. The overwhelming majority of these skyscrapers are located in the city’s downtown and along the Yarrar River. Fourteen of the 200 + m buildings are located near the upper and lower edges of the downtown including one supertall. Melbourne has currently dozens of tall buildings under construction. Overall, this massive addition in the heart of the downtown strengthens the image of Melbourne’s city center. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 216 m to 266 m, equaling a 123% increase (Table 2.24).

2.2.5.2

Sydney

Sydney continues to experience urban and economic growth. Simultaneously, it is physically constrained by the harbor, which has reinforced building skyward. Sydney has started on constructing the 271 m (889 ft) Crown Sydney Hotel and Resort (One Barangaroo) to become the tallest in the city and the second tallest in Oceania when completed in 2021. Other notable towers in Sydney include the 68-story Sydney Greenland Center (2019), the 54-story 189 Macquarie Street North Tower (2018), the 46-story Landmark (2018), the 51-story International Towers Tower 1 (2016), the 43-story International Towers Tower 2 (2015), the 40-story International Towers Tower 3 (2016), and the 40-story 200 George Street (2016). Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Sydney adds 62 skyscrapers to the 83 skyscrapers it built previously. Forty of the new skyscrapers are located in the downtown near the older ones. Additionally, all nine 200 + m buildings are located in the same area

48

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.25 Sydney’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building Name

Height (m)

1

Chifley Tower

244

Crown Sydney Hotel and Resort

271

2

Citigroup Centre

243

Chifley Tower

244

3

MLC Centre

228

Citigroup Centre

243

4

Governor Phillip Tower

227

Deutsche Bank Place

240

5

Aurora Place

218.9

Sydney Greenland Centre

237

6

Suncorp Place

193

World Tower

230

7

AMP Centre

188

MLC Centre

228

8

Century Tower

183

Governor Phillip Tower

227

9

Grosvenor Place

180

Ernst and Young Tower at Latitude

222

10

Castlereagh Centre

173

Aurora Place

219

as well. The rest of the added skyscrapers (22) are dispersed throughout the city. Sydney has no supertalls. Nevertheless, the added 40 skyscrapers in the downtown area strengthen its image as the city’s center. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 208 m to 236 m, equaling a 114% increase (Table 2.25).

2.2.6 South America Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, South America has built 1,885 tall buildings—more than it did before (527 buildings). The most active cities in building skyscrapers are Santiago (Chile), Bucaramanga, Cartagena (Colombia), Buenos Aires (Argentina), São Paulo, Balneario Camboriu, and Curitiba (Brazil). Notably, in 2014, South America built among tallest towers including the 300 m/984 ft Torre Costanera in Santiago (Chile) and the 219 m/719 ft Millennium Palace in Balneario Camboriu (Brazil). Further, six buildings of remarkable heights include One Tower (280 m/919 ft), Yachthouse Residence Club towers (270 m/886 ft each), Infinity Coast Tower (237 m/778 ft), Epic Tower (220 m/722 ft), and Boreal Tower (220 m/772 ft). Although South America will continue to build taller, it lags significantly on buildings’ height when compared to other continents, including Asia, Middle East, and North America (Table 2.26).

2.2.6.1

São Paulo

Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, São Paulo, Brazil, adds 70 skyscrapers to the 17 skyscrapers it built previously. While some of the new

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

49

Table 2.26 South America’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Torre Costanera

Santiago (CL)

300

2

Yachthouse Residence Balneario Club by Pininfarina Camboriu (BR) Tower 1

270

984

62

2014

886

75

2018

3

Yachthouse Residence Balneario Club by Pininfarina Camboriu (BR) Tower 2

270

886

75

2018

4

One Tower

Balneario Camboriu (BR)

263

863

77

2022

5

BD Bacata Torre 1

Bogota (CO)

260

853

67

2017

6

La Isla Multiespacio Torre Officinas

Valencia (VE)

244

800

55

2017

7

Infinity Coast Tower

Balneario Camboriu (BR)

237

778

66

2017

8

Alvear Tower Puerto Madero

Buenos Aires (AR)

235

771

54

2017

9

Parque Central Torre Officinas I

Caracas (VE)

225

738

56

1979

10

Parque Central Torre Officinas II

Caracas (VE)

225

738

56

1983

skyscrapers reinforce existing “downtown” clusters, others have created a new significant linear stretch. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 148 m to 160 m, equaling a 108% increase (Table 2.27). Table 2.27 São Paulo’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Palácio W. Zarzur

170

Palácio W. Zarzur

170

2

Edificio Italia

165

Edificio Italia

165

3

Altino Arantes

161

Altino Arantes

161

4

Torre Norte

158

Torre Norte

158

5

Birmann 21

149

Begonias

158

6

Banco do Brazil

143

Ipes

158

7

Plaza Centenario

139

Jabuticabeiras

158

8

Barao de Iguape

133

Limantos

158

9

Ipiranga 165

130

Magnolias

158

10

Grande São Paulo

129

Reseda

158

50

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

2.2.7 Central America Central America has also been active in constructing tall buildings. Since the turn of the century, 132 tall buildings have been built, which is significantly more than the 88 that it built previously. Regarding height, all but one of Central America’s 26 buildings standing at 200 + m/656 + ft were constructed after the turn of the century. Among the cities constructing tall buildings are Panama City (Panama), Mexico City, Monterrey, and Guadalajara (Mexico). These cities surpass other cities in Central America regarding counts and heights. Currently, the continent has no supertall, nor will it have a supertall in the near future (Haowent 2015; Binder 2015) (Table 2.28).

2.2.7.1

Panama City

Panama City, the capital and largest city of Panama, experiences a rapid pace in building tall buildings. Among the recently completed towers in Panama City are Trump Ocean Club International Hotel & Tower (2011), Torre Vitri (2012), Bicsa Financial Center (2013), and The Point (2013). Overall, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Panama City adds 63 skyscrapers to the seven skyscrapers it built previously. While some of the new skyscrapers reinforce the existing center, others form new centers, thereby initiating a polycentric city. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 156 m to 253 m, equaling a 162% increase (Table 2.29). Table 2.28 Central America’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower

Panama City (PA)

284

932

70

2011

2

Torre Vitri

Panama City (PA)

3

Torre Koi

Monterrey (MX)

281

921

75

2012

279

916

67

4

Torre Mitikah

2017

Mexico City (MX)

267

877

62

–

5 6

Bicsa Financial Center

Panama City (PA)

267

876

66

2013

The Point

Panama City (PA)

266

873

67

2011

7

YooPanama inspired by Starck

Panama City (PA)

247

810

78

2013

8

Torre Reforma

Mexico City (MX)

246

807

56

2016

9

Ocean Two

Panama City (PA)

246

806

73

2010

10

Pearl Tower

Panama City (PA)

242

794

70

2011

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

51

Table 2.29 Panama City’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

1

Torre Mirage

172

JW Marriott

284

2

Miramar Towers I

168

Torre Vitri

281

3

Miramar Towers II

168

Bicsa Financial Center

267

4

Platinum Tower

158.5

The Point

266

5

PH Plaza Credicorp Bank Panama

146

YooPanama inspired by Starck

247

6

Coastal Tower

144

Ocean Two

246

7

HSBC Tower

135

Pearl Tower

242

8

N.A.

N.A.

Rivage

233

9

N.A.

N.A.

F&F Tower

233

10

N.A.

N.A.

Torre Waters

232

2.2.7.2

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

Mexico City

Mexico City, the capital of Mexico and one of the most populous cities in the world, also experiences a rapid pace of building tall towers. In the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Mexico City adds 53 skyscrapers to the 27 skyscrapers that it built previously. Most of the new skyscrapers reinforce existing clusters. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 160 m to 213 m, equaling a 133% increase (Table 2.30). Table 2.30 Mexico City’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

Height (m)

Building name

Height (m)

1

Torre Ejecutiva Pemex

211

Torre Reforma

246

2

Torre Altus

195

Chapultepec Uno

241

3

Torre Latinoamerica

182

Torre BBVA Bancomer

235

4

World Trade Center

172

Torre Paradox

234

5

Arcos Torre I

161

Torre Mayor

225

6

Torre Lomas

147

Torre Ejecutiva Pemex

211

7

Hyatt Regency Mexico City

136

Torre Altus

195

8

Torre Del Caballito

135

Torre Reforma Latino

185

9

Torre Mural

133

Torre Latinoamerica

182

10

Torre Mexicano de Aviacion

132

Torres Cuarzo Office Tower

180

52

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

2.2.8 Africa Comparing to other continents, Africa has the smallest share of tall buildings. Only 188 tall buildings have been constructed, 116 of which were completed before the turn of the century and 72 afterward. Regarding height, buildings in Africa are shorter than that of other continents. By 2020, Africa does not have a supertall and has only two 200 + m/656 + ft buildings. Cities engaged in constructing tall buildings include Johannesburg, Pretoria, and Sandton (South Africa), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Nairobi (Kenya), and Lagos (Nigeria). Overall, the pace of construction is slow, and fewer buildings are of significant height in these cities (Table 2.31).

2.2.8.1

Nairobi

Nairobi, the capital and largest city of Kenya, experiences a moderate pace of building skyscrapers. In the first two decades of the twenty-first century, Nairobi adds six skyscrapers to the four skyscrapers it built previously. Most of these skyscrapers reinforce existing locations of tall buildings, and hence they improve the image of the downtown. The average height of the 10 tallest skyscrapers between 2000 and 2020 increases from 117 m to 159 m, equaling a 159% increase (Table 2.32). In summary, many global cities witness a remarkable pace in building tall. Upon reviewing the examined cities, we find that in the first two decades of the twentyfirst century all cities have added significant numbers of skyscrapers. Cities that added the greatest numbers of skyscrapers follow this order: Dubai, New York City, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Moscow, Chicago, Melbourne, Bangkok, Miami, London, São Paulo, Panama City, Sydney, Beijing, Mexico City, Doha, Riyadh, Tel Aviv, San Table 2.31 Africa’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Carlton Centre

Johannesburg (ZA)

223

730

50

1973

2

Britam Tower

Nairobi (KE)

3

Commercial Bank of Ethiopia

Addis Ababa (ET)

200

656

33

2017

198

650

46

2018

4

The Leonardo

Sandton (ZA)

188

617

48

2018

5

Ponte Tower

Johannesburg (ZA)

173

567

54

1975

6

JW Marriott Hotel

Casablanca (MA)

167

548

42

2017

7

UAP Old Mutual Tower

Nairobi (KE)

163

535

33

2016

8

NECOM House

Lagos (NG)

160

526

32

1979

9

Abuja World Trade Center Hotel Tower

Abuja (NG)

158

518

37

–

10

PSPF Commercial Tower A Dar es Salaam (TZ)

153

501

35

2014

2.2 Continental Shares and Global Cities

53

Table 2.32 Nairobi’s ten tallest buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

Building name

1

Times Tower

2

Teleposta Towers

3

Kenyatta International Conference Centre

4

Height (m)

Building Name

Height (m)

140

The Pinnacle Tower

320

120

Pinnacle Tower II

201

105

Britam Tower

200

Social Security House

103

UAP Old Mutual Tower

163

5

N.A.

N.A.

Times Tower

140

6

N.A.

N.A.

Parliament Tower

125

7

N.A.

N.A.

Teleposta Towers

120

8

N.A.

N.A.

Kenya Commercial Bank Plaza

109

9

N.A.

N.A.

Kenyatta International Conference Centre

105

10

N.A.

N.A.

Social Security House

103

Francisco, and Nairobi. When we calculate the percentage of increase of skyscrapers, we find that seven cities (Doha, Riyadh, Dubai, Panama City, Shenzhen, and Beijing) have experienced 550–4800% increase, while eight cities (Moscow, São Paulo, Tel Aviv, Bangkok, London, Miami, Melbourne, and Shanghai) have experienced 226– 487% increase, and six cities (Mexico City, Nairobi, Sydney, Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco) have experienced 43–196% increase (Table 2.33).

2.3 Why Tall Buildings? 2.3.1 Urban Population Increase Among the pressing factors that have spurred tall building development, and will likely to continue, are the exponential increase in urban population worldwide in conjunction with wealth accumulation. Currently, more than half of the world is urban, when 20 years ago it was only one-third. By 2030, it is expected that about 60% of the world’s population will be urban. In 2050, when the world’s population is expected to reach 9 billion, about 75% of the world population will live in urban areas. At that time, all major cities of the world, especially those in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, will have enormous populations likely ranging from 30 million to 50 million or more (United Nations). Accommodating such large populations in cities will be an enormous challenge. The horizontal scale of cities is continually being strained with no alternatives but to build upward to accommodate city dwellers. Rural-to-urban migration is one of the causes of the urban population increase. In

54

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

Table 2.33 Tall buildings in 2000 and 2020 #

City

1

Dubai

2

New York City

3

Number of tall buildings in 2000

Number of tall buildings in 2020

Percentage of increase 1139

28

319

590

304

52

Shenzhen

20

172

860

4

Shanghai

69

156

226

5

Moscow

31

151

487

6

Chicago

207

117

57

7

Melbourne

36

116

322

8

Bangkok

27

95

352

9

Miami

27

93

344

10

London

23

80

348

11

São Paulo

17

70

412

12

Panama City

7

63

900

13

Sydney

83

62

75

14

Beijing

10

55

550

15

Mexico City

27

53

196

16

Doha

1

48

4800

17

Riyadh

3

43

1433

18

Tel Aviv

11

42

382

19

San Francisco

67

29

43

20

Nairobi

4

6

150

China, it is projected that by 2025, 350 million people will migrate from a rural to an urban environment. Marcos Fava Neves predicted, “This will require five million buildings… the equivalent of 10 cities the size of New York” (Neves 2010). In other words, China needs to build urban environments to accommodate an equivalent amount to the U.S. population in a short period of time (Neves 2010; Wu 2012). In such cases, high-rise development is almost sure to be part of the solution.

2.3.2 Demographic Change Demographic shifts demonstrate that many “millennials” prefer living in urban centers that offer cultural amenities, a vibrant social life, and mass transit. They prefer a car-free lifestyle, enabled by having a workplace, services, and amenities near home. The US housing market had predicted that the demand for single-family homes would continue to grow tremendously. However, this did not occur. Instead,

2.3 Why Tall Buildings?

55

many people, particularly millennials and boomers, have decided to move into highrises in central cities (e.g., New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Austin), seeking an urban living. While millennials, or the “Creative Class,” as described by the urban theorist Richard Florida, are finding “hot” jobs in the city, downsizing retirees are moving to walkable neighborhoods to free themselves from the maintenance burden of suburban homes. Both types of residents, nevertheless, are enjoying the urban amenities, services, mass transit, walkability, and civic life offered in these city centers. In San Francisco, developers are building residential towers near Twitter’s headquarters. Similarly, Seattle’s developers are building residential towers near Amazon’s global headquarters. Overall, “after 50 years of an immense suburban sprawl, there is a noteworthy flight back to cities, an increasing acceptance of density and demand on urban cores, as well as re-emphasis on public transit as a key to a sustainable future,” state Leonard and Porter (2016, p. 12).

2.3.3 Global Competition and Globalization The widespread trend of constructing tall buildings reflects the increasing impact that global competition has on the development of the world’s major cities. Global cities are competing for the title of the tallest building in the world to announce the stature of their growing global economies. An iconic tall building enhances the global image of the city. The building is likely to put the city on the world map and signal and promote its significant economic progress and advancement. Political leaders have supported the construction of tall buildings to present their countries as emerging global economic powers. In some parts of the world, globalization has immensely promoted the local economy and, consequently, the construction of tall buildings. The City of Shenzhen, China, for example, was a small fishing village in the 1970s. Due to global forces and rapid foreign investment, it was transformed into a modern skyscraper city. Foreign nationals have invested billions of dollars in building factories and forming joint ventures. Today, the city is home to the headquarters of numerous high-tech companies, housing their offices in significant tall and supertall buildings (Short 2013).

2.3.4 Urban Regeneration As explained earlier, in developed countries, city centers that suffered from outmigration of their population to the suburbs in the 1970s–1990s have witnessed significant revivals in recent years. Therefore, urban cores are undergoing urban renaissance and revitalization, and tall buildings are viewed as tools to encourage central living and working. Construction of new attractive high-rises can also beautify and revitalize dilapidated districts and neighborhoods within the urban core and surrounding areas. Such urban regeneration improves the quality of life in these

56

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

areas by minimizing or eliminating social ills such as crime that might have been prevalent (Chakrabarti 2013; Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee 1998).

2.3.5 Urban Agglomeration Urban agglomeration hinges on the proximity of activities, and tall buildings can provide precisely that proximity. Clustering tall buildings foster urban synergy between diverse activities and specialized services. The high concentration of activities creates “knowledge spillovers” between firms in the same sector and across sectors, which lead to increased innovation. In a denser and varied environment, knowledge can be shared between unrelated fields, and a significant share of knowledge transfer occurs informally. David Audretsch explains, “Since knowledge is generated and transmitted more efficiently via geographical proximity, economic activity based on new knowledge has a high propensity to cluster within a geographic region…. Greater geographic concentration of production leads to more, and not less, dispersion of innovative activity” (Audretsch 2008, p. 21). Clearly, the presence of a large concentration of firms offering similar products spurs competition, innovation, and efficiency. Agglomeration improves the economies of scale that can increase productivity through access to denser markets. Access to competing suppliers helps firms procure more efficient, cheaper, and more appropriate inputs. Researchers have attempted to quantify the impact of agglomeration. Colin Buchanan’s research reveals that “a doubling of employment density within a given area can lead to a 12.5% additional increase in output per worker in that area. For the service sector, the figure is far higher at 22%” (Buchanan 2008, p. 590).

2.3.6 Land Price Increase Since their inceptions, expensive lands have been a prime driver for constructing tall buildings. In the early twentieth century, Cass Gilbert (a prominent American architect and an early proponent of skyscrapers) stated, “A skyscraper is a machine that makes the land pay” (Willis and Landau 1996, p. 71). Often, properties in urban cores are expensive, and therefore buildings grow upward. Cheaper land keeps premises closer to the ground. Tall buildings are not an attractive option for small towns where land is inexpensive (Willis 1995; Aregger and Glaus 1967). As such, expensive real estate in the predominantly commercial-retail Central Business Districts (CBD) has been a significant driver for constructing tall buildings. The same principle applies to cities seeking to re-populate their urban centers with residentialrecreational complexes. These relatively new markets drive up city center land prices, which make it increasingly necessary to build upward for good investment returns. In some cities such as London, New York City, Singapore, and Hong Kong, land prices are exceedingly high. Therefore, developers maximize the site by building ultra-tall

2.3 Why Tall Buildings?

57

buildings between 50 and 80 floors (Watts et al. 2007). In the case of New York City, Rem Koolhaas, in his book Delirious New York, explained that Manhattan has no choice but to extrude the city grid vertically (Koolhaas 1978). Similarly, in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, land nearby the Sacred Mosque (Al-Masjid Al-Haram) is limited and exceedingly expensive; therefore, Mecca has recently witnessed significant high-rise developments, including Abraj Al-Bait Endowment Complex. Boasting the world’s largest mixed-use complex, it consists of several significant high-rises, including the megatall (601 m) Makkah Royal Clock Tower, Abraj Al Bait ZamZam Tower (279 m), Abraj Al Bait Hajar Tower (276 m), Abraj Al Bait Maqam Tower (232 m), Abraj Al Bait Qibla Tower (232 m), Abraj Al Bait Marwah Tower (232 m), and Abraj Al Bait Safa Tower (232 m).

2.3.7 Land Preservation Compact urban living promotes sustainability, and vertical density is viewed as a tool to create a more sustainable city. Urban planners and institutions, such as the Urban Land Institute in the U.S., are supporting this view, “By strategically increasing the number of dwelling units per acre, cities not only will go a long way toward meeting their sustainability objectives but also will be competitive, resilient, and great places to live” (ULI 2008, p. 67). Dense arrangements help preserve a variety of open spaces—a core goal of sustainability. Sustainability aims at protecting different types of land to accommodate various activities. As such, reserved land may include local natural habitats in and around cities such as plants and animals, human recreation, farm, and ranch lands, places of natural beauty, critical environmental areas (e.g., wetlands), and community social spaces. The availability of open space raises environmental quality and health benefits like improving air pollution, attenuating noise, controlling the wind, providing erosion control, and moderating temperatures. Open space also protects surface and groundwater resources by diverting trash and debris and filtering chemical pollutants before they enter a water system. Le Corbusier advocated the high-density city through his “Towers-in-the-Park” model, mainly to increase access to nature. For example, in a 50-story building, only about one-tenth of the land is required to accommodate the same number of people versus a five-story building (Boddy 2004; Boyarsky 2013; Murphy et al. 2008; Tavernor 2007).

2.3.8 Climate Change and Energy Conservation Climate change has been altering patterns of wind, rain, temperature, among others, leading to catastrophes. Global warming changes climate patterns, which makes droughts and excessive rainfall more frequent and severe. According to a NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) study, the Arctic perennial sea ice has been decreasing at a rate of 9% per decade since the 1970s, and this is likely

58

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

caused by climate change. These issues are significant for living conditions since they can profoundly affect our cities. For example, a 6 m (20 ft) rise in sea level would submerge all of South Florida (NASA 2003). Consequently, fighting climate change and reducing CO2 emissions are becoming prime goals of countless cities. The Kyoto Protocol was created in 1997 to fight climate change, and more than 180 countries joined the protocol by 2009. In 2015, at the United Nations’ Climate Conference held in Paris (COP 21/CMP 11), 195 countries adopted the “Paris Agreement,” which is the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate treaty. An increase in emissions will negatively affect the climate and, hence, the desperate need to stabilize carbon emission can hardly be overemphasized. In the context of tall buildings, the issue of climate change and energy conservation varies based on cases and scale. At the building level (micro-scale), in many cases, high-rises consume more energy (embodied and operational) than low-rises of equivalent square footage. However, at the urban scale (macro-scale), high-rise developments have advantages over low-rise ones for reducing travel distances and infrastructure spread4 (Du et al 2016; Owen 2009).

2.3.9 Infrastructure and Transportation Generally, there is a large consensus among planners that compact developments are “greener” than sprawling ones (e.g., Godschalk and Malizia 2014; Oldfield 2019; Owen 2009; Speck 2013). The costs of providing and maintaining public infrastructure and services in a sprawling development are higher than servicing the same community built with “smart growth” principles or infill development. Similarly, the high cost of maintaining expansive infrastructure hurts taxpayers and contributes to the financial crisis faced by local governments. Vertically configured buildings facilitate more efficient infrastructure use. Simply put, a 500-unit, single-family subdivision requires many more roads, sidewalks, sewers, hydro lines, power and gas lines, light standards, and fire hydrants than a tall 500-unit building. A comprehensive review of dozens of studies published by the Urban Land Institute has revealed that since 1980, the number of miles Americans drive has increased at a rate three times faster than the population and almost twice as fast as vehicle registrations. Researchers conclude that one of the most significant ways to reduce carbon emission is to build compact places where people can accomplish more with less driving. Dense development reduces driving significantly (Binder 2006; Oldfield et al. 2009). Overall, “Compact, mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented places offer significant 4 It

is important to note that these statements are pure generalization. Energy consumption of highrise versus low-rise environments is an exceedingly complex, debatable, and controversial topic (see Al-Kodmany 2018b). Therefore, the answers vary tremendously. It is best to pursue case-by-case analysis and consider in each study the myriad variables that contribute to energy consumption and GHG emission at both micro- and macro-scales. Acquiring the needed data of buildings’ construction, operation, utilities, maintenance, traveled distances, and costs of building infrastructure, among others, is particularly challenging.

2.3 Why Tall Buildings?

59

environmental, economic, and social benefits” (Godschalk and Malizia 2014, p. 56); and tall buildings can be instrumental in creating compact developments.

2.3.10 International Finance Internationally, wealthy people are increasingly participating in the global economy and investing in real estate. They find cities, for example, New York City and London, to be safe places to park their money; rather than keeping their wealth in their own insecure and politically unstable home countries. International investors view tall and supertall buildings as excellent investments because they involve placing a huge amount of capital in one place. In these skyscrapers, international owners can choose to rent their residential units, live there temporarily or permanently, or leave them vacant.

2.3.11 Air Rights Buying “air rights,” also called transferable development rights (TDR), has become popular in dense cities in recent years due to high demand in areas that have fewer developable lots. Zoning codes assign the greatest height for each zone and specify the air right rules. The air right concept enables a low-rise building’s owner to sell the air above a property (e.g., church, school, museum, apartment building) to a neighboring building, which can boost its allowable height. Consequently, the air above an “underbuilt” structure or “vertical” real estate space becomes a valuable commodity. Overall, the air right concept allows a neighborhood to tap into its “unused potential.” New York City (NYC) offers an illustrative example. NYC introduced the air right concept in 1961, and today, it witnesses a renewed demand on air right. For instance, One57 (306 m/1,004 ft) in Midtown Manhattan added to its height allotment by buying air rights from its neighboring buildings, including the nine-story 140 West 58th Street constructed in 1930. Completed in 2014, the 92-story ultra-tall building offers splendid views of the nearby Central Park. Similarly, 220 Central Park South (recently completed) reaches new heights by buying air rights from neighboring buildings. Remarkably, as land prices soar, air right prices rise as well (Binder 2006; Short 2013).

2.3.12 Human Aspirations and Ego Tallness evokes power and majesty, and as such, the human ego has supported building tall structures. People have admired tall structures since ancient times.

60

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

According to Roberto Assagioli, a pioneer of psycho-synthesis theories, the conception of height has to do with “self-realization,” “self-actualization,” and “human potential.” Commonalities among the “seven wonders” of the ancient world, (e.g., the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the Lighthouse of Alexandria, and the Great Pyramids of Egypt) are height and visibility. Fast forward to the late nineteenth century, human spirit and resilience were among the driving forces behind the skyscraper phenomenon. Tall buildings can project a sense of socio-economic power and promote the city as a leading and modern commercial center. Skyscrapers epitomize civic pride and display of achievements that intertwine hot design and cold design, referring to architectural passion and engineering logic, respectively. Tall structures provide an identity for a city, such as Big Ben and the Shard in London, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Space Needle in Seattle, Willis Tower in Chicago, Burj Khalifa in Dubai, and so on. Observation decks celebrate human ascendance over the sky and the surrounding landscape by providing unique panoramic views of the world below. Humanity has a historical preoccupation with building large and tall; engineers take pride in innovating ways to defy gravity. Imagining modern cities without iconic high-rises seems antithetical to human spirit, dignity, and identity (Tsang 2014).

2.3.13 Emerging Technologies The evolution of tall buildings has precipitated significant advancements in engineering and technology, and vice versa, scientific advancements have supported building tall. As today’s technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, architects and engineers can build taller and generate designs that push structural systems and aesthetic expressions to the limits. Simultaneously, the desire for achieving higher quality tall buildings has encouraged research in areas such as building service systems, computer sciences, facade engineering, glazing, daylight and heat control, structural framing systems, ceiling systems, lighting, ventilation, exit strategies, water recycling systems, and more. Tall buildings have challenged the industry to innovate the technology that can help in building towers more efficiently and sustainably, and to create internal environments that are comfortable, productive, and energy-efficient. The green movement prevalent today employs intelligent technologies and smart materials. It has propelled the design of high-performance tall buildings. Overall, technological developments (e.g., vertical transportation, steel frame structural systems, HVAC systems) were essential to erect tall buildings, and technology continues to be one of the most promising aspects of tall buildings future. In this regard, Watts (2017), the CTBUH Chairman, envisions that building materials breakthroughs will enable architects and engineers to build taller with less costs while

2.3 Why Tall Buildings?

61

increasing building’s longevity and decreasing usable space that structural systems occupy.5

2.3.14 Profit and Greed Last but not least, essential factors that promote building skyscrapers are profit and greed. Developers, architects, engineers, and realtors, among others, support building tall because of the higher return on investment (ROI). In common practice, architects and engineers charge fees based on the square footage of a project, and, of course, building a skyscraper has great square footage. Further, the fees for architects and engineers to construct skyscrapers are higher than that to construct low-rise buildings, due to intricate design, extreme engineering, and construction challenges. Insurance companies also charge more because of higher construction risks. Further, in terms of logistics, it is easier for engineering and architecture firms to work with a single client on a skyscraper than to work with, say, 25 different clients of low-rise buildings of the same square footage. Therefore, developers, real estate, and insurance companies, as well as architecture and engineering firms, have vested interests in building highrises.6

2.4 Summary This chapter described the global construction boom of tall buildings. As such, planners, architects, and politicians must carefully study these developments because they are profoundly reshaping cities. Tall buildings are urban planning game-changers for they alter the spatial patterns and physical characters of cities. Planners must engage the public in examining these developments and work together to minimize their adverse impacts and maximize their environmental, social, and economic benefits. While it is impossible to provide definitive, scientific proof, this research, based on the review above, predicts that tall building activities will continue in the near future. This prediction is based on multiple observations, including the influx of large numbers of people into cities from rural and suburban areas. Numerous cities around the world will need to plan for rapid urban growth, and many of them already do. If growth cannot be stopped, then it must be managed.

5 As buildings get taller, their structural systems may occupy a considerable amount of usable space,

particularly in the lower floors, making them economically less effective. is worth noting that economic cycles which impact tall building construction are unpredictable due to changing GDPs and property values. Overall, the costs of building skyscrapers are high and it takes years, about 15 years on average, for the building owner to start reaping profit.

6 It

62

2 Tall Building Construction Boom: A Global Snapshot

References Al-Kodmany K (2018a) Skyscrapers in the twenty-first century city: a global snapshot. Buildings 8(12):175. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8120175 Al-Kodmany K (2018b) The vertical city: a sustainable development model. WIT Press, Southampton, UK Aregger H, Glaus O (1967) High-rise building and urban design. Frederick Praeger, NYC Audretsch D (2008) Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 14:18–29 Barkham R, Schoenmaker D, Daams M (2017) Reaching for the sky: the determinants of tall office development in global gateway cities. CTBUH, J (I):20–25 Berg N (2012) Is there a limit to how tall buildings can get? City Lab. http://www.citylab.com/des ign/2012/08/there-limit-how-tall-buildingscan-get/2963/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Binder G (2006) Tall Buildings of Europe: the Middle East and Africa. Images Publishing, Mulgrave, Melbourne, Australia Binder G (2015) Tall Buildings of China. Images Publishing, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, Mulgrave Boddy T (2004) New urbanism: the Vancouver model. Places 16:14–21 Boyarsky A (2013) Chicago a la Carte. In: Urban Design Ecologies. McGrath, B., Ed.; Wiley Publisher, New York, NY, USA. Chap. 04 Buchanan C (2008) The economic impact of high density development and tall buildings in central business districts. a report for the British Property Federation (BPF) by Colin Buchanan and Partners, pp 1–43. https://www.bpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Economic-impact-ofhigh-density-development-and-tall-buildings-in-central-districts.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Chakrabarti V (2013) A country of cities: a manifesto for an Urban America. Metropolis Books, NYC Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. http://www.ctbuh.org/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 CTBUH year in review: Tall trends of 2015, and forecasts for 2016. http://www.skyscrapercenter. com/research/CTBUH_ResearchReport_2015YearInReview.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 CTBUH year in review: Tall trends of 2016. http://skyscrapercenter.com/research/CTBUH_Resear chReport_2016YearInReview.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Du P, Wood A, Stephens B (2016) Empirical operational energy analysis of downtown high-rise versus suburban low-rise lifestyles: a chicago case study. Energies 9:445 Gabel J (2016) The skyscraper surge continues, the Year of 100 supertall. CTBUH J (I):38–47.13 Godschalk D, Malizia E (2014) Sustainable development metrics. Plan Mag Am Plan Assoc 80(22– 26):35 Graham S (2016) Vertical: the city from satellites to bunkers. Verso, London, UK Haowent Y (2015) Innovative technologies and their application on the construction of a 100-plusstory skyscraper. Int J High-Rise Build 4(3):161–169 Koolhaas R (1978) Delirious New York. Oxford University Press, NYC Kunstler JK, Salingaros NA (2001) The end of tall buildings. Planetizen. https://www.planetizen. com/node/27 Leonard R, Porter J (2016) Slight change of plans, How the original planned communities are meeting modern demands. In: Planning magazine, American planning association, pp 12–19 Li Y, Ye Y, Xiao L, Xu W, Law A, Wang D (2017) Classifying community space at a historic 412site through cognitive mapping and GPS tracking: the case of Gulangyu. China Urb Des Int 22:127–149 Loukaitou-Sideris A, Banerjee T (1998) Urban design downtown: poetics and politics of form. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Murphy T, Miller J, Brandes U (2008) Urban land green. The Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC Neves MF (2010) The food business environment and the role of China and Brazil building a “food bridge”. China Agric Econ Rev 2:25–35

References

63

Oldfield P (2019) The sustainable tall building: a primer. Routledge, UK Oldfield P, Trabucco D, Wood A (2009) Five energy generations of tall buildings: an historical analysis of energy consumption in high-rise buildings. J Archit 14:591–613 Owen D (2009) Green metropolis: why living smaller, living closer, and driving less are the keys to sustainability. Penguin Group, New York, NY Pietrzak J (2014) Development of high-rise buildings in Europe in the 20th and 21st centuries. http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-07ec0c2b8817–4191-bde1-0e28e7a1361b. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Risen C (2013) The rise of the supertalls. Popul Sci https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/ 2013-02/rise-supertalls/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Scott P (2017) London’s future skyline: the 455 new skyscrapers turning our capital into Manhattan. The telegraph. Available online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/news/londons-future-sky line-455-new-skyscrapers-mapped/. Accessed 15 October 2018 Short M (2013) Planning for Tall Buildings. Routledge, London Shuvalova E (2015) High-rise construction in Russia: Asian way versus Middle Eastern Way; CTBUH Research Paper; publisher, city, country, 2015, pp 168–175 Speck J (2013) Walkable city: how downtown can save America one step at a time. North Point Press, NYC Tavernor R (2007) Visual and cultural sustainability: the impact of tall buildings on London. Landsc Plan 83:2–12 Tsang T (2014) The development and construction of Megatall. CTBUH J. (III):23 ULI (Urban Land Institute) (2008) Getting density right: tools for creating vibrant compact development; national multi housing council, urban land institute. Washington, DC United Nations, World Population Prospects, https://population.un.org/wpp/ Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Watts S (2017) CTBUH video interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgM4i8m2xpw. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Watts S, Kalita N, Maclean M (2007) The economics of supertall towers. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 16:457–470 Willis C (1995) Form follows finance: skyscrapers and skylines in New York and Chicago. Princeton Architectural Press, NYC Willis C, Landau S (1996) Rise of the New York skyscraper, 1865–1913. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT Wu FL (2012) China’s eco-cities. Geoforum 43:169–171

Chapter 3

Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich

Abstract This chapter presents the theoretical framework of this research. It proposes a placemaking conceptual model that illustrates the interrelatedness of various theories on urban imageability, likeability, symbolism, placemaking, sustainability, and public participation. It hypothesizes that participatory placemaking promotes a healthier social life, economy, and environment, which collectively support tourism and sustainability. The chapter closes by stressing that establishing sound spatial relationships between public places and tall buildings is essential to placemaking.

3.1 Introduction A placemaking literature review reveals a plethora of overlapping and interrelated theories. To ease discussing these theories, the chapter presents a placemaking conceptual model that links multiple concepts while illustrating their relationships and interconnectedness (Fig. 3.1). Simply, by engaging the public in placemaking, we enhance the various dimensions of the built environment and subsequently enrich city sustainability. The model suggests that urban imageability, likeability, and symbolism are essential contributors to placemaking. For example, analyzing spatial relationships and studying urban form through Lynch’s lens of landmarks, paths, nodes, edges, and districts help to improve understanding of placemaking. Equally valuable in a placemaking analysis is understanding the qualitative response to a physical space. Cities with strong imageability leave people with good longterm memories and positive feelings. Here, Jack Nasar’s likeability theory comes into play. Likable environments invite people to revisit them again and again. By identifying the dislikeable elements, we can remove hurdles that prevent people from engaging in public environments. Further, in this model, public participation (detailed in the following chapter) is essential to gather user input, views, and reflections about the built environment. User ideas are invaluable for improving existing conditions and planning for the future. People’s opinions on urban imageability and urban likeability will undoubtedly contribute to better placemaking. In turn, placemaking enhances social life, the physical environment, economic return, collectively © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_3

65

Engage

Urban Imageability

Urban Likeability

Social Life

Placemaking

Urban Symbolism

Enrich

Enhance Environment

Tourism

Economy

City Sustainability

Traditional Visualization Tools Digital Visualization Tools Community Workshops Field Visits

3 Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich

Public Participation

66

Fig. 3.1 A placemaking conceptual model. By engaging the public in discussions about urban imageability, likeability, symbolism, and placemaking, we enhance social life, environment, economy, and tourism that would collectively enrich urban sustainability (Diagram by author)

improving tourism. Cyclically, tourism enhances the economy, ignites activity, and improves the environment. Therefore, placemaking can support the overall sustainability of the city and tourism in particular. A place matters to social life, economic productivity, and environmental well-being—the three spheres of sustainability.

3.2 Placemaking 3.2.1 What Is Placemaking? Recently, the term “placemaking” has been prevailing in the planning, urban design, and architecture literature, among others. Also, practitioners have been using it frequently. Even businesses and shopping centers have been using the term to express efforts to improve the perception of their retail industry (Long 2017). The trajectory of the placemaking movement is also promising. It has been seen as supportive to the New Urban Agenda, which delineates “the global principles, policies and standards” that are necessary to attain sustainable urban developments. Another indicator of the rapid growth of placemaking movement is the increased number of “placemakers” who attend the Placemaking Week. However, as a result of the excessive use of the placemaking term, some confusion has emerged. When we review literature, we find that definitions vary considerably. Problematically, some definitions broaden the scope of placemaking exceedingly, making it to encompass all the planning activities (Vey 2018). Others have stressed linking the concept to less relevant fields such as green design, energy efficiencies, and climate change (Ferrier and Cosgrove 2018). Others confuse the placemaking term as a planning concept versus as an urban design process or as a management and programming strategy (Moskerintz 2017). Therefore, what is placemaking? What does it intend to do? and Why should we care about it? Placemaking is a subtle form of art. Its prime mission is to transform a “space” into a “place” (Gehl 2010). A “space” becomes a “place” when it exhibits delightful and distinct perceptual characteristics that meet socio-cultural needs. The term “space”

3.2 Placemaking

67

represents physicality, a container of activities and objects. In contrast, the word “place” describes a particular portion of space that evokes memorable messages; relates to a specific culture, climate, and geography, while meeting people’s physiological, social, and psychological needs (Lefebvre 1991; Oldenburg 2007). Placemaking is not just a beautification project of a physical environment. It does not mean to make things just nicer—It is not “icing on the cake.” Instead, placemaking is a creative process that considers people’s social needs and psychological responses as integral to the design of a physical space; the process anticipates producing a real, long-term, emotional attachment to a physical space (Al-Kodmany 2017, p. 1). Urban designers view this kind of creative transformation as essential to improve the qualitative human experience of modern cities (Agnew 2011; Courage 2017). The placemaking concept features a universal appeal and is increasingly important because it offers relevant applications across cultures, geographies, gender, level of income, educational attainment, or race (Oldenburg 2007; Fleming 2007; Relph 2007). The concept is also applicable to small- and large-scale projects (Steuteville 2014). In short, placemaking is a core urban design topic that can help people of all cultures and civilizations to seek places that cater to their needs while imparting special meanings and messages. Certainly, a “space” becomes a “place” when it features a unique identity and captivating characteristics that invite and foster social diversity and vibrancy. Consequently, people would feel comfortable in sharing the place, engaging with social activities, and staying longer. They would feel safe, welcomed, and connected to the place and crowd so that they desire to revisit it again and again. In this regard, in her book chapter, titled “Placemaking in Urban Design,” Madden (2011, p. 656) explains, “Simply, ‘spaces’ become ‘places’ when they begin to develop a multitude of reasons for people to go there.” The Project for Public Spaces (PPS) echoes Madden’s notion by defining placemaking as “turning a neighborhood, town or city from a place you can’t wait to get through to [the] one you never want to leave.” Such places, whether they are businesses, institutions, schools, malls, retails, restaurants, or cafes, must possess qualities that make them interesting; they must have “pizzazz” (Steuteville 2014). They must develop emotional connection with people as their “home,” in which they feel comfortable to stay and return to whenever they wish. In his TEDx talk (2015), David Engwicht poetically captures this notion by stating, “I define placemaking as being a lot like home making…… Just as a home maker turns a house into a home, a placemaker takes a space and turns it into a place.”

3.2.2 The Power of Ten The Project for Public Spaces proposes “the Power of Ten” guide to turn a “space” into a “place.” A place should at least offer ten things to do or ten reasons for people to visit; examples include sitting, relaxing, playing, enjoying visual attractiveness, smelling and eating food, listening to music, touching art, meeting people, and sparking spontaneous conversations. Therefore, when we transform a space into a

68

3 Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich

place, we improve the human interaction with that space; enhance the human experience of the activities that occur there; heighten pleasant emotional responses; evoke a specific identity; and communicate symbolic meanings. Giving people limited choices of activities in one place is not recommended. A place should offer layers of activities that cater to various ages and needs. All kinds of activities and events (e.g., social, economic, cultural, or recreational) should ultimately produce a positive experience that re-invites users to that place again and again. By so doing, downtowns, retails, malls, and business will be attracting a greater number of visitors, thereby enlivening these places and yielding economic benefits. The Brookings’ Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Center for Transformative Placemaking stresses that the Power of Ten guide leads to good placemaking that fosters “more economically, socially, and environmentally responsible development,” hence improving the overall sustainability of the city (brookings.edu).

3.2.3 William H. Whyte’s Legacy William H. Whyte, “the mentor of Project for Public Spaces,” discussed ways to turn “spaces” into “places.” In facing challenging transport issues that shattered spatial patterns, he introduced the concept of placemaking as a groundbreaking tool to design and retrofit cities by catering to people rather than to the automobile. As such, Whyte introduced placemaking as a people-centered concept that prioritizes human scale, social connectivity, and user comfort. Indeed, ever since the intense proliferation of the car in modern cities, the human experience of cities has steadily deteriorated. Safdie (1998) examined this notion in his book, titled The City After the Automobile. He explained how the spatial patterns of modern cities divide the built environment by incorporating mega street and highway networks, disrespecting the human scale and deteriorating the pedestrian experience. The Project for Public Spaces explains this notion, “placemaking is based on a simple principle: if you plan cities for cars and traffic, you will get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you will get people and places.” Simultaneously, megamalls and regional shopping centers altered the human engagement with street retail, resulting in a severe decline in the social life of these corridors (Jacobs 1961; Jacobs and Appleyard 2007). After decades of destructive sprawl, planners find the concept of placemaking as essential to re-invite denizens to urban cores (Vey 2018). Consequently, due to large-scale urban interventions, “places” that were once inviting were transformed into “spaces” that are disinviting. Such ill practices have become almost the norm. Whyte (1980) profoundly explained this pervasive problem in his seminal book The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces by stating, “It is difficult to design a space that will not attract people. What is remarkable is how often this has been accomplished” (Whyte 1980, p. 56). Madison (2019) asserts that the problems that Whyte has warned about persist today. She explains that many new places are not designed for people; they are designed for the automobile or designed as art pieces to look at from “drones” or “helicopters.” Therefore, it is important to figure

3.2 Placemaking

69

out the urban design strategies that help to convert dead spaces into lively places and to transform deserted placed into cities’ greatest assets (Engwicht 2015).

3.2.4 Participatory Placemaking To turn spaces in places, planners should embrace an engaging participatory process. They should invite a community to look around, ask questions, suggest answers, and debate “experts’” advices. Participants can query about many aspects of the physical environment we live in and activities we practice daily, including living, working, shopping, entertaining, and playing. Thoughtful participatory discussions generate a wealth of information that helps to create a common vision. With this understanding and process, placemaking becomes a powerful, transformative tool that helps to “create places in cities that can invite greater interaction, while fostering healthier and more economically viable communities” (Madden 2011, p. 654). Participatory placemaking has the potential to foster pride, encourage stewardship and ownership by upholding the integrity of physical and social environments, whether in the home, neighborhood, community, or city (Norberg-Schulz 2007; Choi 2011). Certainly, “placemaking is a powerful tool for a democratic change, a means to stitch cities together,” as explained by Das (2016). Therefore, with participatory placemaking, we enhance chances of being inclusive and fair to various socio-economic groups, race, color, and gender (Vey 2018). The PPS coins a unique definition of placemaking that highlights the importance of participatory and collaborative work by stating, “Strengthening the connection between people and the places they share, placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm in order to maximize shared value.” Similarly, Madison (2019) defines placemaking as “a collaborative process of people coming together to create the great public spaces at the heart of their community.” Therefore, it is important to engage people from the onset of the process. Planners cannot and should not do placemaking alone. Public and private sectors as well as planners and policy-makers need to understand that placemaking intends not only to invest in physical spaces but also to invest in people’s ideas, ingenuity, and aspirations.

3.2.5 Placemaking and Sense of Place Placemaking and sense of place concepts deeply intertwine. They overlap in purpose, convey similar meanings, and manifest similarly in the planning process. According to McMahon (2012), “A sense of place is a unique collection of qualities and characteristics—visual, cultural, social, and environmental—that provide meaning to a location. Sense of place is what makes one city or town different from another, but sense of place is also what makes our physical surroundings worth caring about.” McMahon argues that planners should spend less time focusing on numerical figures

70

3 Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich

and statistics and should study the perceptional characteristics that promote a sense of place. Again, he emphasizes that placemaking is a form of art not an exact science. He believes that a distinct character and sense of place are essential qualities needed to promote tourism. Similarly, Cortright (2006), a Brookings expert and leading economic analyst, explains that “the unique characteristics of place may be the only truly defensible source of competitive advantage for communities.” In the meantime, Kevin Lynch views sense of place to “be essential to numerous human activities while depositing a memory trace” (Lynch 1960, p. 119), and Michael Southworth believes that a sense of place can enhance the perception of safety in “a transient, rapidly evolving society” (Southworth 2011, p. 507). Therefore, placemaking and sense of place concepts overlap in meaning and purpose. They are essential to make people feel comfortable, happy, and attached to physical spaces (Al-Kodmany 2011, 2012, 2013). Although there could be subtle differences in the meanings of the terms “placemaking” and “sense of place,” this research uses them interchangeably.

3.2.6 Placemaking and Tall Buildings A particular placemaking challenge in modern cities is integrating high-rise buildings. The substantial height and large volume of high-rises are significant contributors to this challenge. For example, constructing a 50-story high-rise building in a predominantly low-rise environment has the potential to damage the sense of place. In addition to imposing height, the architectural design and structural engineering of highrises are very different than that of low-rise buildings. The resulting visual mismatch may introduce a new dimension of placelessness. In residential areas, a concentration of high-rises fosters feeling of overcrowding. Similarly, the agglomeration of high-rises in central business districts evokes the image of a hectic environment. At any rate, urban designers and sociologists often critique tall buildings, particularly supertalls (300 + m/984 + ft), for introducing visual disorder to neighborhoods and communities. These buildings clearly defy the human scale and damage the pedestrian realm. Further, when a large concentration of tall buildings engulfs people, say in Manhattan, they are likely to experience spatial disorientation and placelessness. Simultaneously, inside high-rises, tenants feel disconnected from the street’s social life; and likewise, pedestrians feel disconnected from the social life of high-rises (Alexander et al. 1987; Gehl 2010; Krummeck and MacLeod 2015). Certainly, a review of architecture and urban design literature reveals a significant research gap at the nexus of tall buildings and placemaking. Much of the research on tall buildings has focused on architectural design, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering. Other research has focused on technological innovations, smart materials, and intelligent systems. Further, some studies have addressed specific issues such as elevator technology, facade design, green walls, safety, security, and evacuation response. Of course, other studies have examined general topics, such as sustainability and resilience of tall buildings. However, research that discusses ways to mitigate placelessness created by tall buildings is lacking.

3.2 Placemaking

71

The importance of this research can be stressed further when we observe that urban designers have primarily been in favor of low-rise cities, and neglect to provide theories or directions to enhance the experience of high-rise cities. For example, Christopher Alexander and colleagues argue in their seminal book A Pattern Language that the high-rise city is an “inviable” human habitat. Alexander et al. explain, “Pattern 21: FOUR-STORY LIMIT. There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy. Therefore, in any urban area, no matter how dense, keep the majority of buildings four stories high or less. It is possible that certain buildings should exceed this limit, but they should never be buildings for human habitation” (Alexander et al. 1977, p. 114). Similarly, the well-known architect and urban designer Jan Gehl has critiqued high-rise living and advocated low-rise environments for being supportive of human scale and conducive to vibrant social life. In his book Cities for People, Gehl echoes Alexander’s views that living above the fifth floor is not recommended for tenants will lose touch with the “Mother Earth” and social life on the street. He states, “I would say that anybody living over the fifth floor ought generally to be referring to the airspace authorities. You’re not part of the earth anymore, because you can’t see what’s going on the ground and the people on the ground can’t see where you are” (Gehl 2010, p. 54). Likewise, professor and planner Michael Buxton at RMIT (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) in Melbourne, Australia, opposes high-rise developments. He states “What high-rise does is separate large numbers of people from the street, so we end up with a city that is detached from street life, we end up with a city that is based on enclaves and gated communities” (cited in Perkins 2012). Earlier, the renowned Jane Jacobs argued for human-scale urban design and that high-rise developments just work against it (see The Death and Life of Great American Cities). For some architects and city planners (e.g., Blumenfeld 1971), introducing tall buildings in historic districts is often problematic. Over-scaled buildings made of metal, glass, and concrete are likely to conflict with small-scale historic buildings made of stones and bricks. As such, these problems persist and placemaking centered on mitigating the placelessness of tall buildings in urban environments is a truly needed area of research. Consequently, this research attempts to fill an essential gap in the area of placemaking and tall buildings. It examines the roles of both public spaces and tall buildings in improving a sense of place. Exploring the nexus of tall buildings and open spaces is crucial for many cities that embrace tall buildings as the main building typology and for cities that suffer from inadequate public spaces.

3.2.7 Placemaking and Public Spaces Although the term placemaking is relatively new, since ancient times, its applications have been practiced in many urban design projects particularly those related to public spaces. For example, the Greeks incorporated agoras and designed them in manners that supported human scale and promoted sense of place. Similarly, the Romans integrated public plazas, often with a grand scale that communicated

72

3 Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich

power and established visual order. Likewise, European cities embraced various forms of public places and squares that supported active social life and promoted a sense of identity (Webber 1963). Modern cities attempt to create such places but with varying degrees of success (Friedmann 1988). Building on the same tradition, today, much of placemaking research has focused on public spaces exclusively. For example, William H. Whyte’s research has concentrated on the factors that contribute to making successful public spaces. As mentioned earlier, a significant source of placemaking knowledge and experience that follows Whyte’s footsteps is the Project for Public Spaces. As apparent from its title, the organization focuses its work on public spaces. The organization’s website clearly conveys this notion by stating, “Throughout our experience working with over 3000 communities—in all 50 U.S. states and in 43 countries—PPS continues to show by example how adopting a collaborative community process is the most effective approach for creating and revitalizing public spaces.” Therefore, the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) focuses on public spaces, not on the impact of buildings or skyscrapers and their spatial relationships on placemaking. The PPS views placemaking as a tool to inspire people to reimagine and reinvent public spaces collectively. Interestingly, Madden’s definition of placemaking echoes the same theme. She explains that “placemaking is geared toward the ‘ground floor’ of a city, streets, sidewalks, parks, buildings and other public spaces…placemaking focuses on the creation of the public places of everyday life; the streets corners, bus stops, and parks” (Madden 2011, p. 654). Purposefully, the research documented in this book focuses on both public areas and tall buildings as well as their spatial relationships to support placemaking.

3.2.8 Placemaking and Virtual Environments The demand for public spaces has been threatened by virtual environments that are mediated via digital technologies. People, particularly millennials, are immersed in various online applications, taking people away from or diminishing their outdoor experiences. In particular, this study searches for means to create more satisfying and humanistic high-rise environments that make people feel intimately connected to their cities and outdoor spaces. Instead of exclusively viewing the digital environments as a threat to the physical ones, planners may search for ways to harness digital communications to augment physical spaces. For example, we may utilize social media to engage the public in expressing their views of the built environments (including public spaces and tall buildings) and on ways to improve them and improve their spatial relationships. We may then be able to improve upon the traditional practices related to community engagement in planning. By combining research methods, this study identifies ways to ascertain a city’s assets, inspiration, and potential. Applying dedicated processes to improving placemaking should result in enhancing the overall urban experience and diminish the stress related to imposing vertical urbanism. Successful placemaking will improve people’s health, happiness, and well-being.

3.3 Urban Imageability

73

3.3 Urban Imageability While the theory of placemaking has been recently ascending the urban design agenda, the foundational concept was laid back in the early 1960s by Kevin Lynch explained in his seminal book, The Image of the City. Overall, Lynch’s work continues to be “a touchstone, a foundational work to which scholars and practitioners over five decades have felt compelled to return to evaluate and assess the design and planning professions as they move forward, as that progress is reflected in new scholarly books” (Rosenbloom 2018, p. 213). In particular, The Image of the City book has been most influential. It has been translated to about 15 languages, and “was recently in its 37th printing and has sold close to 250,000 copies in English, a testament to its popularity” (Banerjee et al. 2018, p. 214). Lynch founded his research in the field of behavioral geography, a discipline that studies and uses mental maps to help understand people’s perceptions of the built environment. He introduced the concept of urban imageability for examining urban forms, wayfinding, and spatial relationships. Lynch defined imageability as “that quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer. It is that shape, color, or arrangement that facilitates the making of vividly identified, powerfully structured, highly useful mental images of the environment. It might also be called legibility” (Lynch 1960, p. 9). Consequently, a highly imageable or legible city should be well ordered so that residents or visitors can formulate clear mental maps that assist them in navigating it. While most of Lynch’s discussions focused on city-scale issues, his theory proved to be applicable to larger or smaller geography, such as a region or a neighborhood. The scalability and universality of the imageability theory have made it relevant and useful in the fields of urban design, behavioral geography, and urban psychology, among others. Lynch proposed that imageability consists of five elements: landmarks, paths, edges, districts, and nodes. These elements “encapsulate the key elements of a city pattern as sensed by users” (Banerjee et al. 2018, p. 214). They are essential in establishing a positive perception of a place and reinforcing a visual order, as follows.

3.3.1 Landmarks Landmarks are physical objects (e.g., sculptures, buildings, mountains, etc.) that are easily distinguishable from one another and that serve as popular reference points. Landmarks enrich the urban fabric, creating spatial legibility and enhancing the visual experience of a city. Some buildings can be viewed as space markers along a city’s skyline, depending on form, size, height, and architectural characteristics.

74

3 Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich

3.3.2 Paths Paths are “the channels along which the observer customarily, occasionally, or potentially moves” (Lynch 1960, p. 47). The city is full of linear elements along which people may commute and conduct their daily activities. Lynch suggested that buildings are an essential component of major streets and boulevards and play a crucial role in strengthening a path’s imageability.

3.3.3 Nodes Nodes are “the strategic spots in a city into which an observer can enter, and which are the intensive foci to and from which [one] is traveling” (Lynch 1960, p. 47). The social and economic life of cities coalesces around urban nodes, creating the “heart and soul” of communities. When a group of buildings clusters around a public open space, a new urban scale is introduced, creating a “larger” landmark or a node. A careful grouping of buildings around a physical space can reinforce imageability by creating a sense of visual enclosure, evoking a “three-dimensional” charm that provides a place with identity.

3.3.4 Districts When a node or a path increases in size substantially, it forms a district. Districts are medium-to-large swaths of a city that have common identifiable characteristics. Landmark buildings can reinforce the imageability of a district, and groups of tall buildings can themselves form districts (e.g., Central Business Districts (CBDs)).

3.3.5 Edges Edges manifest in cities and environments in multiple ways. For example, many cities have natural edges formed by a large body of water (e.g., lake, sea, ocean, etc.) or forests or mountains. Human-made edges also prevail in the form of highways, railways, and neighborhoods. Because of their immense height, tall buildings placed side by side have the potential to create “vertical” edges. At the mega-scale, skyscrapers can help in giving a city a sharp visual edge or a skyline. Similar to other imageability elements, edges can help in imparting a unique identity to the city. In the context of tall buildings, the five elements of imageability can be reinterpreted as follows. Because of their immense height, tall buildings have the potential

3.3 Urban Imageability

75

to function as landmarks or “markers in the sky” that help people to orient themselves and navigate the city. Further, a linear arrangement of tall buildings could create an edge or a skyline. Likewise, if we set an appropriate distance between two opposing edges, tall buildings may create a recognizable path. Further, clustering tall buildings could create vivid nodes, and when tall buildings cluster at a larger scale, they form a distinct district. As such, certain spatial arrangements of tall buildings play an important role in shaping the imageability of the high-rise city. A “master plan” could help to locate better and cluster tall buildings to create influential nodes, paths, edges, districts, and landmarks. Ergo, this study engages the art of establishing harmonious spatial relationships between the horizontal and vertical planes to form a web of vivid paths, edges, nodes, districts, and landmarks in an urban environment. Chapter 10, Sect. 6, “Applications to Lynch’s Imageability Model,” details these concepts further.

3.4 Urban Likability and Dis-Likeability Kevin Lynch’s seminal work on urban imageability, presented in his book The Imageability of City, has influenced and advanced the work of many scholars in various fields, including urban planning, sociology, and environmental psychology. For example, Jack L. Nasar, an environmental psychologist and urban planner, wrote a book that builds carefully on Lynch’s studies, as it is apparent from its title, The Evaluative Image of the City (1998). Nasar asserts and validates imageability aspects examined by Lynch, including “identity” (distinguishing the urban elements from each other) and “structure” (illustrating the spatial patterns of the identified elements). However, as an environmental psychologist, Nasar relates and roots his work in larger volumes of environmental design research (e.g., Altman and Zube 1989; Appleyard 1976; Lofland 1985; Oldenburg 1998; Rapoport 1990). He emphasizes the notions of meaning, emotions, and feelings as essential elements for judging the quality of environmental images. Nasar asserted that people react differently to the same environmental image, and it is essential to investigate their reactions to conclude what they like and dislike. Simply, if a majority of people react positively, then the presented image—be it a cityscape, single building, public plaza, or street furniture—is likable, and vice versa, if the reaction is negative, it is dislikeable. Nasar, alongside trained researchers, conducted empirical work on the concepts of urban likeability and dis-likeability in two U.S. cities, Knoxville and Chattanooga, Tennessee. They interviewed 220 residents by phone and 180 visitors in person and used maps to assist in identifying geographic locations. Their study engaged interviewees with a whole set of questions inquiring about what they liked and disliked in these cities. Specifically, researchers asked interviewees to identify up to five places that they liked visually, and additional five places that they disliked. By using paper maps, interviewees were able to identify the specific geographic areas and elements that they were referring to. After expressing issues of likeability/dislikeability, researchers probed interviewees about the reasons for their reactions and

76

3 Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich

evaluations. Later, the process involved creating two maps (likeability map and dislikeability map) for each respondent, reflecting an interviewee’s evaluative image of the city. Afterward, by overlaying the “evaluative image” of all interviewees, researchers concluded with two composite maps, illustrating the collective evaluation of the cityscape. These maps were foundational for creating visual plans that guided the urban developments of these cities. Interestingly, with the advent of social media, the concepts of likeability and dislikeability “catch fire.” Unintentionally, these concepts become popular and have sparked endless applications, not necessarily related to the built environment. By default, people desire to express their views and share them with others. By sharing, they may get reactions that prove, challenge, or disprove their beliefs. With robust, real-time quantitative power, social media can count the “likes” and “dislikes” in real time. These quantitative tools are becoming popular because they quickly assess the popularity of a given viewpoint. Further, the comments that people may supply shed light on why they like or dislike a particular view—in the case of urban design applications, it could be a specific element of the built environment or a whole scene. The role of digital communication is further emphasized as increasingly stakeholders have less time to engage in the traditional same-place, same-time community workshops. Through social media, for example, community members can express their views, ideas, and aspiration about the places they visit and inhabit. Overall, these new digital tools empower grassroot public engagements that provide information on existing conditions and supply directions for future design and retrofit (see Chap. 4, Sect. 4.4.3 Social Media).

3.5 Urban Symbolism Urban symbolism studies focus on the “meaning” dimension of the imageability theory. Anthropologists have studied urban symbolism deeply and explained that our cities are replete with symbols that are expressed and communicated through street layout, buildings, public spaces, public art, and the like (e.g., Elden 2004; Rappoprt 1990; Nas 1990; Gusevich 1986; Smith 2007). These urban symbols are important to the concept of place (Habermas 1991). Castello (2006, p. 13) explains this notion, “The traditional concept of place is a theoretical construct that implies on a created environmental form, imbued with symbolic significance to its users. There is a common acceptance, though, that a place is layered with the symbolic attributes that evoke the role this place played in some of the most significant times the city has experienced.” In the context of this research, a skyscraper may qualify as a potent urban symbol. Today, many cities (e.g., Dubai, Kula Lumpur, Jeddah, Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Moscow, etc.) are constructing significant skyscrapers to symbolize their economic growth and prosperity, stemming from a desire to be recognized on the global stage. Thoughtful architectural design and careful integration with the urban fabric may make skyscrapers serve as strong symbols of modernity, scientific advancement,

3.5 Urban Symbolism

77

engineering excellence, and architectural talent. Over time, some of these skyscrapers gain historical significance as well, for example, the Empire State Building in New York City. Similarly, concentrations of tall buildings, say in a downtown, may create a skyline that serves as a potent urban symbol. Apparently, this is the case in many modern cities, such as Chicago, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and the like. Similarly, public plazas and open spaces can function as critical urban symbols. Beyond design excellence, the symbolic quality of a plaza or a square may be established through historical, social, cultural, or political events. A recent and powerful example is Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt. The place has become a symbol of Egyptians’ struggle for democracy after it held massive gatherings and protests that toppled President Hosni Mubarak’s regime. High-profile officials from across the world visited Tahrir Square, e.g., David Cameron, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hillary Clinton, the 67th United States Secretary of State, and Catherine Ashton, the first European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Consequently, today, Tahrir Square is a significant urban symbol and a well sought-after tourist destination (Kafafy 2012).

3.6 Urban Sustainability In recent years, the concept of urban sustainability has been useful in supporting urban developments. In 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which details 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) and 169 Actionable Targets to be realized by 2030. In particular, Goal #11 refers to creating sustainable cities and communities. Further, the United Nations’ World Urban Forum (WUF) (2017), the world’s premier conference on urban development, has embraced “sustainability” as an overarching theme for its agenda. The commitment to SDG’s has been apparent since WUF’s first meeting in 2002, titled “Sustainable Urbanization,” in Nairobi, Kenya, through the latest in 2020, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In the same vein, in 2016, the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) adopted the New Urban Agenda (translated to 33 languages), which also stresses sustainability. Similar to the United Nations’ focus on, and interest in sustainability, other prominent organizations, such as the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Local Government for Sustainability (ICLEI), and Global Platform for Sustainable Cities (GPSC) have worked on and supported local and global sustainability projects, initiatives, and programs (United Nations). Likewise, the term “sustainability” frequently appears in academic literature and is discussed in professional conferences. In the United States, the American Planning Association (APA), the prime professional planning organization, continues to use the term “sustainability” in its National Planning Conference (NPC) and publications. In 2010, at the United Nations’ 5th WUF, the APA announced the creation of the Sustaining Places Initiative, a program that focuses on sustainability as a key to all urban planning activities. In recent years, the program has published several key

78

3 Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich

reports, articles, and books that highlight this planning approach; see, for example, Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans by Godschalk and Rouse (2015). As early as 1987, the UN crafted a profoundly useful definition of sustainability, stating it as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987). Owing to its concise and precise nature, this definition continues to be among the most frequently used. The UN’s definition coincides with the core meaning of the term “sustain,” which refers to long-term nourishment, strengthening, and support (e.g., Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Besides, the UN’s definition aligns with the planning profession’s focus on future conditions, while considering that resources are finite. Sustainability’s 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) comfortably fit the urban planning profession’s goals and objectives (Pruetz 2012; Krier 2009). Notably, sustainability provides a holistic framework to illustrate the connection between three critical urban dimensions, including the social, economic, and environmental, also known as the “3Ps,” referring to people, profit, and the planet, where • “people” (social) refers to community welfare, equity, inclusiveness, livability, and residents’ health; • “profit” (economic) refers to growth, employment, wages, revenue, prosperity, trade, and global competitiveness; and • “planet” (environment) refers to improving environmental health, conserving and preserving eco-systems, using natural resources efficiently, enhancing infrastructure, managing traffic, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mitigating the impact of climate change, and adapting to climate change. These three sustainability dimensions are also articulated by the “3Es” of equality (social), economics (financial), and ecology (environment). Both in academic literature and practical world, the 3Ps or 3Es are referred to as the triple bottom line (TBL). Importantly, “Sustainability seeks to balance these three dimensions across geographic scales—from individual habitats to neighborhood, community, city, region, country, continent, and the planet at large—and according to both shortand long-term goals” (Al-Kodmany 2018a, p. III). In the context of this research, it is argued that placemaking supports the three spheres of sustainability. It leads to enhancing the physical space, social life, and economic conditions, which they collectively improve urban sustainability. That is, attractive public spaces invite more local people and tourists, who in turn increase demand on local businesses, social amenities, and services (e.g., restaurants, cafes, hotels, travel agencies, logistics, media, banks, and the like), thereby igniting social life, creating jobs, and enhancing the economy (Fig. 3.1).

3.7 Summary

79

3.7 Summary This chapter illustrates the interconnectedness of multiple theories and concepts crucial to this research. Urban imageability, likeability, and symbolism are critical elements of placemaking. Sound placemaking practices enhance the physical environment and improve socio-economic activities, which in turn support the city’s sustainability and tourism. As discussed in the following chapter, sound placemaking results from engaging the public and understanding their urban experiences and preferences. In short, “participatory placemaking” is crucial to a city’s sustainability. It allows masses of people, local and global, to voice their concerns and opinions about ways to improve the imageability of the city and its socio-economic vitality. The more planners listen to user feedback and experiences, the more they will be aware of important issues to better shape the planning discourse and future interventions. A city is a place for everyone, and within a “participatory placemaking” framework, we can continuously improve living conditions, urban tourism, and sustain a brighter future.

References Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings. Oxford University Press, NYC, Construction Alexander C, Neis H, Anninou A, King I (1987) A new theory of urban design. Oxford University Press, NYC Al-Kodmany K (2011) Placemaking by tall buildings. J Urban Des Int 16(4):252–269 Al-Kodmany K (2012) The logic of vertical density: tall buildings in the 21st century city. Int J High-Rise Build 1(2):131–148 Al-Kodmany K (2013) Placemaking in the high-rise city: architectural and urban design analyses. Int J High-Rise Build 2(2):153–169 Al-Kodmany K (2017) Understanding tall buildings. Routledge, London Al-Kodmany K (2018a) The vertical city: a sustainable development model. WIT Press, Southampton, UK Al-Kodmany K (2018b) Skyscrapers in the twenty-first century city: a global snapshot. Buildings 8(12):1–45 Altman I, Zube E (1989) Public places and spaces. Plenum Press, New York Appleyard D (1976) Planning a Pluralist City: conflicting realities in Ciudad Guayana. The University of Arizona Press, Phoenix Banerjee T, Hack G, Southworth M (Guest Editors) (2018) Introduction to the special issue. J Am Plan Assoc 84:3-4, 214-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1526102 Blumenfeld H (1971) The modern metropolis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cork City Council, Cork City (2004) Castello L (2006) City and time and places: bridging the concept of place to urban conservation planning, CECI. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d1c6/c516da598fc79012927f6f4686bb88 0bafdd.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Choi HS (2011) Place identity in 21st century architecture in South Korea, ArchNet-IJAR. Int J Architect Res 5(3):116–133

80

3 Theoretical Framework: Engage, Enhance, and Enrich

Cortright J (2006) Making sense of clusters: regional competitiveness and economic development, brookings, March 1. https://www.brookings.edu/research/making-sense-of-clusters-reg ional-competitiveness-and-economic-development/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Courage C (2017) Placemaking and community, TEDx talk, June 2nd , https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Sfk1ZW9NRDY. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Das PK (2016) Placemaking news. Project for public spaces, September 29, https://www.pps.org/ article/pk-das-awarded-first-international-jane-jacobs-medal. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Elden S (2004) Understanding Henri Lefebvre: theory and the possible. Continuum, NYC Engwicht D (2015) Add some magic to public space near you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= USmTQeKRaP4&feature=emb_rel_end. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Ferrier K, Cosgrove (2018) A place for placemaking in San Diego. http://www.trbas.com/media/ media/acrobat/2017-09/70084918587140-20111512.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Fleming R (2007) The art of placemaking: interpreting community through public art and urban design. Merrell Publishers, Cambridge, MA Friedmann J (1988) Life space and economic space. Transaction Publishers, New Jersey Gehl J (2010) Cities for people. Island Press, Washington, DC Godschalk DR, Rouse DC (2015) Sustaining places: best practices for comprehensive plans, PAS Report 578. https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9026901/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Gusevich, Miriam (1986) Meaning and means in Urban design. A case study in American Urbanism, South la Salle street, Chicago. J Architect Educ 39(3) Habermas J (1991) The structural transformation of the public sphere. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Jacobs A, Appleyard D (2007) Toward an urban design manifesto. In: Larice M, Macdonald E (eds) The urban design reader. Routledge, New York City, NY, pp 98–108 Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American Cities. Random House Publishing, New York City, NY Kafafy N (2012) Cairo University, Egypt, The dynamic influence of symbolism and meaning in urban design, the case of Tahrir Square, Cairo, Egypt. In: 48th ISOCARP congress 2012 Krier L (2009) The architecture of community. Island Press, Washington, DC (2009) Krummeck S, MacLeod B (2015) Capturing the placemaking potential of the new skyscraper city. In: Proceedings of the CTBUH 12th world congress in New York City, NY, October 26–30, pp 258–265 Lefebvre H (1991) The production of space. Blackwell, NYC Lofland LH (1985) A world of strangers: order and action in Urban Public Space. Waveland Press, New York Long J (2017) What is Placemaking? R Foundation, July, https://www.foundationrecruitment.com/ what-is-placemaking/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Madden K (2011) Placemaking in urban design. In: Banerjee T, Loukaitou-Sideris A (eds) Companion to urban design. Routledge, NYC, pp 654–673 Madison, E (2019) Placemaking: connecting people and place. TEDx Talk. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=oFz_WLKwXLE. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 McMahon ET (2012) The distinctive city. Urban Land Institute. https://urbanland.uli.org/develo pment-business/the-distinctive-city/#. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Moskerintz H (2017) So what exactly is placemaking? National Association of Realtors, September. https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/spaces-to-places/so-what-exactly-is-placemaking-0 Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Nas PJM (1990) Jakarta, stad vol symbolen. Met Leiden als contrast, Antropologische Verkenningen 9–3:65–82 Nasar J (1998) The evaluative image of the city. Sage Publications, London Norberg-Schulz C (2007) The phenomenon of place. In: Larice M, Macdonald E (eds) The urban design reader. Routledge, New York City, NY, pp 125–137

References

81

Oldenburg R (1998) The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Marlowe, New York Oldenburg R (2007) The problem of place in America. In: Larice M, Macdonald E (eds) The urban design reader. Routledge, New York City, NY, pp 138–148 Perkins M (2012) The long and short and tall of a city feeling pressure for change. The Age, April 25. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-long-and-short-and-tall-of-a-city-fee ling-pressure-for-change-20120424-1xjes.html Project for Public Spaces (PPS). https://www.pps.org/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Pruetz R (2012) Lasting value: an excerpt from a recent APA Planners Press book that celebrates remarkable efforts to save rural areas and open space, Planning, the Magazine of the American Planning Association, pp 32–38 (August/September) Rapoport A (1990) The meaning of the built environment: a nonverbal communication. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ Relph E (2007) Prospects for places. In: Larice M, Macdonald E (eds) The urban design reader. Routledge, New York City, NY, pp 119–124 Rosenbloom S (2018) Letter from the editor. J Am Plan Assoc 84:3-4, 213-213. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01944363.2018.1529464 Safdie M (1998) The city after the automobile: an architect’s vision. Routledge, London Smith, M E (2007) Form and meaning in the earliest cities: a new approach to ancient urban planning. J Plan Hist 6(1) (February):3-4. Sage Publications Southworth M (2011) Beyond placelessness: place identity and the global city. In: Banerjee T, Loukaitou-Sideris A (eds) Companion to Urban Design. Routledge, New York City, NY, pp 495–509 Steuteville (2014) Four types of placemaking. Congress of New Urbanism, October. https://www. cnu.org/publicsquare/four-types-placemaking Vey J (2018) Why we need to invest in transformative placemaking. Brookings, November 14 https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-we-need-to-invest-in-transformative-placemaking/ United Nation, HABITAT, World Urban Forum (WUF) (2017). https://wuf.unhabitat.org/node/145. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Webber M (1963) Order in diversity: community without propinquity. In: Wingo L (ed) Cities and space: the future use of urban land. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD Whyte WH (1980) The social life of small urban spaces. Baltimore, MD, Edwards Brothers World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Chapter 4

Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Abstract This chapter summarizes key methods of collecting public opinion about the urban environment. Undoubtedly, people’s needs and preferences continue to be underrepresented in the planning process and planners argue that it is essential to devise methods that allow residents to voice their opinions on existing conditions or proposed plans. Effective communication is vital to successful public participation. For the sake of simplicity, this chapter classifies communication methods into three categories: one-way, two-way, and three-way. Notably, the chapter offers inspiring examples of the use of the Internet and social media for supporting public participation. Finally, it explains the methods employed in this study, while the following chapters present the findings.

4.1 Introduction Increasingly, countries around the globe are embracing democracy. In a democratic society, people are encouraged to voice their opinions about public matters, issues, problems, solutions, and plans. In the United States, in particular, citizen participation in public affairs is part of the nation’s philosophic tradition and is viewed as a cornerstone of democracy (Healey 2007). Scholars of various fields and disciplines have advocated and supported the notion of engaging the public in making decisions about cities and neighborhoods. Bernie Jones concisely conveys these claims in his book, titled Neighborhood Planning: A Guide for Citizens and Planners. He explains that democratic participation in city and neighborhood planning is essential for three critical reasons: “The greater the participation of residents in the making of a plan, the more likely it is that the plan will accurately reflect their needs and concerns. Second, the greater the participation, the greater is the sense of ownership that people have about the plan, which can translate into a greater determination on their part to see that the plan gets implemented. Third, the greater the participation, the harder it is for others, such as public officials, to ignore the plan” (Jones 1990, p. 50). Indeed, Jones’ statements capture the essence of participatory planning.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_4

83

84

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Once the importance of public participation is established, the question then becomes how to pursue it. Jones (1990, p. 34) elucidates that there are four ways (the four Ds) to pursue democratic city and neighborhood planning: 1. De-professionalization: It is not just professionals shape the future of the neighborhood. 2. Decentralization: The decision-making is not concentrated in top-down power structures. 3. Demystification: The mystery is taken out of planning. It becomes user-friendly, if you will. 4. Democratization: More people are involved directly in decision-making, especially those with a stake in the neighborhood’s future (i.e., stakeholders). Notably, Graham Towers builds on the four Ds laid out by Bernie Jones. He wrote a book, titled Building Democracy: Community Architecture in the Inner Cities, 1995, where he argues that the third D, demystification, is particularly crucial for ensuring democratic planning process. He explains that “it is challenging for anyone to understand building designs. Architects themselves only have an approximate idea of how their schemes will look like when they are built and are frequently surprised and even alarmed when they see their concepts emerge in the built form (Towers 1995, p. 71). Towers wonders about how much more difficult it must be, then, for those with no design training or with inadequate formal education of any sort to understand design alternatives. Das (2016) precisely echoes the same notions advocated by Bernie Jones and Graham Towers. He states, “How do we popularize architecture? Through our long years of education, we have developed an exclusive skill of communication, of expertise. We speak in languages, we draw in ways that if we put them up in public spaces, no one can understand… How do we evolve and devise new languages of communication with the public—in public spaces? That’s really the test of the times for professionals.” Therefore, effective communication is crucial to successful public participation. Indeed, public participation is meaningless if participants cannot understand what “the experts” present and propose. To bridge this vast gulf, architects and planners must begin to develop new communication skills: to convey their ideas, understand participants’ views, and discuss potential solutions. Ergo, for planners to make decisions democratically, structural mechanisms and tools must be developed through which community members can bring their wishes to the surface and reach consensus. One such communication tool is visualization. Scholars have argued that graphic communication, which can take many forms, is highly useful for drawing out public’s concerns and opinions (Healey 2007; Klosterman and Brail 2001; Munster et al. 2017; Ramasubramanian 2010). The critical factors to breaking down the mystique surrounding the design process are better communication methods and visualization tools so that users can easily understand the available possibilities, solutions, and options. The following section examines how planners and designers can use visualization tools (traditional and digitals) to demystify the planning and design process.

4.2 Traditional Tools and Methods

85

4.2 Traditional Tools and Methods Researchers of various disciplines (e.g., geography, architecture, urban planning, city design, and landscape architecture) have developed a plethora of tools and techniques to gather public views on the built environment. The ultimate goal of these tools is to enhance communication between the “experts” (representing individuals who received formal training and professional experiences) and the non-experts (representing laypeople and novices). Henry Sanoff, widely respected scholar, educator, practicing architect, and founder of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA), wrote two important books that summarize visual communication methods for engaging the public in the design discourse. These are Visual Research Methods in Design (1991) and Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning (1999). Sanoff examined and discussed the conceptual frameworks and implementation of a wide range of rigorous research methods that architects and planners designed to achieve effective visual communication. Among these methods are the “activity location method,” and the “knowledge of emerging environmental preservation strategies” (KEEPS). The former method measures community perception of a physical space by asking participants to geo-reference cards containing descriptions of urban activities on a paper map. In contrast, the KEEPS method engages participants with a series of sketches that illustrate proposed changes in a public space over time. With this method, researchers can learn the perceptual characteristics that community members desire to retain or remove. Sanoff includes other plans, tools, checklists, worksheets, questionnaires, and case studies, and illustrates their implementation in community design projects around the globe. Stanley King and his co-authors Merinda Conley, Bill Latimer, and Drew Ferrari, wrote a popular book, titled Co-Design: A Process of Design Participation (1989). Equipped with extensive practices in the areas of architecture, interior design, urban design, and landscape architecture, and being founders of Co-Design Groups, the authors discuss simple yet effective participatory visual communication methods. They describe, in particular, the usefulness of on-the-spot, freehand sketching to engage community members in the design process. According to the authors, freehand sketching features several advantages, including translating public ideas into a simple language that can be understood by all participants. In a community workshop setting, King let participants sketch their ideas and proposals. An interactive visual dialogue occurred when King enhanced the participant’s initial drafts. Interestingly, he managed to engage youth and children and enabled them to efficiently contribute to design and planning dialogues by using sketching, drawing, and doodling. Indeed, people across the board have a natural tendency to draft their ideas by using simple means (e.g., pen and paper), and these methods remain indispensable. By plainly illustrating the complex nature of workshops and design charrettes, and by covering organizational skills and explaining how to engage a variety of mindsets, their book continues to be useful to planners and designers who undertake community workshops.

86

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Similarly, Anton Nelessen wrote an outstanding manuscript on visual communication, titled Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Communities (1994). Believing in the value of public participation in the design process, Nelessen illustrated visual techniques that planners and designers can use to engage community members in shaping a shared vision. In particular, he discusses two visualization methods: “visual preference survey” (VPS) and “hands-on model building.” Each method facilitates participatory planning and design in workshops and seminars. Interestingly, he illustrates the process of moving from design concepts, to design principles, to city ordinances. In addition to discussing visual communication methods, Nelessen shows the use of design principles and processes in creating various types of small traditional communities, including neighborhoods, villages, and hamlets. Likewise, Wendy McClure wrote Visualization Techniques for Citizen Participation (1997) in which she discusses several visual communication methods for community participation, including citizen murals, coloring the map, and photo portfolios. Similar to Nelessen, McClure and her team applied these optical techniques in a small town and neighborhood planning. Today, many planners and designers prefer using digital technologies over traditional tools and methods. Though, some scholars and practitioners strongly believe in the continuing virtue and value of traditional tools and methods, and that they should not be considered archaic or irrelevant. In addition to possible use of these methods in today’s practice, they may inspire digital applications. For example, some of the GIS and Internet applications provided in this chapter build on methods provided earlier by Lynch (1960) and Nasar (1998).

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods 4.3.1 Geographic Information Systems Planners and geographers have written extensively about the use of geographic information systems (GIS) as a visualization technique to improve public participation (e.g., Al-Kodmany 2012; Batty 2018; Klosterman and Brail 2001; Obermeyer and Pinto 2008; Ramasubramanian 2010). Scholars have focused on how to make use of powerful and expensive GIS technology in a democracy. Accordingly, planners and geographers have created a significant movement, called public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS), which advocates using GIS technology to facilitate democratic decisions. The movement argues for using GIS in community participation because GIS is capable of translating complex spatial information into a simple visual language that people can understand (Nedovic-Budic 1999; Lin 2020). Overall, the movement aims to bridge communication and knowledge gaps between GIS experts and non-experts by engaging participants early on in the planning and

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

87

design process (Brown and Kyttä 2014; Goodchild 2007; Pickles 1994). To facilitate democratic decision-making process, the GIS literature highlights numerous models. Among the most useful ones are the “technical-assistance GIS” model and the “community-integrated GIS” model. These essential participatory models are explained as follows.

4.3.1.1

Technical Assistance GIS Model

The “technical assistance GIS model,” a prevailing model, engages a third party, such as a university or a consulting firm to supply the required GIS software, data, and analysis to the involved community. Simply, the community is free to pose questions, discuss issues, and voice concerns, while the third party’s role is to use GIS to help in answering their questions and concerns. The great power of GIS is that it helps to conduct spatial analysis and produce strong visualizes, i.e., it generates maps that contextualize discussions. The positive side of this model is that community members do not have to learn anything about GIS. Further, the workshop facilitators do not have to purchase the software and hardware or acquire the data, nor do they have to worry about technical problems. However, the drawback to this model is that community members and participants do not have the opportunity to work with the GIS to discover solutions by themselves. They are dependent on outside experts. Although this model does not establish the ultimate example for public participation, it does still offer a credible way to increase public participation in decision-making (Batty 2018; Obermeyer and Pinto 2008).

4.3.1.2

Community-Integrated GIS Model

The second model, called “community-integrated GIS,” proposes that the community engages a third party (a university or other entity) from the onset of the project. Community members and leaders, and a third party co-acquire the required hardware, software, and data, and co-build the GIS database. In this model, the community members must learn how to use GIS, maintain the GIS database, teach others to use the GIS, and perform the analysis by themselves. The benefit of this model is that the community is empowered to understand and use GIS analysis by themselves. They check the data, run queries, make the maps they need, and discuss alternatives. The community is independent. As such, the “community-integrated GIS” model is viewed to support bottom-up decision-making process and to be conducive to democratic decision-making. Harris and Weiner discuss their experience in South Africa, where they used local knowledge provided by indigenous people to construct a GIS database. They taught community members how to conduct spatial analysis, and then the team left the community and came back to the United States. Afterward, the community was on its own to continue using the GIS (Buccoliero and Bellio 2010; Harris and Weiner 1998).

88

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

While the “community-integrated GIS” model features serious advantages, it has drawbacks. First, the community must be able to cooperate with the third party to build the GIS databases, and they must have an earnest commitment and assiduity to continue on using GIS. The community members face the challenge of maintaining the GIS database without outside help, and they must be capable of understanding and dealing with spatial data. While GIS programs are becoming increasingly userfriendly, they still require a significant amount of training. Also, it is problematic when the trained community members on using GIS leave the community, which happens for multiple reasons, including being recruited for well-paid jobs since GIS skills are on demand. When this happens, as it inevitably does, the experts leave behind a significant gap in the knowledge base. In some cases, the whole project may fall apart. The former model, “technical assistance model,” remains the prevailing model because most communities are not ready to commit to learn, use, and maintain the GIS database.

4.3.2 The Internet The Internet has become a crucial part of the twenty-first-century world. As it is intimately integrated into our daily life, the Internet has revolutionized human communication to the extent that we rely on it in everything we do (Engard 2016; Rathore et al. 2016). “Today, we can send data from one end of the world to the other in a matter of seconds, make online presentations, live in parallel ‘game worlds,’ and use pictures, video, sound, and text to share our real lives, our genuine identity. Personal stories go public; local issues become global” (Dentzel 2019). However, it is essential to note that it took several decades to develop the Internet from a simple computer network with limited capabilities to a robust, unifying global network, connecting people instantaneously (Table 4.1). Fortunately, through interactive websites, email, surveys, online conferencing, and the like, the Internet has demonstrated excellent features that planners can use (with relatively reasonable costs) as an effective mode of communication for public participation (Babar and Arif 2017; Lin 2020; Rowe and Frewer 2000). Since its early proliferation in the late 1990s, planners have started utilizing it for public participation. Al-Kodmany (2001, 2007, 2012, 2019) distinguishes among three different modes of Web communications, including one-way communication, two-way communication, and three-way communication.

4.3.2.1

One-Way Communication Model

One-way communication describes a paradigm by which planners can send information to community members without any possibility for an interactive response. Most of the Web-based sites started by providing one-way information delivery. In addition to conveying useful imageries and textual information, the Web enables

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

89

Table 4.1 Early development of the Internet (Source Compiled by author) Years

Technology

Description

Developer

1960s

ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network)

The predecessor of the Internet; the first wide area packet-switching network with distributed control

The U.S. Defense Department

WAN (Wide Area Network)

A large network of information that serves multiple geographic locations

The U.S. Defense Department

TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol)

A protocol for linking Robert Kahn and Vinton multiple computer networks Cerf together

Ethernet

A system that uses cables to Robert Metcalfe transfer large volumes of data over a network

USENET

A UNIX-based system for Tom Truscott and Steve transferring data over phone Bellovin lines via a dial-up connection

Telenet

A commercial version of Roberts and Barry Wessler ARPANET, the first Internet Service Provider (ISP)

PhoneNet System

A computer that connects to Dave Farber ARPANET via a phone system

LANs (Local Area Networks)

A computer network that interconnects computers within a relatively small geographic area such as university campus

Metcalfe’s company 3Com

DNS (Domain Name System)

Is the phonebook of the Internet, which links Web browsers with websites

Paul Mockapetris, Jon Postel, and Craig Partridge

HTML (Hypertext Markup Language)

Is the standard markup language, which is used to create Web pages

Tim Berners-Lee

URL (Uniform Resource Locator)

The global address of resources on WWW

Tim Berners-Lee

1970s

1980s

1990s

WWW (World Wide Web) An information system where Web resources are identified by URL

Tim Berners-Lee Robert Cailliau

Netscape

Web browser

Netscape Communications

Yahoo

Web portal, search engine, email, etc.

Jerry Yang and David Filo (continued)

90

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Table 4.1 (continued) Years

Technology

Description

Developer

Windows 95

A consumer-oriented operating system

Microsoft

IE (Internet Explorer)

Web browser

Microsoft

Java

A multi-purpose, object-oriented programming language that allows creating animation on websites and a flurry of Internet activity

Sun Microsystems

Google

Web portal, search engine, email, etc.

Google

communicating spatial information effectively. However, although providing proper spatial data is an essential aspect of participatory planning, the one-way communication lacks engaging the public in the planning process. To become a robust tool for use in participatory planning, Web-based interfaces had to go one step further: they had to become a medium for two-way spatially based information exchange (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2).

4.3.2.2

Two-Way Communication Model

In addition to informing users about an issue, with two-way communication, users can voice their views and cast their votes. Getting user feedback on the Web is becoming increasingly popular. Soliciting text input or polling choices are widely used to get participants’ opinions. Researchers have been using the Web to conduct surveys. Accordingly, citizens become not only information receivers but also information creators. This interactive feature is a substantial leap forward in using the Web as a communication tool. Many of the survey applications utilize simple feedback forms where participants type in comments or responses and click the “submit” button. Increasingly, researchers use Web-based surveys that utilize graphics, maps, and other kinds of visualization to inquire about locational preferences. Twoway communication methods are increasingly popular and they feature numerous applications. Examples are provided in Figs. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7.

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

91

N E

W This web site was developed as part of a community planning process that was jointly led by the University of Illinois at Chicago and community leaders of the Pilsen community. Its purpose is to provide visualization and contextualization for the many planning and design activities that take place in Pilsen. On this site, you may view a map of the community and click on various icons to view photographic images and videos of specific map locations. Community locations are organized as paths, nodes and edges.

S

Zoom-in area

Legend Node: Intersection with railroad

Path: Linear side views

Node: Intersection with Chicago River

Path: Wide angle views

Node: Panoramic views (movie file)

Path: Directional views

Node: Four directional views

Path: Serial views

Web-based navigation tool allows users to zoom in and out and pan in four directions.

18th Street area

Fig. 4.1 One-way spatial communication system. Visualizing Lynch’s model on the Web by using an interactive system. Upon clicking on one of Lynch’s imageability elements (landmark, node, edge, district, path), the Web system displays associated photographs and information on the screen (Map by author)

92

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Web-based navigation tool allows users to zoom in and out and pan in four directions. Upon moving the mouse cursor over the red landmarks, a thumbnail picture comes up on the screen. Clicking on the thumbnail brings up an enlarged view in a separate window (see below).

Clicking on a thumbnail brings up an enlarged image in a separate window.

Fig. 4.2 One-way spatial communication system. An interactive map constructed using GIS and published on the Web with Macromedia Flash Software to provide navigational capabilities (Map by author)

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

93

Fig. 4.3 Two-way spatial communication system. Evaluating images of the Pilsen community on the Web. Clicking on a camera icon in the aerial photograph brings an image with a list of variables. Participants check the ones that they agree on and submit the form to the UIC server by clicking on (S>) (Map by author)

94

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Text Box

Menu

Upon selecting a cell an expandable text box appears with a question mark asking user to type in comments

Cell turns into transparent red or green color indicating liked or disliked areas

Registering texts of selected cells

Superimposed JAVA Applet grid on a high resolution (6 inches per pixel) aerial photograph

Fig. 4.4 Two-way spatial communication system. Map-survey interface uses aerial photographs and Java Grid to allow residents to voice the issues they like and dislike (Map by author)

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

95

Transferring centroid

Transferring text

Submit Button Associating text with their respective centroids

Data Servile Thematic layers

Web Server

Oracle Database (sorting points of the same Web codes and translating them into latitude and longitude)

ArcGIS Software Application

Fig. 4.5 Organizational structure of employed technologies to facilitate two-way communication (Map by author)

96

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Web Server

Individual entries

Likability/Dislikability Composite Cell’s # code cell’s area = 2.5 acres ArcGIS Software Application Cell, unit of analysis

Incorporating composites with GIS layers and conducting spatial operations Fig. 4.6 Harnessing users’ input in a two-way communication system. The database collates input and generates likeability/dis-likeability composites, which are integrated into GIS seamlessly (Diagram by author)

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

97

Fig. 4.7 Two-way spatial communication system. The images illustrate the use of an ESRI ArcIMS Property Information System for North Lawndale Community (top). It also enables participants to type in comments on the map and submit them to a UIC server (bottom) (Map by author)

98

4.3.2.3

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Three-Way Communication Model

Three-way communication enables users to not only view and input data but also to view the accumulative results of all participants. The user can tap into the database and view all entries. The user may call for a return map in real time, showing the collective responses of all participants. Interactive mapping applications have enabled researchers to build real-time feedback systems. For example, an interactive Webbased interface allows participants to interact with a structured base map of a community and choose areas they like and dislike. Further, the interface allows participants to type in comments about the selected places. Once their selections are submitted, they immediately receive a return map showing the cumulative evaluative image or the collective likeable/dislikeable features, displayed on a composite map. Through previous projects by the author, this worked in the following way. The update servlet on the database is contacted, and the servlet translates the visual information into numeric, string data that is stored in the database. Once the database is updated, the data servlet is called, which queries the database for all the relevant information and then translates the data into visual information and sends it back to participants. The visual information includes the cumulative “like” and “dislike” opinions of the area, represented by increasing intensity of color along with the user comments for each block in the grid. The data obtained from different surveys can be correlated as it is stored in the database by geographic coordinates of longitudes and latitudes (Fig. 4.8). Overall, advances in Web technology empower each way of communication, thereby improving the public participation process. Cutting-edge developments in Web-based programming languages are making highly interactive GIS applications available to anyone with an Internet connection and browser. The Neighborhood Knowledge Chicago Project by the University of Illinois at Chicago offers a sound example of how the Internet can be used as a communication tool for empowering underserved communities (Al-Kodmany 2012). The collaborative project knitted together multiple municipal databases and inspection records. Planners looked for indicators of urban decay and plotted the information on city maps, which researchers posted on a dedicated website. The project utilized off-the-shelf software including Microsoft and ESRI products. The aim was to provide public access to government records and electronic mapping through home computers and at touchscreen information kiosks.

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

99

Fig. 4.8 Three-way spatial communication system. The top image represents the use of Java Grid and the bottom image represents the use of an online freehand tool. Both systems allow participants to input their opinions on the Web. Color gradation indicates the intensity of concerns in a particular geographic area (Map by author)

100

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

4.3.3 Social Media Social media builds directly on the Internet technology. Researchers view this connection in the technology logic, process, and development. For example, Matthew Jones (2015) explains, “The history of social media cannot begin before the invention and widespread adoption of the Internet.” In other words, the Internet fostered the rise of social media. In particular, Web 2.0 (i.e., blogs, Wiki, video, and photo-sharing sites) that emerged in the 1990s was a precursor to social media (García-Palomares et al. 2015). For example, blogging has promoted the notion that anyone could join the Internet and express and share his/her views, feelings, critiques, and suggestions, with people around the globe. Presently, social media exerts a profound effect on our societies, changing the ways people live, work, shop, and entertain. It has provided new platforms for people to engage, communicate, and express their views freely. In addition to personal life, individuals have been using it to participate in public matters. Advances in digital technologies are making social media more influential, thereby allowing users to regularly access and engage with their social networks, empowered by an array of user-friendly tools (Rathore et al. 2016). Although there is a concern about whether social media users make up an accurate representation of the society at large, due to issues of affordability and age (youngsters seem to dominate), these concerns are dissipating as technology proliferates all strata of societies rapidly (Mislove et al. 2011). Indeed, in the past few years, masses of people have been joining social media. For example, Facebook boasts that its monthly active users (MAU) have reached over 2.5 billion (almost a third of the world’s population) for December 2019, achieving an 8 percent increase from last year. Twitter reports that their MAU for 2019 Q1 reached 330 million, while YouTube reports that their MAU for 2019 reached 2 billion, representing a 5% increase from last year. Amazingly, the number of video hours uploaded on YouTube is estimated at 500 h/min (Lua 2019). These staggering statistics and the increasing number of applications demonstrate the significance of social media (Fig. 4.9). Today, there are dozens of social media platforms. They overlap but may vary on issues of functionalities, capabilities, focus, and security (Burgess 2014; Garrod 2007; Hu et al. 2014; McFadden 2018) (Table 4.2). Importantly, social media, in conjunction with mobile devices, increasingly allow people to engage in social, cultural, and political events, regardless of place and time (Höffken and Streich 2013). The social and political science literature often cites the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, and Vemprarua movements as examples of using social media and mobile devices to organize, mobilize, and disseminate information about “hot” events in real time (Allagui and Kuebler 2011; Panisson 2011; Costanza-Chock 2012; Jurgenson 2012). These new tools are particularly useful since mass media channels (TV and radio) often have inadequate coverage of unfolding events. Further, since governments, particularly in developing countries, control TV and radio, they often report biased views. In contrast, social media can offer more independent and transparent coverage of news and events (Foth et al. 2011).

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

101

Fig. 4.9 The rapid increase of social media users. Estimates correspond to monthly active users (MAUs). Source Our World in Data (2019)

102

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Table 4.2 The 20 most popular social media sites in 2019; measured by MAU (monthly active users) (Source Compiled by author) Rank

Name

1

Graphical Icon

MAU

Year started

Main features and Geography functionalities dominance

Facebook

2.23 billion

2006

Users post Worldwide messages, comments, photos and videos (live), and stories

2

YouTube

1.9 billion

2005

Users can watch, share, comment, and upload their own videos

Worldwide

3

WhatsApp

1.5 billion

2009

Users send messages, share stickers, photographs, and videos

Worldwide

4

Messenger

1.3 billion

2011

Users send messages, share photographs and videos

Worldwide

5

WeChat

1.06 billion

2011

All-in-one China platform, allowing users to message, call, shop online, make payment offline, transfer money, make reservations, call taxis, etc.

6

Instagram

1 billion

2010

Users share North photos and videos America, (live), and stories South America, Europe, India, Australia

7

QQ

861 million

2009

Messaging platform which “also enables users to decorate their avatars, watch movies, play online games, shop online, blog, and make payment” (Lua 2019)

China

(continued)

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

103

Table 4.2 (continued) Rank

Name

8

Graphical Icon

MAU

Year started

Main features and Geography functionalities dominance

Tumblr

642 million

2007

“Is a microblogging and social networking site for sharing text, photos, links, videos, audios, and more” (Lua 2019)

9

Qzone

632 million

1995

Users “upload China multimedia, write blogs, play games, and decorate their own virtual spaces” (Lua 2019)

10

TikTok

500 million

2016

Is a music video social network with emphasis on short clips (60 s)

China

11

Sina Weibo

392 million

2009

Is a Twitter version for Chinese users

China

12

Twitter

335 million

2006

Focuses on news and real-time information. Useful for “understanding, monitoring, and even predicting real-world phenomena” (Mislove et al. 2011, p. 67)

Worldwide

13

Reddit

330 million

2005

Users can post questions and images, and discuss issues

Canada

USA

(continued)

104

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Table 4.2 (continued) Rank

Name

14

Graphical Icon

MAU

Year started

Main features and Geography functionalities dominance

Baidu Tieba

300 million

2003

Users create a discussion forum

15

LinkedIn

294 million

2003

Users build their Worldwide personal brand and profile, share CVs, and engage in professional networks

16

Viber

260 million

2010

Users message, call, share stickers, GIFs, and multimedia

Middle East

17

Snapchat

255 million

2011

Users share photos and short videos with friends

USA

18

Pinterest

250 million

2010

Users share and bookmark photographs

USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Mexico

19

Line

203 million

2011

Users message, Japan share stickers, play games, shop, pay, request taxis, etc.

20

Telegram

200 million

2013

Send messages to Iran an unlimited number of subscribers

China

Therefore, one of the major cited benefits of social media is the ability to “instantaneously and organically sense sentiments, opinions, and moods to an extent not previously possible, and ways in which these diffuse over space and time, thereby enabling the policy community to monitor public opinion, and predict social trends” (Thakuriah et al. 2015, p. 19). Governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and community-based organizations increasingly realize the power of social media to better identify public needs and people’s views on exiting conditions, emerging situations, and new policies (Rast 1999; Golbeck and Hansen 2013). Certainly, the sheer volume of data that social media generates is dazzling (Ciuccarelli et al. 2014). For example, Twitter claims that its users send over 500 million tweets daily, and Instagram claims that its users share about 60 million photos per

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

105

day (Tasse and Hong 2017, p. 50). In contrast to data collected via customized apps, which limit the number of people who can navigate and use them, social media engages wider audiences, offering an opportunity to harness massive user-generated data. As such, social media constitutes an important milestone in the development of digital communication technology and bears great potential for public participation applications (Rowe and Frewer 2000; Johnson and Sieber 2013).

4.3.3.1

One-Way Communication Model

Some cities have been using social media as a predominantly one-way communication tool with their citizens (Sheltona et al. 2015). For example, the City of Tacoma uses Twitter to broadcast about public meetings, hearings, events, announcements, problems, threats (flooding), emerging issues, hazards (landslide), reminders, new programs, grants availability, city activities, road construction, maintenance, repair, closing, and the like (Fig. 4.10). Overall, “It’s clear that the limitations on Twitter (and there are many) push users into broadcasting, rather than conversing. There are exceptions, of course, but the overwhelming majority of tweets are one-offs that receive NO response” (Bacal 2019).

4.3.3.2

Two-Way Communication Model

Other cities have been using social media as a two-way communication tool with their citizens. For example, the City of South Pasadena, CA, uses Facebook to engage denizens into public discourses about proposed plans, such as a proposed bicycle master plan. Interestingly, the City of Roanoke features a more robust integration of social media by allowing citizens to stay connected with all its departments (e.g., communications, police, fire, health, and parks and recreation) in one place (Fig. 4.11). Citizens use the city’s Facebook and Twitter pages to view upto-date information, review discussion streams, query, complain, add comments and critiques, and request services, functioning like a 311 Service. An example of a general use of two-way communication is proposed by Philip Bane 2019, who suggested creating a Facebook portal to exchange planning knowledge and experiences on smart cities across the globe.

4.3.3.3

Three-Way Communication Model

As is the case with the Internet, social media can be used to facilitate threeway communication. That is, after collecting information from citizens, planners, analysts, and public officials would gather the information, analyze it, summarize it, and share with the public. They may use a variety of analytical and visualization tools,

106

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

Fig. 4.10 City of Tacoma, WA, Twitter Page. Tacoma uses Twitter to broadcast about public meetings, hearings, events, announcements, problems, threats (flooding), emerging issues, hazards (landslide), reminders, new programs, grants availability, city activities, road construction, maintenance, repair, closing, and the like. https://twitter.com/cityoftacoma?lang=en

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

107

Fig. 4.11 The City of Roanoke uses social media to connect its citizens with all departments in one place. https://www.roanokeva.gov/1854/Social-Media

108

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

such as geographic information systems, to map location-based information. Additional power could be added by hyperlinking maps to imageries, textual, and contextual information (Table 4.3). Indeed, if participants’ data streams are collected, linked to other sociodemographic data, aggregated, and analyzed, findings will shed new light on understanding the complex urban dynamics of our cities and communities (Thakuriah et al. 2015, p. 19) Table 4.3 Examples of using social media for participatory planning (Source Complied by author)

Examples of apps

One-way communication (predominantly)

Two-way communication (predominantly)

Three-way communication

Twitter

Facebook

Facebook + GIS

General functionality Used mostly as an informational source with speed and news being paramount

A place for public discussion and community building with more depth (i.e., multimedia)

Visualize collective participants’ responses

Specific examples of Inform citizens about use city activities, for example, road construction and repair, public meetings, hearings, events, announcements, problems, threats, emerging issues, hazards, reminders, new programs, grants availability, and the like Post short videos of important messages by planners, public officials, lawyers, and community members Post photographs of meetings, new members of the community, achievements, work in progress, construction, and repair Let citizens report problems in the city such as potholes

Post a proposed master plan, community plan, comprehensive plan, bike plan, and ask citizens to comment Post questions about city development and ask citizens for feedback Conduct visual preference survey of existing and proposed features of a community and ask citizens to comment Citizens can also post questions and look for responses from city and fellow citizens Citizens may be able to post photos and videos and ask for comments and feedback Engage communities in VGI (voluntary geographic information) projects

Planners group, geo-reference comments, and visualize on maps With GIS, planners may create composite maps and overlay with other types of data such as demographics, socio-economic, transportation, environmental, ecological, and the like Planners post summary statistics of conducted surveys Iterative process, upon analyzing collected data, planners may show preferred scenarios

4.3 Digital Tools and Methods

4.3.3.4

109

Research Applications

Progressively, scholars have been attempting to harness social media to advance various types of research. In their paper, “Using User-Generated Content to Understand Cities,” Tasse and Hong (2017, p. 49) describe cases where they used geotagged social media data to assist city planners in supporting small businesses and guiding citizens to active civic life. They argued that as millions of people join social media platforms, their engagement offers planners new ways to better understand a city’s dynamics, structure, and character. Interestingly, while economists have been using social media data to measure job posting, gain, loss, and spatial distribution, realtors have been using social media to analyze housing market dynamics (Antenucci et al. 2014). In the field of urban design, researchers have been using social media to learn about people’s perceptions and interactions with the built environment. In particular, social media has given us an enormous source of geotagged data that can be used to obtain a better understanding of cities and their users. Significantly, digital mobile devices, most popularly smartphones, integrate a spectrum of tools, including location tracking, powerful cameras, and video recorders (Kleinhans et al. 2015). These tools are seamlessly connected to social media, enabling people to produce and consume information about a place. “Mobile media are, therefore, the lens for our interactions in the hybrid digital-physical space: mapping our location on a mobile app, interacting with other people via social media, participating in a large community through locative games, and interacting with temporal and spatial narratives,” according to Frizzera (2015, p. 12). In other words, new digital tools facilitate novel ways to experience, conceive, and share views about the urban environment (Lemos 2010). In particular, connecting with people through visuals (such as photographs) is most effective. With powerful, engaging tools, people make new friends, broaden their social network, and expand their audience to exchange views. Sharing real-time photographs is compelling because these photographs communicate emerging issues effectively. Indeed, “creative uses of the technology emerge, leading to a shift not only in our social relationships but also in our perception of space” (Silva 2010, p. 72). In particular, mobile devices and social media have enabled not only performing two-way communication but also recording and documenting issues about the built environment in ways that far exceeded the original purposes of these tools (Stefanidis et al. 2013; Sui et al. 2013). For example, through studying the photographs uploaded and recorded on various social media sites, we can learn about the most photographed places. Importantly, many digital pictures contain geolocational information, such as longitudes and latitudes or street addresses. Today, many cameras and smartphones are capable of acquiring positional information with the built-in GPS module or based on Wi-Fi routers or global system for mobile communications (GSM) (Li et al. 2017). When photographs from these digital devices are shared online, their locational data are also shared and can be read by other users. Alternatively, if photographs do not contain locational information, users can manually add geotags to pictures while uploading them to photo-sharing sites (Li et al. 2018; Kada and Gede 2013). Tasse and Hong (2017, p. 50) stress this notion by stating “We believe that this kind of

110

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

geotagged social media data, combined with new kinds of analytics tools, will let urban planners, policy analysts, social scientists, and computer scientists explore how people use a city in a manner that is cheap, highly scalable, and insightful.” Therefore, the Internet hosts “Big Data” composed of photographs, representing a wide range of issues of diverse geographies, built environments, and natural landscapes. Interestingly, people upload pictures to social media platforms continuously, making the “Big Data” even more prominent, thereby enticing researchers to harness such user-generated data. For example, in his outstanding research, Snavely et al. (2008) illustrated distinct spatial patterns by using the locations that the public took photographs. Also, they attempted building mathematical models and an algorithm to predict where people would take pictures in the future and then uploaded them on social media. Alike, Modsching et al. (2008) utilized geographic positioning systems (GPS) tracking data to trace tourist activities. By transferring data to geographic information systems (GIS), researchers were able to visualize spatial patterns and identify the most frequently visited places in the German city of Görlitz. Likewise, by using photographs uploaded to Flickr.com between 2005 and 2007, Girardin et al. (2008) conducted empirical research that measured the intensity of tourist activities in the province of Florence, Italy. In a similar vein, Shoval et al. (2011) used social media to understand daily tourist activities in Hong Kong. They utilized GIS to illustrate spatial patterns and used 3D bar visual diagrams for augmenting map representations. Further, Pettersson and Zillinger (2011) used GPS tracking to learn about the movement patterns of tourists. After loading maps on social media, they conducted surveys using questionnaires to understand the relationships of movement patterns to tourist attractions, particularly, sport events (García-Palomares et al. 2015). Likewise, Ganesh (2014) studied photograph sharing over multiple social media platforms, thereby identifying the most visited and popular places. Identifying the rippling effect across social media platforms, Ganesh described this process as a digital “social cascade.” Similarly, Capistrán (2016) examined the geography of smartphone photographs, while KiaKeating et al. (2017) harnessed the power of social media photographs of a community to guide the participatory design process. Finally, by examining photographs on Instagram, researchers were able to identify the most favored destinations and popular cities, with the following ranking order: New York City, Moscow, London, São Paulo, Paris, Los Angeles, St. Petersburg, Jakarta, Istanbul, and Barcelona (Libereman 2017).

4.4 Applied Methods This research engaged multiple methods. In the early stage, it used the Internet and GIS applications explained in previous sections (see 4.4). However, the study faced problems of securing a large sample of participants, i.e., fewer people participated than expected. It was difficult to motivate people to participate and make them share

4.4 Applied Methods

111

their photographs online to enlighten about the public image of Chicago. Consequently, the research sought social media sources for they already contain tens of thousands of photographs. The acquired social media data included photographs that were posted on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram platforms in the years 2016 and 2017. The total number of posted photos was 112,560. However, some of these photographs contained geospatial information indicating their locations (100,210), and others did not (12,350). The breakdown of the georeferenced photos was as follows: Instagram (57,306), Facebook (30,829), and Twitter (12,075). Later, researchers used GIS to create “heatmaps” that revealed ten “socio-spatial” clusters (hotspots), illustrating locations of places that people most photographed. Further, the researchers conducted follow-up field studies (or “field reconnaissance” as Lynch puts it) to validate social media findings. Initially, the study embraced Lynch’s method of asking participants to create sketch maps; however, participants objected due to graphical inability or lack of talent. In his research, Lynch discussed this problem and probed on the difficulty of interpreting participant’s sketches due to unclarity and vagueness. Also, Lynch explained challenges in creating composite maps of the generated hundreds of sketches. Instead of using sketches, this study asked participants to take photographs with their iPhones of what they considered to be significant paths, nodes, edges, districts, and landmarks. Photographs are powerful tools because they precisely convey existing conditions. Participants were asked to pay particular attention to tall buildings and adjacent open spaces and how they work together in harmonious or conflicting manners. They were also asked to focus on the spatial arrangement of tall buildings and how they improve or weaken the overall structure and imageability of the city. The study engaged 200 participants. For each group of 20 participants, researchers first toured them Chicago’s CBD and gave them an overview of its major streets and buildings. Later, researchers asked participants to visit Chicago Downtown on their own and take photographs of their favorite places and buildings that they would ultimately share with their friends on social media websites. For the sake of consistency, researchers asked each participant to take an equal number of photographs (100). The field visits involved only the “ground floor” of the city, i.e., no photos were taken from inside buildings or observation decks. However, the photographs that were taken on the boat while joining the Chicago Architecture Center’s tour were counted. Also, for the sake of consistency of inquiry, researchers conducted all field visits in the afternoons, extending roughly from 1 to 5 pm. Field visits were proceeded by intensive workshops that explained the history of the City of Chicago, economic growth and decline, architecture, urban design, and planning. These workshops also explained Lynch’s imageability theory and its five elements. To ease obtaining geographic locations (geographic positioning system, GPS) of the taken photographs, researchers asked participants to install free apps, such as Exif Metadata, Exif Viewer, and Koredoko. These apps readily gave the longitude and latitude data of every taken photograph. Among other metadata that these apps provide include location description and altitude. After collecting pictures (totaling 20,000) from participants’ mobile phones, researchers conducted face-to-face interviews to inquire about the reasons for choosing these photographs, the elements and

112

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

characteristics they liked and disliked, and how they relate to Lynch’s theory. Lasting for about 1.5 h each, researchers conducted interviews in the downtown, making it accessible to walk with interviewees to areas of discussions for clarification and probing. Researchers focused the conversations on asking questions that intended to reveal spatial patterns and connections between the horizontal plane, shaped by public spaces, and the vertical plane, established by tall buildings. The study did not involve any written surveys. Instead, the interviews were conducted in a “fluid,” open-ended manner that helped to extract interviewees’ views freely. Interviewees were encouraged to probe, ask questions, and suggest ideas (Fig. 4.12). The majority of the study participants were from Asia (69%). Others (17%) came from the Middle East, 8% were from Europe, and 6% were from South America. While it was challenging to figure out the gender ratio of social media data, a genderbalanced distribution of 48% male and 52% female enhanced the credibility of the field surveys. Also, unlike the case of social media data, it was possible to identify the ages of field survey participants, ranging from 25 to 58. Due to the extended cold weather of Chicago, field visits were conducted in the warmer months, May through October. Further, the diverse professional and educational backgrounds of the study participants—including geospatial data science, agriculture, engineering, urban design, landscape architecture, urban planning, interior design, economics, health-related, architecture, real estate, administration, and management—broadened and enriched the study’s responses and feedback. Most of the participants were visiting Chicago for the first time, and therefore their “first impressions” about the city’s image, elements, structure, and architecture were enormously useful. The participants initially took all the photos. However, due to copyright issues, the author re-took all photographs, ensuring the highest similarities to the originals. Later, researchers transcribed, examined, and analyzed the contents of 200 interviews along with the collected photographs. To relate interviewers’ views on social media data, the study focused on the ten identified socio-spatial clusters. Further, researchers carried out a keyword search, using terms such as towers, skyscrapers, tall buildings, supertalls, high-rises, as well as significant public spaces such as Grant Park, Millennium Park, Maggie Daley Park, Riverwalk, Navy Pier, Daley Plaza, Federal Plaza, Chase Plaza, and the like. The research findings were grouped based on the identified 10 clusters. Direct observations and literature reviews helped to fill knowledge gaps and shed light on the survey findings, which are discussed in Chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

4.4 Applied Methods

Fig. 4.12 Study participants, examples (Photograph by author)

113

114

Fig. 4.12 (continued)

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

4.4 Applied Methods

Fig. 4.12 (continued)

115

116

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

4.5 Summary This chapter described a variety of digital and traditional tools that can be used for multiple purposes: to communicate spatial information to the average participant, to allow participants to express their views, and to enable planners to conduct analysis that they would share with participants. The chapter also explained the virtue of combining multiple research methods in a single project. It is increasingly vital to direct research toward finding the most effective ways and tools for planners to interact with the public. Fortunately, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people exposed to and use screen-based geographic information tools, and simultaneously all methods of spatial communication (one-way, two-way, and three-way) are becoming more robust, fostering new opportunities for public participation. Further, most cities’ information and records are associated with corresponding geographies, and new tools, such as the Internet, social media, and mobile devices, help to harness location-based information.

References Al-Kodmany K (2001) Online tools for public participation. Gov Inf Q 18(2001):329–341 Al-Kodmany K (2007) Creative approaches for augmenting two-way spatial communication and GIS. GIS Dev 3(12):33–37 Al-Kodmany K (2012) Utilizing GIS in nonprofit organizations for urban planning applications: experiences from the field. J Geogr Inf Syst 4(4):19, Article ID:22147. https://doi.org/10.4236/ jgis.2012.44034 Al-Kodmany K (2019) Improving understanding of city spaces for tourism applications. Buildings 2019, 9:187. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9080187 Allagui I, Kuebler J (2011) The Arab Spring and the role of ICTs, editorial introduction. Int J Commun 5(8):1435–1442 Antenucci D, Cafarella M, Levenstein MC, Ré C, Shapiro MD (2014) Using social media to measure labor market flows. Report of the University of Michigan node of the NSF-Census Research Network (NCRN) supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES 1131500 Babar M, Arif F (2017) Smart urban planning using big data analytics to contend with the interoperability in internet of things. Future Gener Comput Syst 77:65–76 Bacal R (2019) Why is twitter a one-way broadcast medium? CSZ. http://customerservicezone. com/why-is-twitter-a-one-way-broadcast-medium/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Bane P (2019) A facebook for smart city planners, Eukalypton. https://eukalypton.com/en/2019/ 12/01/interview-its-facebook-for-smart-city-planners/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Batty M (2018) Inventing future cities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Brown G, Kyttä M (2014) Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): a synthesis based on empirical research. Appl Geogr 46:122–136 Buccoliero L, Bellio E (2010) Citizens web empowerment in European municipalities. J E-Gover 33(4):225–236 Capistrán JB (2016) Mobile photography and social networks: production, consumption, socialization and copyright practices among University students. J Mass Commun Q 6:512–522 Ciuccarelli P, Lupi G, Simeone L (2014) Visualizing the data city: social media as a source of knowledge for urban planning and management. Springer, NYC. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-02195-9. Accessed 15 Dec 2019

References

117

Costanza-Chock S (2012) Mic check! media cultures and the Occupy movement. Soc Mov Stud 11:375–385 Das, PK (2016) Placemaking news. Project for Public Spaces. https://www.pps.org/article/pk-dasawarded-first-international-jane-jacobs-medal Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Dentzel Z (2019) How the internet has changed everyday life, open mind. https://www.bbvaopenm ind.com/en/articles/internet-changed-everyday-life/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Engard B (2016) From ARPANET to world wide web: an internet history timeline. Thomas Jefferson University. https://online.jefferson.edu/communications/internet-history-timeline/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Foth M, Forlano L, Satchell C, Gibbs M (2011) From social butterfly to engaged citizens: urban informatics, social media, ubiquitous computing, and mobile technology to support citizen engagement. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Frizzera L (2015) Mobile media as new forms of spatialization. Interdiscip Sci Rev 40(1):29–43. https://doi.org/10.1179/0308018814z.000000000103 Ganesh L (2014) A study on impact of photography in social networks users in Tamilnadu. SSRG Int J Commun Media Sci (SSRG-IJCMS) 2014 1:1–5 García-Palomares JC, Gutiérrez J, Mínguez C (2015) Identification of tourist hot spots based on social networks: a comparative analysis of European metropolises using photo-sharing services and GIS. Appl Geogr 63:408–417 Garrod B (2007) A snapshot into the past: the utility of volunteer-employed photography in planning and managing heritage tourism. J Herit Tour 2(1):14–35 Girardin F, Fiore FD, Ratti C, Blat J (2008) Leveraging explicitly disclosed location information to understand tourist dynamics: a case study. J Locat Based Serv 2:41–56 Golbeck J, Hansen D (2013) A method for computing political preference among twitter followers. Soc Netw 36:177–184 Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69(4):211–221 Harris T and D Weiner (1998) Empowerment, marginalization and community integrated GIS, Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2):67–76 Healey P (2007) Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge, London, p 2007 Höffken S, Streich B (2013) Mobile participation: citizen engagement in urban planning via smartphones. In: Silva C (ed) Citizen E-participation in urban governance: crowdsourcing and collaborative creativity, pp 199–225 Hu Y, Manikonda L, and Kambhampati S (2014) What we instagram: a first analysis of instagram photo content and user types. In: Association for the advancement of artificial intelligence. Arizona, ICWSM Jean B (2014) From ‘Broadcast yourself’ to ‘Follow your interests’: making over social media. Int J Cult Stud 18(3):281–285 Johnson PA, Sieber RE (2013) Situating the adoption of VGI by government. In: Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge. Springer Netherlands, pp 65–81 Jones B (1990) Neighborhood planning: a guide for citizens and planners. Planners Press, Chicago Jones M (2015) The complete history of social media: A timeline of the Invention of Online Networking. Technology, June 16, https://historycooperative.org/the-history-of-socialmedia/#: ~:text=Social%20media%20must%20include%20online,the%20world%20of%20social%20m edia Jurgenson N (2012) When atoms meet bits: social media, the mobile web and augmented revolution. Future Internet 4:83–91 Kadar B, Gede M (2013) Where do tourists go? visualizing and analyzing the spatial distribution of geotagged photography. Cartogr Int J Geogr Inf Geovis 48:78–88 Kia-Keating M, Capous D, Liu S, Adams J (2017) Using community-based participatory research and human-centered design to address violence-relasted health disparities among latino/a youth. Fam Commun Health 40:160–169

118

4 Public Participation and Methods of Visual Communication

King S (1989) Co-design: a process of design participation. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NYC Kleinhans R, Ham MV, Evans-Cowley J (2015) Using social media and mobile technologies to foster engagement and self-organization in participatory urban planning and neighborhood governance. Plan Pract Res 30(3):237–247 Klosterman R, Brail R (2001) Planning support systems: integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools. ESRI Press, Redland, CA Lemos A (2010) Post-mass media functions, locative media, and informational territories: new ways of thinking about territory, place, and mobility in contemporary society. Space Cult 13:403–420 Li Y, Ye Y, Xiao L, Xu W, Law A, Wang D (2017) Classifying community space at a historic site through cognitive mapping and GPS tracking: the case of Gulangyu. China Urb Des Int 22:127–149 Li D, Zhou X, Wang M (2018) Analyzing and visualizing the spatial interactions between tourists and locals: a Flickr study in ten US cities. Cities 2018 74:249–258 Lieberman M (2017) The most popular cities on Instagram in 2017. Travel and Leisure. https:// www.travelandleisure.com/photography/instagram-cities-2017. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Lin W (2020) Participatory geographic information systems in visual research, Chapter 11. In: Pauwels L, Mannay D (eds) The SAGE handbook of visualization methods, 2nd edn. SAGE Publisher, London Lua, A. (2019). 21 top social media sites to consider for your brand, buffer. https://buffer.com/lib rary/social-media-sites. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA McClure W, Byrne A, Hurand F (1997) Visualization techniques for citizen participation, in Wendy McClure, the rural town: designing for growth and sustainability. The Island Press, NYC McFadden C (2018) A chronological history of social media. Interesting Eng. https://interestinge ngineering.com/a-chronological-history-of-social-media. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Mislove A, Lehmann S, Ahn Y, Onnela J, Rosenquist JN (2011) Understanding the demographics of twitter users. In: Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM’11), Barcelona, Spain Modsching M, Kramer R, Hagen KT, Gretzel U (2008) Using location-based tracking data to analyze the movements of city tourists. Inf Technol Tour 10:31–42 Munster S, Georgia C, Heijne K, Klamert K, Noeing J, Pump M, Stelzle B, Meer H (2017) How to Involve inhabitants in urban design planning by using digital tools? an overview on a state of the art, key challenges and promising approaches. Procedia Comput Sci 112:2391–2405 Nasar J (1998) The evaluative image of the city. Sage Publications, London Nedovic-Budic Z (1999) Evaluating the effects of GIS technology: review of methods. J Plan Lit 13:284–295 Nelessen A (1994) Visions for a new American dream. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL Obermeyer N, Pinto (2008) Managing geographic information systems. The Guilford Press, NYC Panisson A (2011) The Egyptian revolution on Twitter. Gephi. https://twitter.com/egyptianuprise. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Pettersson R, Zillinger M (2011) Time and space in event behaviour: tracking visitors by GPS. Tour Geogr 13:1–20 Pickles J (ed) (1994) Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems. The Guilford Press, NYC Ramasubramanian L (2010) Geographic information science and public participation. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany Rast JS (1999) Remaking Chicago: the political origins of urban industrial change. Northern Illinois University Press, Chicago Rathore MM, Anand P, Awais A, Suengmin R (2016) Urban planning and building smart cities based on the internet of things using big data analytics. Comput Netw 101(4):63–80. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.12.023

References

119

Rowe G, Frewer L (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Human Values 25(1):3–29 Sanoff H (1991) Visual research methods in design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NYC Sanoff H (1999) Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. Wiley and Sons, NYC Sheltona T, Poorthuisb A, Zookb M (2015) Social media and the city: rethinking urban socio-spatial inequality using user-generated geographic information. Landsc Urban Plan 142:198–211 Shoval N, McKercher B, Ng E, Birenboim A (2011) Hotel location and tourist activity in cities. Ann Tour Res 38:1594–1612 Silva AS (2010) Art by telephone: from static to mobile interfaces. In: The mobile audience: media art and mobile technologies, architecture, technology, culture, pp 67–79 Snavely N, Seitz S, Szeliski R (2008) Modeling the world from internet photo collections. Int J Comput Vis, 80:189–210 Stefanidis A, Crooks A, Radzikowski J (2013) Harvesting ambient geospatial information from social media feeds. GeoJournal 78(2):319–338 Sui D, Goodchild M, Elwood S (2013) Volunteered geographic information, the exaflood, and the growing digital divide. Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1–12 Tasse D, Hong JI (2017) Using user-generated content to understand cities. In: Thakuriah P, Nebiyou T, Zellner M (eds) In seeing cities through big data. Springer, Switzerland Thakuriah P, Nebiyou T, Zellner M (2015) Seeing cities through big data. introduction chapter “Big Data and Urban Informatics: Innovative and Challenges to Urban Planning and Knowledge Discovery”. Springer, Switzerland Towers G (1995) Building democracy: community architecture in the inner cities. University College London, London, p 16 Williamson W, Parolin B (2012) Review of web-based communications for town planning in local government. J Urban Technol 19(1):43–63

Chapter 5

Preliminary Findings

Abstract This chapter presents the preliminary findings of this research. It explains the use of social media data and the role of geographic information systems in visualizing it. The produced heatmaps help in identifying ten major socio-spatial clusters in the Chicago CBD. Importantly, field surveys validated these clusters. For illustration purposes, a sample of respective photographs of these clusters is provided. Further, the identified socio-spatial clusters are regrouped based on Kevin Lynch’s imageability elements: paths (the Chicago River and the Magnificent Mile) and a district (the Chicago Loop), which contains significant socio-cultural nodes in the form of popular plazas. Finally, the study examines “a compound edge” (the Chicago Skyline). These elements are detailed in Chaps. 6, 7, 8, and 9.

5.1 Introduction One of the direct ways to give an overview of the study’s preliminary results is by using maps (Figs. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4). Figure 5.1 gives a general orientation of the study area and Chicago Downtown. Figure 5.2 applies kernel density to the spatial distribution of the uploaded photographs on social media sites and illustrates the identified ten socio-spatial clusters. Figure 5.3 shows the spatial distribution breakdown of the social media data involved, including that of Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Figure 5.4 illustrates the spatial distribution of photographs taken by the study participants, along with a kernel density overlay. To ensure presentation consistency, all figures retain the same geographic scale and spatial orientation: integrating the scale bar in maps helps in this regard. Each dot in every figure represents the locations of ten photographs, also for the sake of consistency. Dots that fall in Lake Michigan represent photographs that were taken by people riding private and public boats. The arc-shaped dot cluster placed over Lake Michigan represents a public boat path that

Parts of this chapter appeared in Al-Kodmany, K. “Improving Understanding of City Spaces for Tourism Applications,” Buildings 2019, 9(8), 187; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9080187. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_5

121

122

5 Preliminary Findings

Mag Mile

N

Navy Pier

Main Branch Chicago Loop

S Michigan Ave.

The Lake Michigan Grant Park Museum Campus

W Roosevelt Rd

1M

Fig. 5.1 Chicago Downtown. The provided map offers a general orientation to the City of Chicago’s Central Business District (CBD). The red dashed line delineates the border of the Loop Community (Source aerial photograph courtesy of Google Earth)

123

Mag Mile

5.1 Introduction

Navy Pier

Main Branch

The Chicago Loop

S Michigan Ave

South Branch

Lake Michigan

Fig. 5.2 The provided heatmap shows the spatial distribution of uploaded photographs, highlighting “hotspots.” These include 1 Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park, 2 Navy Pier, 3 the Magnificent Mile Gateway, 4 the Inner Loop, 5 the Water Tower Area, 6 the River Confluence, 7 the Museum Campus, 8 “Urban Giants,” 9 Grant Park, and 10 River City complex. Color variation indicates the intensity/frequency of photographs taken and uploaded to social media sites: the heavier color indicates a greater number of registered photographs, and the lighter color indicates a lesser number (Map by author)

124

5 Preliminary Findings

Fig. 5.3 Map shows the spatial distribution of social media photographs: red dots = Instagram, green dots = Facebook, and blue dots = Twitter. Note that that the dominant color is red, followed by green and blue, proportionally representing the number of photographs uploaded on different social media platforms (Map by author)

5.1 Introduction

125

Fig. 5.4 The provided heatmap shows the spatial distribution of photographs taken by study participants, indicating hotspots in the city. Dots placed over the Chicago River and Lake Michigan represent locations of photographs taken by participants while they were on a boat tour. Color variation indicates the intensity/frequency of the taken photographs: the heavier color indicates a greater number of registered photographs and the lighter color indicates a lesser number (Map by author)

126

5 Preliminary Findings

transports people from the Museum Campus in the south to Navy Pier in the north and vice versa. These dots were exclusive to social media data. Survey participant data did not show photographs taken on this route. As shown in Fig. 5.3, the spatial distribution of social media photographs revealed ten major clusters as follows: (1) Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park, (2) Navy Pier, (3) the Magnificent Mile Gateway, (4) the Inner Loop, (5) the Water Tower Area, (6) the River Confluence, (7) the Museum Campus, (8) “Urban Giants,” (9) Grant Park, and (10) River City complex. Importantly, participatory survey results, illustrated in Fig. 5.4, echoed these clusters. In the heart of the Loop community, several public plazas (e.g., Daley Plaza, Chase Plaza, Federal Plaza, and 311 South Wacker Plaza) along Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park animate the Loop. Besides, the Chicago Riverwalk area activates the northern edge of the Loop, while the intersection of the river with Michigan Avenue features an agglomeration of activities and buildings that create a remarkable gateway to the Magnificent Mile. At the eastern end, Navy Pier offers an entertaining space, and westward River City complex provides an intriguing visual terminus to the river tour. Further, toward the southern end, the Museum Campus grants visitors unique experiences due to outstanding exhibits. Externally, the campus location offers spectacular vistas to the city’s iconic skyline. Similarly, the nearby Lakeshore Drive walkway and bikeway also offer splendid views of Lake Michigan and the city skyline.

5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters The presentation of the findings groups participants’ verbal responses concerning the identified ten socio-spatial clusters by social media data. The discussion of each cluster starts with providing background information on the examined space, basic descriptions of the significant features and characteristics, and an illustration of planning and design principles. The subsequent paragraphs report on participants’ views of the city’s public spaces and architecture.

5.2.1 Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park Due to their spatial proximity and design affinity, participants viewed these two parks and the British Petroleum (BP) Pedestrian Bridge that connects them as a “unified” cluster. The Millennium Park is a 24.5-acre (10-hectare) public space located in the Loop Community. The spatial layout of the park follows an “imageable urban room” structure, a concept that Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennett initially promoted for their design of Grant Park in 1909. As such, the park contains 12 principal “urban rooms,” including the AT&T Plaza and Cloud Gate Sculpture, the Crown Fountain, the Jay Pritzker Pavilion, the BP Pedestrian Bridge, Lurie Gardens, the Boeing Galleries, the Chase Promenade, the Exelon Pavilions, the Harris Theater

5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters

127

for Music and Dance, the McCormick Tribune Plaza and Ice Rink, the McDonald’s Cycle Center, and the Wrigley Square and Millennium Monument. The study’s participants liked the park’s great variety of entertaining elements, including attractive open spaces, spectacular public art pieces, iconic pavilions, splendid gardens, and seasonal art displays. They also liked the small “urban room” concept, and how the park’s relatively intimate places profoundly engage all the senses and consequently compensate for the highly developed downtown area. Besides, these distinct spaces convey a strong design identity to the park.

5.2.1.1

Cloud Gate

According to the collected data, the most photographed object in Downtown Chicago is the Cloud Gate sculpture, which Chicagoans have nicknamed “the Bean.” Both social media data and participatory surveys underscored this sculpture. While social media illustrated a large number of dots around the Cloud Gate sculpture, participants’ photographs showed the Bean from various perspectives and even latitudes, i.e., some participants walked and crawled underneath the Bean to photograph it. Participants admired the sculpture because it can coalesce the city’s various parts, including public spaces, greenery, trees, shrubs, skyscrapers, people, the sky, and clouds. It also mirrors visitors’ movements and gestures. Further, it looks dissimilar when viewed from different locations: it looks like a sphere or bean and whatever is in between. Interestingly, the curvilinear geometry of the sculpture contrasts well with skyscrapers’ straight edges in the background. Skyscrapers’ linear arrangement also promotes a sense of visual enclosure and complements the spaciousness of the plaza surrounding the sculpture (Fig. 5.5).

5.2.1.2

Crown Fountain

As is the case with the Cloud Gate sculpture, the nearby Crown Fountain offers visitors an interactive experience. While the Cloud Gate allows people to reflect on the city’s dynamism and visitors’ gestures and movements, the Crown Fountains engage visitors with an exhilarating entertainment of splashing in the water. The Crown Fountain Plaza consists of a pair of 15-m (50-ft) high glass-brick towers placed 50 m (165 ft) apart in a plaza covered with black Zimbabwe granite. At a rate of 11,500 gallons per hour, water spews from the towers’ tops and splashes against the ground near large crowds of people who flock to this installation in the hot summer months. What makes these fountains particularly interactive is a set of LED (Light-Emitting Diode) screens placed on the exterior, which display videos of exotic landscaping and the faces of 1000 Chicagoans, representing a demographic cross section of the Chicago region. Direct observations and the field survey indicated that these two spaces (Cloud Gate Plaza and Crown Fountain Plaza) are visited after dusk. Due to their spatial proximity to busy and vibrant Michigan Avenue, participants felt safe in these spaces even after sunset.

128

5 Preliminary Findings

Fig. 5.5 According to social media and participant surveys, the most photographed object in Downtown Chicago is the Cloud Gate sculpture. Participants admired the sculpture because it coalesces the city’s various parts, including public spaces, greenery, trees, shrubs, skyscrapers, people, the sky, and clouds. It also mirrors visitors’ movements and gestures with an intriguing distortion (bottom). Further, it appears differently when viewed from different locations: it looks like a sphere or a bean and whatever is in between. Interestingly, the curvilinear geometry of the Bean contrasts well with the straight edges of skyscrapers in the background. Skyscrapers’ linear arrangement also promotes a sense of visual enclosure and complements the spaciousness of the plaza surrounding the Bean (Photograph by author)

5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters

5.2.1.3

129

Lurie Garden

Another attractive feature of Millennium Park is Lurie Garden. Located near the southern edge of the park, Lurie Garden is a spectacular five-acre (two-hectare) “prairie oasis.” The study participants liked the garden immensely for offering a respite from urban life and engaging them in an immersive nature experience that allows for a temporary mental escape from the nearby “urban jungle,” characterized by busy streets as well as massive steel and glass and concrete structures. The garden hosts indigenous vegetation. Its organic and natural appearance also offers a complementary contrast to the orderly built environment dominated by skyscrapers (Fig. 5.6). Maggie Daley Park (MDP) is located immediately east of Millennium Park. The layout of this graceful park features a winding spine that meanders diagonally through the site, dividing the park into two parts: a southeast section containing the Play Garden and a northwest section containing the Rock Climbing Walls and the J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Family Ice Skating Ribbon. The study participants liked the great variety of play spaces, which were designed mainly for children. They also expressed appreciation of the park’s curvilinear and intricate topography, which offers a marvelous contrast with the city’s flat and gridded character. They noted how the surrounding tall buildings promote a sense of visual enclosure in the park (Fig. 5.7).

5.2.2 Navy Pier Navy Pier is a 3,000-foot-long (914 m) pier along Lake Michigan shoreline. It was built in 1916, and it is one of the pairs proposed for the lakefront in Daniel Burnham’s 1909 Plan of Chicago (Bachrach 2012; Burnham et al. 1909). The study participants liked the great variety of shops, amusement, and recreational areas contained in the 50-acre (20-hectare) pier. They also liked the Crystal Gardens, a two-story space frame that houses a children’s museum and a botanical garden, and appreciated the Ferris Wheel, a giant device echoing the original that dominated the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition. Participants enjoyed taking photographs of Navy Pier while having the city skyline in the background (Fig. 5.8).

5.2.3 The Magnificent Mile Gateway A stunning agglomeration of historic skyscrapers along the DuSable Bridge creates a Grand Gateway to the Magnificent Mile. These are the Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower, LondonHouse Chicago, and 333 North Michigan Avenue. This spectacular cluster of skyscrapers has helped to spatially define one of America’s most dramatic urban places (Bruegmann 2012). What participants liked, in particular, was that the

130

5 Preliminary Findings

Fig. 5.6 Among the most attractive features in Millennium Park is Lurie Garden. Located near the southern edge of the park, Lurie Garden is a spectacular five-acre “prairie oasis.” The study participants liked the garden immensely for offering a respite from urban life and engaging them in an immersive nature experience that allows for a temporary mental escape from the nearby “urban jungle.” The garden hosts indigenous vegetation. Its organic and natural appearance also evokes a complementing contrast with the orderly building environment dominated by skyscrapers (Photograph by author)

5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters

131

Fig. 5.7 Maggie Daley Park. Study participants appreciated the 20-acre (8-hectare) park for providing spaces and activities that cater to all ages to enjoy, relax, and play in. They also appreciated the park’s hills, valleys, and vistas that animate the place and shield visitors from the sun, wind, and traffic noise. Further, the park’s curvilinear and intricate topography offers a marvelous contrast to the city’s flat and gridded character. Besides, its combination of heterogeneous spaces complements that of Grant Park’s formal layout (Photograph by author)

132

5 Preliminary Findings

Fig. 5.8 Navy Pier is a 3,000-foot-long (914 m) pier entertainment district. The study participants liked the great variety of shops, amusement, and recreational areas supplied by this 50-acre (20hectare) pier. They also enjoyed taking photographs of Navy Pier while having the city skyline in the background (Photograph by author)

design of these buildings consistently follows a classical architectural style. Indeed, the cluster is reminiscent of buildings of the “White City” at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893 (Smith 2006; O’Gorman 2003). The study participants appreciated the fact that all of these buildings have consistently distinctive bases, shafts, and tops, contributing to the urban design coherence featured in this area. Additional buildings, such as the Equitable Building (1965) and the more recent Trump International Hotel and Tower (2009), have further strengthened this spatial urban node. The 1920 DuSable Bridge centers the place and adds beauty, significance, and drama. In particular, participants liked the way a cluster of historic tall buildings and agglomeration of plazas and open spaces create a remarkable gateway to North Michigan Avenue, The Magnificent Mile (Fig. 5.9).

5.2.4 Inner Loop Within the Inner Chicago Loop (defined as the area bordered by Chicago River northward and westward, Michigan Avenue eastward, and Roosevelt Road southward), the study identified sub-socio-spatial clusters that are created by several public plazas. These plazas function as “lungs” in the crowded Loop. Their horizontal nature

5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters

133

Fig. 5.9 Plazas and open spaces cluster near the southern end of the Magnificent Mile. The top photograph shows the Wrigley Building’s plaza, and the bottom photograph displays the Pioneer Court hosting a live art show. Study participants appreciated these spacious places amid the busy and crowded downtown (Photograph by author)

134

5 Preliminary Findings

balances the Loop’s verticality (established by tall buildings). Besides, the voids they create within the Loop canvas allow people to gather and enliven it with a variety of social and civic activities. Overall, people use the Loop’s plazas mainly around lunchtime. Among the major squares in this area are Daley Plaza, Chase Plaza, and Federal Plaza, discussed, respectively, below.

5.2.4.1

Daley Plaza

A remarkable socio-spatial node is located near the Loop’s civic center. It is created by the clustering of important tall buildings, including the Richard J. Daley Center, City Hall, the James R. Thompson Center, and Grant Thornton Tower. The study participants expressed appreciation of the diverse architectural styles that these buildings represent, including Classical, International, Late Modernist, and Postmodernist. Most importantly, they liked that Daley Plaza offers a significant outdoor urban space that attracts a good part of the city’s residents and visitors. Enriched by programmed social and cultural activities, Daley Plaza is a grand public space, functioning as the heart and soul of the Loop.

5.2.4.2

Chase Plaza

About two blocks south of Daley Plaza, the study identified another sub-socio-spatial cluster that comprises the Chase Tower, flanked by the Inland Steel Building, One South Dearborn East, and 55 West Monroe (the Xerox Building). These buildings center on Chase Plaza. The study participants liked several attractive elements of the plaza, including its spacious sunken space, a large fountain, clock tower, public art, and lush landscaping. They explained that Chase Plaza forms the “Loop Oasis.”

5.2.4.3

Federal Center

About two blocks south of Chase Plaza, there is another intriguing sub-sociospatial cluster created mainly by the Chicago Federal Center Complex, Monadnock Building, and Marquette Building. Like the tall building groups discussed earlier, this socio-spatial node offers a splendid contrast of distinct architectural styles. Participants liked how the historic, massive masonry Monadnock Building contrasts with the nearby modernist Miesian architecture of the Federal Center. Importantly, the spacious plaza that centers the complex is a place for numerous civic activities, including social, political, and cultural, that draw masses of people (Fig. 5.10).

5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters

135

Fig. 5.10 The “Inner Loop”: Daley Plaza, Chase Plaza, and Federal Plaza, respectively. By offering a wide variety of social, cultural, and political activities, these places dramatically improve the Loop’s urban experience (Photograph by author)

136

5 Preliminary Findings

5.2.5 Water Tower Area Along the Magnificent Mile, a prime cluster of remarkable buildings and plazas is located between the Chicago Water Tower and the One Magnificent Mile building. Vertical malls draw in masses of visitors and ignite socioeconomic activities in this place. The study participants liked how this spatial node is characterized by a blend of historical, modern, and ultra-modern buildings, which certainly make this cluster one of the unique places in the city. They described it as the “City’s Signature.” Besides, open spaces and plazas humanize the area, and extensive landscaping and seasonal public art make it even more attractive and enticing. Among the principal buildings and structures of this cluster are the Chicago Water Tower, Water Tower Place, the Park Tower, 875 North Michigan Avenue (popularly known as the John Hancock Center), 900 North Michigan Avenue, the Palmolive Building, and One Magnificent Mile. Among the most popular plazas is the John Hancock Plaza (Fig. 5.11).

5.2.6 River Confluence The Chicago River runs through a canyon of spectacular skyscrapers. What is particularly interesting is that the river’s three branches (Main, North, and South) meander and curve slightly, provoking a dynamic visual experience of this canyon. One of the most remarkable clusters of skyscrapers, however, occurs at the Chicago River confluence, where the river’s three branches meet. Among these buildings are 333 West Wacker Drive, 225 West Wacker Drive, 191 North Wacker Drive, River Point, 150 North Riverside, Boeing International Headquarters, the Residences at Riverbend, Merchandise Mart, and Wolf Point West. While each building is an architectural masterpiece, their collective presence evokes a unique visual effect. The contrast of the river’s horizontality and the skyscrapers’ verticality is remarkable. Besides, water reflection improves the individual and collective presence of these skyscrapers. Indeed, skyscrapers here create a dramatic spatial node (Fig. 5.12). When Wolf Point East (nearing completion) and the proposed Wolf Point South are constructed, these towers will surely reinforce the imageability of this spatial node and redefine the river’s skyline. Interestingly, Boeing International Headquarters marks the beginning of the South Branch, and the Residences at Riverbend marks the beginning of the North Branch.

5.2.7 Museum Campus On Chicago’s lakefront, toward the south end of Grant Park, there is a significant agglomeration of museums and other public facilities. Still forming a portion of Lake Michigan in 1910, it was filled with land and developed following the Burnham Plan

5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters

137

Fig. 5.11 A cluster of plazas near the northern end of the Magnificent Mile offers pedestrians relaxing places. Study participants liked the John Hancock Plaza, shown in the photographs (Photograph by author)

138

5 Preliminary Findings

Fig. 5.12 One of the most spectacular spots along the Chicago River is the river confluence where its three branches meet. As a tour boat turns, riders stand and take photographs of tall buildings surrounding this area (Photograph by author)

of 1909. The campus houses the Field Museum, Soldier Field, Shedd Aquarium, and Adler Planetarium. The spaciousness of Grant Park creates a healthy distance between this cluster and the Loop, which allows visitors to appreciate the city’s iconic skyline. From this location, participants often place the city skyline in the background of their photographs (Fig. 5.13).

5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters

139

Fig. 5.13 In addition to offering a variety of indoor exhibits, the Museum Campus area provides excellent vistas on the city’s remarkable skyline (Photograph by author)

5.2.8 Urban Giants On the western side of the Loop, near the South Branch of the Chicago River, an outstanding cluster of skyscrapers along Wacker Drive creates a unique space, “the city’s most vibrant place,” as participants indicated. There, one finds “Urban Giants,” including Willis Tower (Chicago’s tallest skyscraper), 311 South Wacker Drive, and Franklin Center. The 311 South Walker Plaza in conjunction with the area near the south entrance of the Willis Tower is at the epicenter of this cluster. Participants were impressed by the boulevard’s spaciousness and the role of tall buildings in presenting it as a strong path and potent edge to the Loop (Fig. 5.14).

5.2.9 Grant Park With an area of 319 acres (130 hectares), it is the largest urban park in the Loop community, making it a primary “breathing” space in Downtown Chicago. The north side of the park was remodeled from 1998 to 2014, creating Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park. Earlier, the 57-acre (23-hectare) Museum Campus was added to Grant Park’s southeastern end. Grant Park contains performance venues, gardens, artwork, sports, and harbor facilities. It hosts public gatherings and several significant

140

5 Preliminary Findings

Fig. 5.14 “Giant” skyscrapers line up alongside the Wacker Drive corridor. Among these skyscrapers is Chicago’s tallest building, the Willis Tower. Interestingly, plazas around the building’s base enliven the area. Buskers entertain while people wait in line to visit the observation deck, “Skydeck,” located on the 103rd floor (Photograph by author)

5.2 Socio-Spatial Clusters

141

annual events. The park’s most remarkable features are the Buckingham Fountain and the Art Institute of Chicago. Indeed, Buckingham Fountain’s central location, its enormous size, and its magnificent design make it a unique feature that contributes to the imageability of the park and the city at large. Constructed in 1927, the fountain boasts being one of the largest in the world. It features the iconic Art Deco style; and the four seahorses surrounding it represent Lake Michigan’s four bordering states. From 8:00 h to 23:00 h, the fountain bursts to life hourly, shooting 15,000 gallons of water through nearly 200 nozzles every minute, fashioning a striking display. After dusk, the water show is accompanied by lights. The fountain was a donation from the Buckingham family. Interestingly, the study participants often photographed the Buckingham Fountain with the city skyline in the background (Fig. 5.15). It is worth noting that participants’ photographs were taken during the daytime, and hence did not illustrate the visual effect of the fountain’s sophisticated lighting system, which is often presented by photos found in architectural books and online sources (Al-Kodmany 2018; Burnham et al. 1909).

Fig. 5.15 The Buckingham Fountain centers the Grant Park. Constructed in 1927 and featuring an iconic Art Deco style, the fountain boasts being one of the largest in the world. Interestingly, study participants often photographed the Buckingham Fountain with the city skyline in the background (Photograph by author)

142

5 Preliminary Findings

5.2.10 River City River City is a mixed-use complex that was designed by Bertrand Goldberg and completed in 1986. In addition to its outstanding organic character, the complex enjoys a prominent site along the edge created by the Chicago River’s South Branch. What also signifies this complex is that it is located where the Chicago River’s Architectural Boat Tour reverses direction. At this point, the tour boats stop for a few minutes to let riders take photographs of the surrounding, including the River City complex and the city’s iconic skyline in the background (Fig. 5.16).

5.2.11 Chicago Riverwalk In addition to the ten socio-spatial clusters, mentioned above, social media data reveals a high concentration of photographs along linear features such as the Chicago River (Chap. 6) and Magnificent Mile (Chap. 7). The field surveys, however, enlighten about the Chicago Riverwalk that follows the river intimately. Completed recently, the Chicago Riverwalk is a public walkway along the south bank of the Main Branch of the Chicago River. By retrofitting its disused docks and constructing under-bridge crossings, today, it is a continuous promenade that connects the Lakefront (near the river mouth) with Lake Street (near the river confluence)—located right at the western edge of the Chicago Loop. This 1.25-mile (2 -km) stretch is a crucial spine that ties together many downtown pieces, including the Loop, Navy Pier, Magnificent Mile (Mag Mile), and other vital amenities and tourist attractions such as Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park. Importantly, the Riverwalk brings people closer to the river and incorporates greeneries, social places, and amenities. The strategic location of the Riverwalk offers visitors spectacular views of the surrounding skyscrapers, which also contribute to a definite sense of visual enclosure. The Riverwalk offers several exciting amenities and places, including a Recreational Trail, McCormick Bridgehouse and Chicago River Museum, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, The Marina Plaza, The Cove, The River Theater, The Water Plaza, The Jetty, and The Riverbank. Based on the study findings, The Theater Plaza and The Marina Plaza are among the most popular places of the Riverwalk (Figs. 5.17 and 5.18).

5.3 Organizing the Results The research uses Kevin Lynch’s imageability theory to organize the findings. Two significant paths, the Chicago River and the Magnificent Mile, are identified. The Chicago Loop qualifies to be a substantial district, which also contains several sociocultural nodes in the form of plazas tied to tall buildings. Of course, tall buildings stretched along Lake Michigan form the city’s iconic skyline. At the micro-scale,

5.3 Organizing the Results

143

Fig. 5.16 At the southern end of the boat tour, study participants admired the River City complex (top). They also liked the city skyline centered by the Willis Tower (the city’s tallest building) and 311 South Wacker Drive building (bottom) (Photograph by author)

144

5 Preliminary Findings

Fig. 5.17 The Chicago Riverwalk, the Theater Plaza. The sculpted theater offers a strategic place to watch the river’s lively activities (boating, kayaking, canoeing, etc.); to have a private conversation, eat lunch, photograph the river, or play with electronic gadgets. As tall trees attract birds, visitors may also enjoy listening to their twittering. The bottom photo shows a temporary art exhibit placed on a barge right next to the theater (Photograph by author)

5.3 Organizing the Results

145

Fig. 5.18 The Chicago Riverwalk, The Marina Plaza. It is a busy place with people socializing, walking, relaxing, eating, drinking, sitting on ledges and chairs, or docking boats. Note that surrounding tall buildings improve sense of visual enclosure and function as a spectacular backdrop to the Riverwalk (Photograph by author)

146

5 Preliminary Findings

the study identifies mini-special places that play an essential role in supporting a sense of place. Discussions with participants have suggested representative descriptions of these places. For example, the Chicago River path contains what they called a “Sublime Edge,” an “Elegant Edge,” an “Exotic Confluence,” and a “Welcoming Gateway.” The Magnificent Mile features two significant places, the “Grand Gateway” and the “City’s Signature.” Finally, the Loop contains several unique places, including the “Urban Giants” or “Graceful Sky Touch,” the “City’s Heart and Soul,” the “Loop Oasis,” the “City’s Political Pulse,” “Millennium Gateway,” and an “Eclectic Edge” (Figs. 5.19, 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22).

5.3.1 The Chicago River (Water Path) It is a skyscraper path that includes skyscraper nodes (e.g., river confluence, intersection with Michigan Avenue, and the River City complex). It ends with the Navy Pier, an entertaining district. Within the Chicago River, the study identified outstanding sub-clusters formed by tall buildings. In each case, architectural masterpieces evoke a unique sense of place as follows. • Sublime Edge. Located where the Main Branch bends, it comprises several tall and supertall buildings, including the Trump International Hotel and Tower, 330 North Wabash, and Marina City. These buildings create an architectural symphony of remarkable contrast. While the tallest, the Trump International Hotel and Tower features a contemporary architectural style, the 330 North Wabash exhibits a Mesian International Style, and Marina City represents a modern-brutalist style. As such, the placement of these buildings side by side creates a living museum of authentic architectural styles. • Elegant Edge. It is located on the south side of the Main Branch and comprises several tall buildings, including LaSalle-Wacker Building, OneEleven, 77 West Wacker Drive, and Leo Burnett Building, among others. Remarkably, each building features a different architectural style (Art deco, contemporary, postmodern, neo-modern, etc.). However, these buildings celebrate architectural coherence and urban design consistency by observing building materials, colors, setbacks, alignment, and window spacing. • Exotic Confluence. As explained earlier, it is located where the three branches of the river meet. This particular node consists of several tall buildings, including 333 West Wacker Drive, 225 West Wacker, 191 North Wacker Drive, River Point, 150 North Riverside, Boeing International Headquarters, Residences at Riverbend, Wolf Point West, and Merchandise Mart. Each of these buildings is a masterpiece of architecture. Undoubtedly, their collective impact is greater than the sum of their individual contribution. The area is most appreciated by boat riders, canoers, and kayakers. • Welcoming Gateway. It is located right at the mouth of the river and comprises several tall buildings, including River View I and II, The Regatta and The Chandler,

5.3 Organizing the Results

147

N

Main Branch

3 2

1

4

1 Sublime Edge 2 Elegant Edge 3 ExoƟc Confluence 4 Welcoming Gateway 1M

Fig. 5.19 Tall buildings placed along the Chicago River create vivid edges and a memorable path. The map indicates the areas of specific clusters of tall buildings that contribute to a sense of place, including “Sublime Edge,” “Elegant Edge,” “Exotic Confluence,” and “Welcoming Gateway” (Source aerial photograph courtesy of Google Earth)

148

5 Preliminary Findings

N

Ma Mile

2

Wacker Dr S. Michigan Ave

S. Wacker Dr

1

1 Grand Gateway 2 City’s Signature

1M

Fig. 5.20 Closely spaced tall buildings along North Michigan Avenue create a remarkable path, i.e., the Magnificent Mile. The map indicates the two areas of specific clusters of tall buildings that contribute to a sense of place, including “Grand Gateway” and “City’s Signature” (Source aerial photograph courtesy of Google Earth)

5.3 Organizing the Results

149

N

2 1

3 4

5 6 1 Graceful Sky Touch 2 City’s Heart and Soul 3 Loop Oasis 4 City’s PoliƟcal Pulse 5 Millennium Gateway 6 EclecƟc Edge

1M

Fig. 5.21 A compact spatial arrangement of tall buildings in the Loop creates an imageable district. The map indicates the areas of specific clusters of tall buildings that contribute to a sense of place, including “Graceful Sky Touch,” “City’s Heart and Soul,” “Loop Oasis,” “City’s Political Pulse,” “Millennium Gateway,” and “Eclectic Edge” (Source aerial photograph courtesy of Google Earth)

150

5 Preliminary Findings

S Michigan Ave

Randolph St

Lakeshore Dr

N

1M

Fig. 5.22 Tall buildings placed along mainly Michigan Avenue, Randolph Street, and Lakeshore Drive create a powerful, compound skyscraper edge, i.e., the city’s iconic skyline (see Chap. 9) (Source aerial photograph courtesy of Google Earth)

5.3 Organizing the Results

151

NBC Tower, Swissotel, Illinois Center, and Lake Point Tower. These buildings reinforce the river’s edges and anchor a gateway that connects the river with Lake Michigan. Similar to the case of River Confluence, this area is most appreciated by boat riders.

5.3.2 The Magnificent Mile (Land Path) It is a skyscraper path that integrates two major skyscraper nodes, the Magnificent Mile Gateway and Water Tower Area. By assembling remarkable open spaces and outstanding tall buildings, each node evokes a unique sense of place as follows. • Grand Gateway. This node is located near the intersection of Michigan Avenue (running south-north) and the Chicago River (running east-west). Wacker Drive also runs jointly along the Chicago River. This Grand Gateway consists of prominent historic tall buildings, including the Wrigley Building, the Tribune Tower, LondonHouse Chicago, 333 North Michigan, and the InterContinental Chicago Magnificent Mile. This node also includes the Equitable Building (featuring an International Style), and the Trump International Hotel and Tower (featuring a contemporary style). Additional elements that signify this node are the historic DuSable Bridge and the newly completed store, ultra-modern Apple Michigan Avenue. • City’s Signature. Located toward the upper part of the Magnificent Mile, this node contains a remarkable blend of tall buildings—historic, modern, and ultra-modern. The Chicago Water Tower adds a distinctive flavor, and a sense of “agglomeration” is created by adjacent buildings, including Water Tower Place, Park Tower, 875 North Michigan Avenue, 900 North Michigan Avenue, Palmolive Building, and One Magnificent Mile. Remarkably, each building represents a different architectural style, including modern, high-tech International, postmodern, and Art Deco. Further, this node is enriched by attractive outdoor public spaces (e.g., Jane M. Byrne Plaza and 875 North Michigan Plaza) and adorned by fascinating indoor public places in Water Tower Place and 900 North Michigan Avenue building, among others.

5.3.3 The Chicago Loop It is a skyscraper district that also includes “green districts,” i.e., the Grant Park, Millennium Park, and Maggie Daley Park. Notably, the Loop district is perforated by vibrant socio-cultural-political public plazas. These lively places along with outstanding tall buildings of various architectural styles evoke a unique sense of place as follows. • Graceful Sky Touch. A group of tall and supertall buildings clusters around the plaza of 311 South Wacker Drive. The plaza is flanked by the Willis Tower (Sears

152

•

•

•

•

•

5 Preliminary Findings

Tower) and the Franklin Center, far north. A remarkable contrast occurs between the International Style of Wills Tower and the postmodern style of 311 South Wacker and the Franklin Center. City’s Heart and Soul. A group of tall buildings clusters around the popular Daley Plaza. These are the Richard J. Daley Center, James R. Thompson Center, and Grant Thornton Tower. This vibrant place tends to be very busy during the day due to governmental services offered by these buildings. Interestingly, the architectural styles of these buildings evoke stunning contrasts established by the International Style of the Richard, J. Daley Center, the ultra-modern James R. Thompson Center, and the postmodern Grant Thornton Tower. Loop Oasis. One of the most remarkable socio-cultural nodes is centered around the Chase Plaza. It is surrounded by the Chase Tower, Inland Steel Building, One South Dearborn, and 55 West Monroe. The plaza is an attractive place for the Loop’s employees, who often use it during lunchtime in warmer weather. Fascinatingly, each of the surrounding buildings represents a unique architectural style: Inland Steel Building (International Style), Chase Tower (modern), 55 West Monroe (ultra-modern), and One South Dearborn (contemporary). City’s Political Pulse. This node is renowned since it contains the Federal Plaza that hosts political contests and rallies. Architecturally, the International Style of the Chicago Federal Center establishes a marvelous contrast with the neighboring, historic Monadnock Building and Marquette Building. Millennium Gateway. An extremely busy node is located at the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street. It is a place where flows of pedestrians merge, some are heading to the Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park, others are walking to the Loop, and others heading up and down Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street. This intersection is well framed by two remarkable buildings, the Crain Communications Building and the Heritage at Millennium Park. While the former features an elegant modern style, the latter features a postmodern style. Eclectic Edge. Along Randolph Street, a set of tall and supertall buildings creates a unique edge. These buildings include the Aon Center, Two Prudential Plaza, and One Prudential Plaza. A powerful contrast occurs between the well-articulated, postmodern Two Prudential Plaza and the plain, modern One Prudential Plaza and Aon Center. The significant height of the Aon Center creates a strong focal point in the city’s skyline.

5.3.4 Chicago Skyline Finally, skyscrapers along mainly Michigan Avenue, Randolph Street, and Lakeshore Drive create a powerful, compound skyscraper edge, the city’s iconic skyline (see Chap. 9).

5.4 Summary

153

5.4 Summary This chapter presented the initial findings of this research and offered a preview of some of the remarkable results. As an essential step in understanding the macroscale issues of placemaking, the chapter illustrated the ten most popular socio-spatial clusters in Chicago, based on social media data and field surveys. It also utilized Kevin Lynch’s imageability theory to organize findings according to Chicago’s significant elements, including the Chicago River, the Magnificent Mile, Chicago Loop, and the city skyline. Further, the chapter previewed the sub-spaces that also play an essential role in placemaking but on the microscale. The subsequent four chapters engage the readers with detailed accounts of the research findings focusing on two significant paths (the Chicago River, the Magnificent Mile), a vital district (the Chicago Loop), and a remarkable compound edge (the Chicago Skyline). The narrative of these chapters weaves together the initial findings with the respondents’ detailed comments and direct observations by the research team. A significant portion of the discussion extracts factual information from the architectural and urban design literature. It integrates crucial background information about each building and highlights architectural and design contributions. Consequently, these various sources and methods play a complementary role in clarifying and validating the research findings.

References Al-Kodmany K (2018) The vertical city: a sustainable development model. WIT Press, Southampton Bachrach JS (2012) The city in a garden: a history of Chicago’s parks, 2nd edn. Center for American Places Press, Chicago, IL Bruegmann R (2012) Art Robert Deco Chicago: designing modern America. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT Burnham D, Bennett E, Moore C (1909) Plan of Chicago. The Commercial Club, Chicago, IL O’Gorman TJ (2003) Architecture in detail Chicago. PRC publishing, Chicago, IL Smith CS (2006) The plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the remaking of the American city. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

Chapter 6

The Chicago River

Abstract This chapter focuses on urban developments around the Chicago River, the birthplace of the City of Chicago. It offers first a brief history of important projects and forces that made Chicago a global city. Next, it examines the spatial arrangements of tall buildings along this water path and analyzes significant edges and clusters that support placemaking. Based on the research preliminary findings, the chapter discusses in-depth four unique groups of tall buildings, including a “Sublime Edge,” “Elegant Edge,” Exotic Confluence,” and “Welcoming Gateway.” It also brings a detailed architectural account on tall buildings that form these clusters. Lastly, the chapter illustrates how neighboring high-rises evoke captivating spatial dialogs. Overall, iconic buildings and intriguing spatial patterns in conjunction with a unique natural setting and public places promote the Chicago River as a stunning example of placemaking.

6.1 Introduction The story of Chicago starts with its river. As early as the 1600 s, various Native American tribes settled periodically along the river’s bank. By traveling the region, the tribes discovered the Chicago River Portage, a water gap that connects the navigable waterways of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes. In 1673, Native American guides showed Louis Joliet (fur trader and explorer) and Jacques Marquette (missionary and explorer) the portage, and later, they informed other French fur traders about it. After almost a century, around 1779, Jean Baptiste Point DuSable, a Haitian-born farmer and fur trader, built his permanent home near the mouth of the river. He consequently became known as the founder of Chicago. Soon, a community of Native Americans and Europeans grew along the river in what is now Downtown Chicago (Bosch 2008). In the 1800s, Chicago had earned national attention as a strategic location in the growing economy of the new American frontier. The city’s rapid growth was a result of building two major water projects, the Erie Canal and the Illinois and Michigan (I&M) Canal as well as constructing massive railway networks afterward. Completed in 1825, the Erie Canal connected Chicago with New York City. Consequently, sailing © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_6

155

156

6 The Chicago River

ships were able to travel the canal in just 25 days. The river transported goods and passengers who primarily settled near the river. The Chicago Treaty of 1833 forced the Native Americans to move away from Illinois. Consequently, more settlers flocked to the area now feeling safe enough to take advantage of the river’s transport facilities to exchange commercial and agricultural goods (Miller 1996). In 1848, the local government completed the I&M Canal, which ran from the Chicago River to the Illinois River, reinforcing connections to eastern and western markets and consequently made agriculture in northern Illinois profitable. With the expansion of agriculture and commerce, these canals stimulated railroad growth, supported new industries, and increased population, creating the City of Chicago. From around 1850–1875, more ships passed through Chicago than any other American city; and shipbuilding became a primary industry in Chicago. Augmented by an extensive railroad network, the Erie Canal and the I&M Canal offered a global connection between Europe, Central America, and South America. Consequently, Chicago became the most important inland port, located at the world’s crossroads (Dyja 2014). In 1900, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) replaced the I&M Canal by providing a shorter, deeper, and broader path. In addition to transport functions, the CSSC provided a sanitary function. That is, by building the canal deeper and deeper as it progressed west, the canal reversed the flow of the Main Stem and South Branch of the Chicago River, drawing its water away from Lake Michigan (Bosch 2008). This extraordinary project has solved severe water pollution problems in the lake and river that were caused by dramatic population increase and rapid industrial developments that dumped their waste in the river (Dyja 2014). The CSSC kept sewage out of the city’s drinking supply (Lake Michigan) and flushed the filthy Chicago River with clean Lake Michigan water (Smith 2006). In 1909, city planners Daniel Burnham and Edward H. Bennett made the Chicago River a focal point of their plan for making Chicago the “Paris of the Prairie.” They aimed to alleviate the overcrowding of ships in the narrow river by building several lakefront piers. Out of that proposal came Navy Pier, completed in 1916. Burnham and Bennett also envisioned a magnificent bridge to join the river’s North and South branches at Michigan Avenue, already Chicago’s main street. The doubledecked drawbridge was completed in 1920, and the double-decked Wacker Drive was completed in 1926. The plan also called for an elegant esplanade lining the river’s Main Stem (Smith 2006). By the late 1960s, sewer overflows became excessive and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) demanded that the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) work harder to clean up the river. In the early 1970s, the passage of the federal Clean Water Act led to planning for the Deep Tunnel system (also known as Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP), which is designed to hold waste and runoff until it can be safely treated. Construction of the project started in 1975, and it is anticipated to be completed in 2029. TARP should be capable of holding up to 20.55 billion gallons of excess water (Hunt and DeVries 2017).

6.1 Introduction

157

In parallel to governmental efforts, several local environmental groups (e.g., Friends of the Chicago River) voiced concerns about the river conditions. In collaboration with other groups and agencies, Friends of the Chicago River has been organizing volunteers to remove invasive plants and seed the riverbanks with native, local species. Consequently, these organizations have not only reduced the amount of runoff that flows into the river but also have restored dozens of acres of fish habitats along the river. In 1998, the City of Chicago worked with Friends of the Chicago River to release a plan for the development of the Chicago Riverwalk, a continuous river trail that allows city denizens and visitors to enjoy the river (Johnson 2006). By the early 2000s, the water and habitat quality of the river was improved significantly, which in turn stimulated residential and commercial developments along its banks, including a strong wave of tall building construction. Consequently, today, many Chicagoans enjoy living, working, and playing along the river. Several of the city’s most spectacular buildings sit along the Main Stem (Main Branch), thereby creating an unforgettable scene that blends nature with marvelous architecture. This chapter focuses on the Main Branch. It examines how tall buildings have enhanced the visual order, appeal, and imageability of that area (Schulze and Harrington 2003; Kamin 2001).

6.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis As explained in the previous chapters, the research employs Kevin Lynch’s urban design model of imageability, which comprises five major spatial elements: landmarks, paths, nodes, edges, and districts. Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, and 6.14 present introductory photographs that illustrate the role of tall buildings in spatially defining the river’s path. The spacing and heights of tall buildings along the river help to create legible, sharp edges. Interestingly, the ratio of buildings’ heights to the river’s width is appealing. That is, the river’s width is not too narrow, which helps to prevent tall buildings from creating a canyon effect. Conversely, the river’s width is not overly broad, preventing it from establishing a shattering spatial impact. Architecturally, tall buildings display diverse designs, colors, textures, and styles, which enrich the visual experience. Some of these buildings are stunning landmarks and visual termini that establish strong reference points along the river path. Further, vistas along the river reveal dramatic views; and historic bridges improve the visual experience and strengthen a sense of place. The visual synthesis also illustrates the role of tall buildings in creating major spatial clusters in the forms of unique spatial edges and nodes, including a “Sublime Edge,” “Elegant Edge,” “Exotic Confluence,” and “Welcoming Gateway.” The “Sublime Edge” comprises buildings with distinctly different architectural styles that evoke design authenticity. The “Elegant Edge” is comprised of buildings that share design similarities, creating a coherent whole. The “Exotic Confluence” is the most evocative cluster for grouping the most significant number of iconic tall buildings in one small area. Further, the

158

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.1 The Main Branch of the Chicago River as seen in the three-dimensional massing model of the city by the Chicago Architecture Center (CAC) (Photograph by author)

6.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

159

Fig. 6.2 Tall buildings along the Main Branch of the Chicago River form a welcoming gateway to the city, fostering a sense of place (Photograph by author)

160

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.3 Tall buildings along the Main Branch create legible edges (Photograph by author)

6.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

161

Fig. 6.4 Tall buildings along the Main Branch of the river create strong edges (Photograph by author)

162

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.5 Tall buildings along the riverbank create strong edges. In addition, their varying heights and diverse architectural styles produce a dynamic skyline (Photograph by author)

6.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

163

Fig. 6.6 When the river bends, it reveals a dramatic scene of skyscrapers, evoking a unique sense of place (Photograph by author)

164

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.7 The river bends to reveal an elegant timeline of skyscrapers that augment placemaking (Photograph by author)

6.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

165

Fig. 6.8 A concentration of iconic tall buildings (Boeing Headquarters, 150 North Riverside, and River Point (zoomed on in the upper photo)) creates a prominent focal point on the skyline and major visual terminus to the South Branch of the Chicago River (Photograph by author)

166

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.9 Lush greeneries reinforce the natural environment of the river and soften the built edges. A variety of colors and textures enhances placemaking (Photograph by author)

6.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

167

Fig. 6.10 Branching off the Chicago River, a series of tall buildings along McClurg Ct. creates a legible path (Photograph by author)

168

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.11 Historic tall buildings [the Wrigley Building (left), Tribune Tower (right), and InterContinental Hotel (back)] feature elegant architectural styles. Visually coherent, these giant buildings improve placemaking (Photograph by author)

6.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

169

Fig. 6.12 Modern tall buildings [Swissotel Chicago (left), Three Illinois Center (right), and Aqua Tower (back)] feature diverse architectural forms and styles, thereby creating a unique urban collage that enhances placemaking (Photograph by author)

170

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.13 Vistas along the Chicago River reveal dramatic views that strengthen a sense of place (Photograph by author)

6.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

171

Fig. 6.14 Historic bridges enrich the visual experience of the river path and enhance placemaking (Photograph by author)

172

6 The Chicago River

“Welcoming Gateway” is formed by tall buildings that align along the Main Branch, welcoming boat riders into the heart of the city. Overall, photographs and text illustrate how tall buildings create unique urban collages that enhance the perceptual characteristics of the river path and improve placemaking.

6.3 Sublime Edge A few skyscrapers that sit side by side along the bend of the Main Branch create a remarkable edge. These are the Trump International Hotel & Tower, 330 North Wabash, and Marina City (Fig. 6.15). Interestingly, each represents an original architectural style and design philosophy. These skyscrapers feature different color schemes, textures, and heights; yet, they get along and stand proudly telling an epic story of the city’s architecture. The outstanding location and significant height of Adrian Smith’s Trump International Hotel & Tower, the city’s second tallest building, makes this tower an unmistakable landmark. It serves as a visual terminus when viewed from the river (Figs. 6.16 and 6.17). Likewise, the dark exterior of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s 330 North Wabash makes the tower prominent and establishes a pleasant contrast with the lighter colors of the Trump International Hotel & Tower. Bertrand Goldberg’s Marina City features an outstanding organic profile that evokes a splendid contrast with Mies’s 330 North Wabash. These three towers create a marvelous architectural symphony that represents distinct architectural styles. An additional building that could be added to this spatial/architectural edge is the historic Wrigley Building (detailed in the following chapter). Completed in the early 1920s, this historic building establishes a complementing contrast with the neighboring contemporary Trump International Hotel & Tower. The buildings that form this “Sublime Edge” are detailed as follows.

6.3.1 Trump International Hotel & Tower Completed in 2009, the 98-story, 423 m (1,388 ft) tall Trump International Hotel & Tower is the second tallest building in the city, trailing the 1974 Willis Tower (widely known as Sears Tower). Standing at 401 North Wabash Avenue, the tower complements the dense urban setting and offers visual continuity by relating each stepbacks1 to a nearby building. The first stepback (at level 16) coincides with the top of the Wrigley Building; the second (at level 29) aligns with the roof of Marina City; and the third stepback (at level 51) is at the height of 330 North Wabash. The stepbacks establish visual continuity with neighboring towers. In order to visually 1 The

term “setback” refers to the distance that the base of a tall building recesses from the surrounding elements such as streets and adjacent buildings, while the term “stepback” refers to the distance that upper floors recess from the building perimeter.

6.3 Sublime Edge

173

Fig. 6.15 Three skyscrapers that sit side by side create a “Sublime Edge.” While each building represents a distinct architectural style, era, and design philosophy, collectively they create a fascinating scene that enhances sense of place (Photograph by author)

174

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.16 The Trump International Hotel & Tower (model view). Ranking the second tallest building in the city and featuring a dynamic profile, it forms a major landmark along the river and skyline (Photograph by author)

6.3 Sublime Edge

175

Fig. 6.17 The Trump International Hotel & Tower (river view). Located strategically along the Chicago River, it functions as a splendid visual terminus and placemaker (Photograph by author)

176

6 The Chicago River

emphasize the role of these stepbacks, each is highlighted with a light beige color horizontal band or belt. These belts also echo those of the Wrigley Building. Additionally, the silvery-blue color of the curtainwall provides a transition between the AMA Plaza’s dark color and the Wrigley’s light color. Further, a beautiful contrast occurs between the massive masonry Wrigley Building and the light glass of the Trump International Hotel & Tower. The asymmetrical, stepped profile gives the tower a dynamic appearance from wherever it is viewed. A spire rises from a glassy cylindrical base, which screens mechanical equipment. The resulting shape gives the nod to the cupolas of the neighboring buildings, including the Wrigley Building, the London House Chicago, and the Tribune Tower. The tower’s spire is considered architectural, and as such, it increased the height of the building, reaching 1,388 ft/423 m (Baker et al. 2009). As mentioned earlier, the tower functions as a visual terminus when it is viewed from the Chicago River (Figs. 6.16 and 6.17). Similarly, it serves as a visual terminus when it is viewed from Wabash Avenue (See Chap. 8, Fig. 8.2). Trump International Hotel & Tower’s curved corners and silvery-blue curtainwall echo the river’s tone and curvature. Practically, the curved corners and the tower’s stepbacks improve the building’s wind resistance. In addition to the beauty of the stainless steel and glass exterior, a low emissivity glass is employed, which enhances the thermal performance of the tower by retaining cool air in summer and heat in winter (Fig. 6.18). Overall, as indicated by the survey results, the dramatic height, strategic location, and sculptural qualities of the tower enrich the tower’s visual quality when it is viewed from almost anywhere. Indeed, the tower is a significant addition to the already iconic Chicago Skyline. William Baker of SOM and colleagues noted, “The tower contributes to an exciting and ever-evolving architectural dialogue” (2009, p. 16). In terms of function, the 2.6 million ft2 (241,548 m2 ) tower offers a mixed-use scheme of 339-room hotel rooms, 486 luxury condominium units, 9,300 m2 (100,000 ft2 ) retail space, and 960 parking spaces. It also offers a wide range of amenities, including restaurant, banquet space, health club, spa, etc. A large office space was planned; however, it was replaced with a residential use due to market demand. Space adaptability is also considered. For example, residential units on the mid-levels above the hotel can be retrofitted into a hotel space. Such stacking of different programs creates an adaptable building. The main attraction of this supertall building is the close-up views it offers of the waterfront and some of Chicago’s most spectacular buildings. The tower broke records by having residential units on the 89th floor surpassing those of the John Hancock Center. The Wabash Street entry features a cantilevered glass canopy and a circular ramp leading to the parking levels. Clad in translucent laminated glass, the double-helix ramp further establishes a sculptural quality. At night, it is backlit, glowing like a lantern, making it a “minor landmark,” according to Lynch’s theory. The tower is one of the tallest reinforced concrete buildings in the U.S. Its structural system comprises a concrete core and outrigger system. The foundation consists of a three-meter (10-feet)-thick reinforced concrete mat (requiring approximately 5,000 yd3 (3,800 m3 ) of concrete) that rests on caissons. The tower’s cooling system uses Chicago River water and returns it into the river. Initially, the tower was planned

6.3 Sublime Edge

177

Fig. 6.18 The Trump International Hotel & Tower. Its extensive shimmering skin reflects the surrounding scenes, animated by the river, neighboring buildings, and the dramatic skies above. The snapshots captured on this curtainwall add a unique sense of place (Photograph by author)

178

6 The Chicago River

to be the tallest in the United States when was proposed in 2000. However, due to the 9/11 attacks, it was scaled down from 1,500-foot-tall (457-meter-tall) building to its current height (1,388 ft/423 m). A civic controversy emerged around placing the “TRUMP” sign. It was finally placed in 2014 with dimensions of 43 m (141 ft) by 6.1 m (20 ft), approximately 61 m (200 ft) above the ground level. The TRUMP sign can also be viewed as a “minor landmark” for wayfinding (Fig. 6.18). A distinctive feature of the Trump International Hotel & Tower is the way it meets the Chicago River. The Trump International Hotel & Tower’s base undulates to echo the river’s bend. The articulated base and cascading terraces improve the way the tower meets the river (Fig. 6.19).

6.3.2 330 North Wabash Immediately west of the Trump International Hotel & Tower, along North Wabash Avenue and across Wacker Drive is the 330 North Wabash (currently AMA Plaza and formerly IBM Building). Completed in 1972, the iconic 330 North Wabash Building was the tallest and last buildings that Ludwig Mies van der Rohe designed. The 52-story, 212 m (695 ft) tall tower features a brawny steel structure, prismatic massing, and sleek curtainwall, made of black anodized aluminum and bronzetinted glass, which collectively provide a unifying appearance to the building. 330 North Wabash follows a rectangular geometry that is replicated in various elements, including the fenestration, columns, and mullions, further unifying the building’s appearance. The building also features a typical Miesian lobby characterized by large glass panels, high ceilings, and high-quality marble, granite, and mosaic tiles (Curtis 1996). Overall, as the survey results indicated, the building’s impressive, monolithic form commands a strong presence, making it easily distinguishable within the city’s skyline (Fig. 6.20). Significantly, Mies set the building off the river with a spacious plaza in order to ensure maximum visibility of the neighboring Marina City.

6.3.3 Marina City Located directly west of 300 North Wabash across North State Street is the Marina City. Completed in 1964, this mixed-use building was revolutionary for its time because until then, Chicago had a restrictive zoning ordinance against combining residential, retail, and office space within the same building or complex. As such, Marina City offered a mixed-use scheme that comprises two 61-story residential towers (896 units), a 16-story “slab” office building, 19-story parking garages, and entertainment facilities that include a theater, bowling alley, swimming pool, health club, restaurant, and stores. Simulating a “city within a city,” the forward-thinking project architect, Bertrand Goldberg, envisioned facilitating the convenience of living, working, and entertaining all within walking distances. When the Marina City opened, eight

6.3 Sublime Edge

179

Fig. 6.19 The Trump International Hotel & Tower. Its recessed base embraces the river’s bend. The articulated base and cascading terraces improve the way the tower meets the river (Photograph by author)

180

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.20 Completed in 1972, the iconic 330 North Wabash Building was the tallest and last building that Ludwig Mies van der Rohe designed. The building’s impressive, monolithic form commands a strong presence, making it easily distinguishable within the city’s skyline (Photograph by author)

6.3 Sublime Edge

181

percent of its residents worked within the complex and 80% were within a walking distance to their work (Marjanovi´c 2010, p. 65). At the river level, the complex incorporates a small marina for pleasure craft, giving the complex its name while enlivening river activities. This mixed-use model was envisioned as a mechanism to curb the “white flight” by encouraging Chicagoans to stay in the city (Figs. 6.21 and 6.22). Composed of two corncob-shaped 61-story towers, the floor plans resemble the petals of a sunflower radiating from the central towers’ cores. A circular (32 ft (10 m) in diameter) hallway surrounds the elevator core and gives access to the 16 units arrayed around the hallway. Within each apartment, bathrooms and kitchens are located toward the inside of the building. At the same time, living spaces and bedrooms occupy the outermost areas of each unit and connect to balconies, thereby offering residents spectacular views of the downtown. Aesthetically, the circular floor plans with cantilevered semicircular balconies give the towers a graceful, “organic” look. Although the exposed concrete style adheres to a Brutalist expression, the “organic” design reflects Goldberg’s belief that architecture should echo nature. According to Goldberg, since nature has no right angles, architecture should have none. Accordingly, Marina City towers incorporate almost no interior or exterior right angles. As indicated by survey results, the two organic towers with their curvilinear balconies produce a dynamic spatial dialog. Interestingly, the organic appearance of the towers has inspired the design of many subsequent towers, including the 57-story Corinthian Tower in New York City, completed in 1988. Notably, the Marina City towers were the tallest residential buildings and tallest reinforced concrete structures in the world at the time of their completion in 1964 (Curtis 1996). The project was also the first high-rise residential complex in the United States, post-World War II, which stimulated residential renaissance in inner cities. In 1977, the towers were converted from rental apartments to condominiums, though they retained a small number of rental units. In addition to residential space, today, the complex contains the House of Blues concert hall (in the shell of the decommissioned movie theater), the Hotel Chicago (in the place of what was the office building), an upscale ten-pin bowling lounge, and four restaurants. Interestingly, after several decades of its construction, the Chicago Loop area is now one of the fastest-growing residential neighborhoods in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, fulfilling Goldberg’s vision of making Downtown Chicago a place to live, work, and play. Construction-wise, the modernist twin towers used a sophisticated concrete castin-place construction system as each rose to 61 stories, cantilevering the floor plates away from its central core. The construction process followed two significant phases: first, constructing the towers’ central cores to almost full height, and second, constructing the habitable apartment units around them one by one in an ascending order. These twin buildings were among the first worldwide to be built by using tower cranes. In 1965, the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects awarded the towers a prize in recognition of their innovative design and construction (Dupre 2008).

182

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.21 Marina City. The towers’ concrete materials and organic form make it one-of-a-kind, contributing to a unique sense of place (Photograph by author)

6.3 Sublime Edge

183

Fig. 6.22 Marina City. Mixed-use activities enliven the towers’ base and improve placemaking (Photograph by author)

184

6 The Chicago River

6.4 Elegant Edge Opposite to the earlier cluster (Sublime Edge), a stretch of iconic skyscrapers creates an outstanding edge (Fig. 6.23). Overlooking the Chicago River, these skyscrapers include LaSalle-Wacker Building, 77 West Wacker Drive, OneEleven Building, and Leo Burnett Building, among others. Similar to the case of the earlier cluster, these skyscrapers epitomize architectural eras, styles, and design philosophies. LaSalleWacker Building is an Art Deco design that proliferated in the city in the 1920s. The building features a tripartite structure, strong vertical lines, limestone cladding, and elegant stepbacks. Overall, the tower makes a pleasant contrast with its neighboring ultra-modern, all-glass OneEleven. In turn, OneEleven makes a beautiful contrast with the adjacent postmodern 77 West Wacker Drive building. A similar distinction occurs between 77 West Wacker and Leo Burnett Building. These buildings are detailed as follows.

6.4.1 LaSalle-Wacker Building Completed in 1930, this Art Deco building was constructed in the form of an H to optimize access to light and air while maximizing floor space. According to Saliga and Clarke, the LaSalle-Wacker Building is the third tallest building in Chicago with a courtyard, after the Board of Trade and the Civic Opera House (1998, p. 157). Chicago’s 1923 zoning ordinance required stepbacks when buildings reached 264 ft (80 m). As such, at the 23rd story, the tower steps back and rises another 18 floors, bringing the tower’s total floors to 41 and the overall height to 512 ft (156 m). When counting the tower’s beacon, the full height becomes 166 ft (51 m) (Fig. 6.24). Designed by Andrew N. Rebori (with Holabird & Roche), the tower was crafted into a muscular, throne-shaped design, and clad in limestone and granite. At night, the structure is upwardly lit, stressing its Art Deco stepbacks, and the top of the building features a cobalt lit by blue color. Notably, the night illumination design was proliferated in several significant buildings in the 1920s. Examples include the Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower, Jewelers Building, Palmolive Building, and Chicago Board of Trade Building. The tower is also known by its address (121 West Wacker Drive) and serves as an office building.

6.4.2 OneEleven Located immediately east of LaSalle-Wacker Building, OneEleven is a 58-story residential tower. Completed in 2014, the iconic tower mends a prominent physical gap on the riverfront, concluding the assemblage of one of the most exceptional architectural experiences on Wacker Drive. The sleek glass tower, with meandering

6.4 Elegant Edge

185

Fig. 6.23 This elegant alignment of iconic skyscrapers creates a beautiful edge. Among these are LaSalle-Wacker Building, 77 West Wacker Drive, OneEleven Building, and Leo Burnett Building (Photograph by author)

186

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.24 Designed by Andrew N. Rebori (with Holabird & Roche), the LaSalle-Wacker Building is an outstanding example of Art Deco style of skyscrapers that prevailed in the 1920s in Chicago (Photograph by author)

6.4 Elegant Edge

187

ribbons on the facades, provides a fresh look that enriches architectural diversity along the Chicago River. The tower rises to 187 m (613 ft), offering spectacular views of the river, lake, and cityscape. It contains 504 luxury units along with generous amenities and services. The building has four underground floors containing 470 total parking spaces, approximately 30,000 ft2 (2,800 m2 ) of amenity space, and 32,000 ft2 (3,000 m2 ) of retail space. Similar to the case of neighboring buildings, the tower offers a walk-to-work location near transport nodes, and a fine set of urban amenities, including restaurants, nightlife, and cultural attractions (Armistead 2015). According to the study results, the most striking features of OneEleven are the recessed glass ribbons that ascend and wrap around the building from the base to the penthouses. They symbolically refer to the meandering of the nearby Chicago River. Interestingly, in an attempt to further contextualize the tower, the ribbons create opportunities for green space and balconies that purposely line up with the neighboring buildings’ stepbacks. The resulting visual effect of the tower is stunning, evoking the image of a series of interlocking blocks hovering over the river. Kara Mann, the principal architect of the project, explains the profound design intent: “The intention was to give the building’s look a mix of glamor and grittiness, alongside soothing glimpses of nature with the Chicago River below and Lake Michigan to the east….There is a constant push and pull between urban and home, architecture and nature. These constant contrasts drove the overarching design and feeling we wanted to create” (Dyja 2014, p. 64). Overall, the employed contextual design gives the building its architectural signature and delivers a timeless presence on the Chicago River. The front entrance is adorned by Zahner artwork, comprising a layering of perforated metal depicting an abstract treescape, manufactured in painted aluminum plates (Fig. 6.25). The 35-foot (11-meter) ceiling lobby uses sumptuous materials, attractive lighting, and modern fixtures to create a dramatic and inviting entrance. OneEleven is packed with amenities supporting more than 500 residential apartments while stimulating the current trend toward ultra-luxury rental towers. OneEleven was designed as a retrofit for the abandoned Waterview Tower, an alternative name for the tower. It is also known by its street address, 111 West Wacker. The original shell building at 111 West Wacker consisted of 24 floors of the existing structure (concrete frame), plus four levels of below grade. The above grade existing structure was comprised of 10 levels of parking and 14 floors of podium apartments with mechanical and amenity spaces. The newly envisioned structure includes a new structural transfer floor at level 25 with an additional 30 floors of apartments above. Where the old and new sections of the building meet, there is a bilevel amenities space with 26-ft (8-m) ceilings and floor-to-ceiling windows, which includes an indoor pool that opens into a sprawling outdoor space, sun deck, fire pit, and kitchens. Named “the Club,” or “River Lounge,” the view from the amenity floor is among the city’s most dramatic (Al-Kodmany 2018). Indeed, OneEleven’s story highlights the City of Chicago’s resilience. Construction began on this structure in 2005, and due to the Great Recession, it halted in late 2007. Consequently, the partially constructed base of the original tower sat untouched for over 5 years. The building was originally slated to house a 90-story Shangri-La Hotel with luxury condominiums. In 2011, Related Fund Management

188

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.25 OneEleven Building. Its shimmering, reflective glass and sleek texture create an interesting visual dialog with the neighboring Art Deco LaSalle-Wacker Building. Note how the recessed ribbons that wrap around the building match the heights of adjacent building’s stepbacks (Photograph by author)

6.4 Elegant Edge

189

purchased the property from the original developers and held a competition to repurpose and reconfigure Waterview. New York-based architect Gary Handel won the competition. Handel, president of Handel Architects, has extensive experience in retrofitting buildings, e.g., the new stock exchange building in the Philippines, the Capitol Records complex in L.A., and the Ritz-Carlton Georgetown. This project teaches a useful lesson in how gifted individuals can see missed opportunities and assume challenging projects. In this regard, Mr. Handel stated: “We like the challenge of dealing with existing conditions. We love cities. Cities are about responding to an already-built condition, and moving forward. I’m not even sure I’d know what to do with a blank slate” (Armistead 2015). As such, developer Related assembled a specialized team including Handel Architects, Epstein (Architect of Record), Halvorson and Partners (Structural Engineers), Chicago-based Kara Mann Design (Interior Designers), and Lend Lease Construction Inc. to create a unique structure. Structural engineers conducted a study of the property that concluded that the existing structure was salvageable. In 2012, the new joint venture reconfigured the original Shangri-La Hotel design into a 60-story luxury rental tower to better suit the current real estate market. In January 2015, just about 6 months after its opening, developer Related sold the new $180 million project for $328 million to Heitman. “Creative thinking, engineering, and teamwork breathed new life into a stillborn skyscraper that fell victim to the financial downturn” (Armistead 2015). Raising the bar on price per square foot and lease-up velocity, OneEleven ultimately broke the record for multi-family building sales in Chicago. The building received multiple awards and recognitions including the Distinguished Building Award—AIA Chicago, and the ULI (Urban Land Institute) Chicago Vision Award. In a nutshell, the city managed to convert a one-time eyesore building into a jewel-like architectural landmark, stressing the city’s resiliency.

6.4.3 77 West Wacker Drive Located immediately east of OneEleven Building, 77 West Wacker Drive building rises to 204 m (668 ft). With a predominately silver-tinted glass skin, the 49-floor office building enjoys spectacular panoramic views of the river and surrounding skyscrapers. Underground walkways connect the building with the CTA subway and 203 North LaSalle Street, the transportation building immediately south of it. Completed in 1992, the almost one-million-square-foot (92,903 m2 ) building was designed by James DeStefano of the Chicago firm DeStefano + Partners. The wellknown Spanish architect Ricardo Bofill of Taller de Arquitectura of Barcelona, who designed Citadel Center a decade later, also in the Chicago Loop, served as a design consultant. The building’s architects took the classical column as a source of inspiration. Arched pediments over the doorways on Wacker Drive repeat the classical motif, and

190

6 The Chicago River

the building’s crown evokes a Greek temple. The building’s facades employ a silvergray reflective glass curtainwall and integrate detailing of Portuguese Royal whitegranite columns with dividers between the different floors. The four facades also have chamfered corners and arches extending to the multi-gabled roof. According to the study’s results, a reinterpretation of the classical column in this building created new aesthetic solutions to tall building architecture. That is, designing a building that resembled a column, stressed verticality, and provided a unified appearance (Fig. 6.26). The building’s base is sheathed in white granite; its shaft draws the eye skyward with long vertical pilasters, and its crown features arched windows and a pediment reminiscent of ancient Greek temples (Saliga and Clarke 1998). An intriguing spatial dialog emerges by integrating the classicism of stone architecture and the high-tech glass curtainwall. “The result is a façade that reveals a design of classical proportions which recalls Giotto’s campanile in Florence cathedral, divided into different levels linked by columns. A classically-proportioned temple crowns the top” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 67). Consequently, 77 West Wacker Drive exemplifies postmodernism or “modern classicism” architecture. Interior spaces are designed with a similar classical Greek style. The ground floor houses an 18-m (59-ft) high atrium with walls dressed in gray and white Thassos marble and a ceiling made of light color oak wood. The meticulously designed, whitish lobby is accentuated by a black granite reflecting pool and lush plantings of bamboo trees in a monumental space with 13-m (42-ft) ceiling. Several sculptures grace the lobby including a sculpture called “Three Lawyers and A Judge” by the internationally acclaimed Catalan sculptor, Xavier Corbero, and a large wall painting by the renowned Antoni Tapies. The lobby’s east end contains “Twisted Columns,” a sculpture by Ricardo Bofill. It consists of three twisted white stone columns, in a black granite reflecting pool, and lush plantings of bamboo trees. The lobby’s stonewalls are finely grooved, like a fluted classical column. The elevator cabs are woodpaneled with coffered barrel-vaulted ceilings. Collectively, this Greek-influenced glass skyscraper is one of Chicago’s postmodern masterpieces. Alternative names of the building include the RR Donnelley Building, when the RR Donnelley printing company was the primary tenant. In 2007, the building became the corporate headquarters of United Airlines, after it moved its headquarters offices from suburban Elk Grove Village, IL, to this building. Microsoft is a significant tenant, occupying multiple floors. While many skyscrapers lack a 13th story because of superstition, this one lacks a 49th floor to elevate the top occupied level to 50. The building contains 42 spaces of enclosed, heated parking for tenants on two levels, with direct access to Lower Wacker Drive. Also, it integrates a skybridge that connects to 1,200 parking spaces in a self-park facility at the 203 North LaSalle. Anchored on the Chicago River embankment at the corner of West Wacker Drive and North Clark Street, this landmark building is the winner of several property management, design, architectural, and engineering awards, including the Best Structure Award from the Structural Engineers Association of Illinois and the Chicago Lighting Institute Award of Merit to the lighting installation.

6.4 Elegant Edge

191

Fig. 6.26 77 West Wacker Drive. This postmodern building took the classical column as a source of inspiration. The tower’s shaft and crown evoke a classic Greek temple, a bold statement of place among neighboring buildings (Photograph by author)

192

6 The Chicago River

6.4.4 Leo Burnett Building Located east of 77 West Wacker Drive building across North Dearborn Street, Leo Burnett building rises to 194 m (635 ft). The 46-story office building enjoys exceptional air and light on all floors and breathtaking 360-degree views of the Chicago River, Lake Michigan, and the Chicago skyline. The building is headquarters to Leo Burnett, a global advertising agency, which occupied 28 floors of the building at the time of its completion in 1989. Kevin Roche-John Dinkeloo and Associates, and Shaw and Associates designed this over one-million-square-foot (92,903 m2 ) building. Also known by its street address 35 West Wacker, it is within walking distance from the Magnificent Mile, public transportation, highways, hotels, retails, and a wide range of amenities in the Chicago Loop. Further, the building is seamlessly connected to Chicago Pedway, a weather-protected pedestrian pathway that leads to transportation centers and prominent buildings including City Hall, State of Illinois Building, and the Daley Center. The study participants liked the way the building’s curtainwall exhibits a blend of modern and postmodern design, featuring green granite in three finishes, masonry, glass, steel, and concrete. Windows are divided by stainless steel bars of the classic “Chicago window” and also reflect light to brighten up a potentially dark building. In keeping with postmodernism, which exploits traditional architectural conventions, the Burnett Building revives Chicago’s turn-of-the-century commercial style. The structure displays a tripartite facade, comprising a base, a shaft, and a capital. The colonnade at the base is repeated on a smaller scale at the 15th floor, acknowledging its neighbor, 55 West Wacker (Fig. 6.27). The lobby is clad in Rosa Portugal marble and pine-green African granite.

6.5 Exotic Confluence According to the study results, one of the most spectacular clusters of skyscrapers in the city occurs at the Chicago River confluence, where the three branches of the river meet. Among these buildings are 333 West Wacker Drive, 225 West Wacker Drive, 191 North Wacker Drive, River Point, 150 North Riverside, Boeing International Headquarters, Residences at Riverbend, Merchandise Mart, and Wolf Point West. These buildings already create a dramatic spatial node (Fig. 6.28). When Wolf Point East (under construction) and the proposed Wolf Point South are completed, these towers will surely reinforce the imageability of this spatial node and redefine the river’s skyline. Likely, their collective iconic presence will complement their individual beauty. Remarkably, Boeing International Headquarters marks the beginning of the South Branch, and Residences at the Riverbend marks the beginning of the North Branch. The buildings that make this “Exotic Confluence” are described as follows.

6.5 Exotic Confluence

193

Fig. 6.27 Leo Burnett Building. The curtainwall exhibits a blend of modern and postmodern design that features green granite in three finishes, masonry, glass, steel, and concrete. Windows are divided by stainless steel bars creating the classic “Chicago window.” They also reflect light to brighten up a potentially dark building (Photograph by author)

194

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.28 A group of skyscrapers at the Chicago River confluence creates an imageable spatial cluster, evoking a strong sense of place. Noticeably, 333 West Wacker Drive’s clever design (middle) functions as a “joint landmark” that ties together the Main and South branches of the river (Photograph by author)

6.5 Exotic Confluence

195

6.5.1 333 West Wacker Drive From the sharp turn of the Chicago River at the northwest corner of the central business district, the building soars 148 m (487 ft) and stretches 111 m wide (365 ft wide), while curving along the river. The union of this building’s pronounced site and unique form creates a rare architectural drama. The 333 West Wacker Drive was the first building to be designed by famed New York firm, Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF). It is one of the few skyscrapers that the firm built at that time in a modern style; the subsequent ones mostly featured postmodern historicism style. Nevertheless, the building integrates some references to neo-Art Deco by applying striped marble that distinguishes the building’s base from the minimalist surfaces of the upper floors. The study results revealed that the curve of the building’s northwest facade complements the bend in the river, and the shades of green in the glass curtainwall reflect the green of the water below. As such, an important feature that intended to blend with the natural setting of the river is applying a green-tinted reflective glass façade, which harmonizes with the water and changes with the sky. While 333 West Wacker is always the same building, its skin that faces the river changes as the sun and clouds shift and morph throughout the day (Fig. 6.29). The Chicago Architecture Center reflects poetically on the building by stating, “Similar to another Chicago favorite, Millennium Park’s Cloud Gate sculpture, 333 West Wacker’s reflective facade compresses and stretches the skyline to the delight of onlookers.” Collectively, the resulting monolithic, slick, elegant, modern curtainwall is rather dynamic and eye-catching. The 36-story tower was completed in 1983. Contextually, the horizontal emphasis of the 333 Wacker Drive curtainwall stresses a deliberate visual contrast to the vertical lines of the Merchandise Mart of 1931 that sits at the opposite riverbank. The mullions almost disappear; their aluminum surfaces were tinted with a soft green color to match that of the glass skin. William Pedersen, the architect of the building, explained this aspect of the design, “With the bowed face and the acute corners, the front looks as if it is stretched. To accentuate that stretching, we developed the horizontal bullnoses at six-foot intervals to give a sense of that horizontal gripping of the building.” 333 West Wacker references Chicago in what Pedersen called a “collage of contextual references” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 255). The three-story marble and granite base is of great significance. It features distinctive arcades at both ends linking the river with the historic Chicago Loop. Octagonal columns of black granite and green marble trimmed in stainless steel frame the base. These columns echo the octagonal towers of the Merchandise Mart across the river. According to Pedersen, “The Vermont marble and polished granite at the base of 333 are totally different in texture than that sheer glass wall and much richer in detail. We hoped the base would echo the robustness of the Rookery, and the end arcades would relate to the Merchandise Mart” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 256). Therefore, the building’s design offers a modern interpretation of a base, shaft, and capital, following the concept of the skyscraper originated by Louis Sullivan and other architects of the nineteenth-century Chicago School. Notably, the building’s base

196

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.29 “Similar to another Chicago favorite, Millennium Park’s Cloud Gate sculpture, 333 West Wacker’s reflective facade compresses and stretches the skyline to the delight of onlookers” (Chicago Architecture Center) (Photograph by author)

6.5 Exotic Confluence

197

differs from the shaft by cladding the former with marble and integrating porthole windows with decorative details, while making the shaft out of elegant glass. The differentiation of the base from the office floors above is a result of a functional rationale as well: the base houses the building’s mechanical facilities. By the same token, the building’s capital is formed by making the penthouse rise out of the end notches, stepback from the building’s curve, forging a “signature on the sky—its skyscraper image,” as Pedersen explained (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 256). Just as the shapes of the base, shaft, and capital differ, so do the building’s two faces: the southeast façade that faces the Loop is very different from the northwest façade that faces the Chicago River (Saliga and Clarke 1998). While the taut curve of the river wall defies the city’s grid, the Loop facade, a truncated triangle, follows the line of the street. The building’s entrance, centered on the facade as precisely as any Beaux-Arts doorway. It is approached by a sweeping, semicircular flight of stairs from the corner of Lake and Franklin streets. The curving motif as repeated in the lobby spatially unites the building’s exterior and interior, and the marble and stainless steel fixtures give the lobby visual unity (Saliga and Clarke 1998). After the completion of the tower in 1983, the building quickly raised to fame. It became one of the most beloved buildings in the city, and later on, had a significant impact on the Chicago River architecture. The building’s distinctive character also stimulated the revival of Wacker Drive, a neighborhood that was bleak and dilapidated in the late 1970s. Overall, the building design achieves remarkable success by distinguishing the building from the many glass and steel boxes erected along the river in the previous two decades. The building was also famously featured in the cult classic film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” The American Institute of Architects gave the building an award in 1984, stressing its “sculptural elegance.” In this regard, David Greenspan explained, “333 Wacker Drive is a building of our time. It is a modern building. But its design challenges the reductivism impulses of Modernism. To borrow a political cliché from the late 60’s, it is working for change from within the system, rather than dropping out and joining the Postmodernists. It is a building of our time, and probably one that is timeless as well” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 256).

6.5.2 225 West Wacker Located immediately east of 333 West Wacker, 225 West Wacker Drive is a 28story, 132 m (433 ft) tall commercial office building. This architecturally prominent 648,811 ft2 (60,277 m2 ) tower sits on a full city block bordered by Post Place, Lake Street, Franklin Street, and Wacker Drive; and it has 107 ft (33 m) of frontage on Wacker Drive and 320 ft (98 m) along Franklin Street. As such, its offices enjoy abundant natural light and spectacular views of the surrounding, including the Chicago River. The tower is close to plenty of retail, dining, entertainment options, and it is within walking distance to CTA and Metra stations. The tower was completed in 1989 (Saliga and Clarke 1998).

198

6 The Chicago River

Again, designed by Kohn Pederson Fox (KPF), the building conforms squarely to the city grid and takes its cues from earlier classical masonry high-rises that line the Chicago River, including the Builders and Engineering buildings to the east and Merchandise Mart on the opposite riverbank. KPF’s postmodern design for the tower reinterprets the classical column. Its tripartite form features a two-story base, a central shaft, and a capital with four futuristic towers at the north and south ends of the building. A metal bridge that recalls the historic bridges that span the Chicago River ties each pair of towers together (Saliga and Clarke 1998) (Fig. 6.30). An additional contextual design reference was made by contrasting 225 West Wacker’s beige granite masonry cladding with the taut greenish glass skin of its neighboring 333 West Wacker. This design strategy was intentional, as stated by the architect of both buildings, William Pederson. The building’s design also celebrates the river with round porthole windows, which also echo that of 333 West Wacker. Finally, a three-story arcade at the base leads to the entrance on Wacker Drive and connects to Franklin Street. The lobby is clad in black, gray, green, and white marble. The building integrates a seven-level parking garage accessible from Post Place and Franklin Street. Collectively, 225 West Wacker Drive bears out architecture historian Robert A. M. Stern’s dictum that “classicism is the new modernism” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 199).

6.5.3 191 North Wacker Drive Located immediately southwest of 333 West Wacker Drive, 191 North Wacker Drive was also designed by architect William Pederson of Kohn Pedersen Fox in collaboration with Perkins & Will. These two buildings present a contrast in architectural style: 191 North Wacker Drive offers a neutral design by dressing in a plain, reflective glass. According to the study results, this “quiet” building establishes a peaceful relationship with its neighboring 333 West Wacker Drive and makes minimum disturbance to its architectural elegance and contextual references. It also makes a pleasant contrast with the 1912 Great Lakes Building, located across North Upper Wacker Drive. Nevertheless, 191 North Wacker pays homage to its location by reflecting its surroundings in blue-tinted glass (Fig. 6.31). The tower was completed in 2002.

6.5.4 River Point Across the river from 333 West Wacker is the recently completed River Point. Designed by New Haven, CT, Pickard Chilton Architects and completed in 2017, the 52-story River Point is a new, dramatic landmark addition to the City of Chicago. The tower’s striking image is created by a sleekly sculpted form and a shimmering convex façade featuring an exuberant, silver-blue curving glass wall that creates a robust spatial kinship with its neighboring building, 333 W. Wacker Drive, which

6.5 Exotic Confluence

199

Fig. 6.30 KPF’s postmodern design for the tower reinterprets the classical column. Its tripartite form features a two-story base, a central shaft, and a capital with four futuristic towers at the cardinal points of the building. Overall, the tower’s design displays architectural integrity, promoting a sense of place. A metal bridge that recalls the historic bridges that span the Chicago River ties each pair of towers together (Photograph by author)

200

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.31 191 North Wacker (right). This “quiet” building sits peacefully alongside its neighbor, 333 West Wacker (left) and makes minimal visual disturbance to the elegant context (Photograph by author)

6.5 Exotic Confluence

201

also features a tremendous curving green glass curtainwall, explained earlier. Both towers now exquisitely mark the river confluence. As such, River Point joins with 333 to form a double-curved gateway to the river’s south and north branches. The convex façade features a tall, tilted parabolic arch at its base, which is echoed by a shallower arch at the tower’s top. The arch at the base is structural: the whole façade and columns tilt due to the active Amtrak and Metra railroad tracks and subway portion of the CTA Blue Line underneath. However, the arch at the top is decorative. Interestingly, as the study results indicated, the location of the tower allows it to serve as a visual terminus to the river’s Main Branch. Overall, River Point evokes a memorable architectural statement, an unmistakable iconic masterpiece (Fig. 6.32). The name of the tower, “River Point,” is derived from the location, which marks the point where the three branches of the river meet. Regarding interior spaces, the tower’s curved glass curtainwall not only maximizes natural light but it also maximizes views outward. As such, the 223 m (732 ft) tall tower offers extraordinary panoramic views of the river, Wacker Drive, the bustling downtown, Lake Michigan, and the Chicago Skyline. The 1,100,000-squarefoot (102,193-m2 ) building offers 25,000-square-foot (2,323-m2 ), column-free floor plates, increasing efficiency and space planning flexibility. The curtainwall shields tenants from the disturbing noise of the “L” passing trains on elevated tracks over the neighboring Lake Street by integrating triple-layered glass. At the tower’s base, a three-story, gorgeous lobby integrates ultra-transparent, lowiron glass. The western façade of the lobby communicates a particular pleasing visual: precisely by its angled glass wall, framed by the parabolic arch, which mirrors distant urban scenes as well as nearby river activities. In this regard, Blair Kamin explains: “In a wonderful and unanticipated touch, the angle creates a mirror effect, reflecting the river’s shimmering water and boats skimming across it. Even the tower’s chief designers, Pickard Chilton’s Anthony Markese and Jon Pickard, admit they didn’t expect that” (Kamin 2016). The main lobby at the plaza level is enriched by travertine walls, a subtly lit scalloped ceiling, and a sense of expansiveness created by the angled low-iron glass. At night, the lobby glows like a jewel on the river, adding an aesthetic touch to the building. In terms of functionality, the “bulky” parabolic arch serves as a gutter that funnels rainwater away from the building’s main entrance. The lobby opens into a one-and-a-half-acre, expansive, terraced plaza connected to a landscaped Riverwalk. Designed by landscape architects of The Office of James Burnett, these publicly accessible spaces are provided partially to fulfill requirements by the City of Chicago. Sitting 35 ft (11 m) above the river in one of the most dramatic vistas in the city, the plaza offers spectacular, sweeping views of the river and the skyscraper canyon along with it. The new inviting civic space integrates water features, seating areas, ramps, plants, trees, and lawn, and provides a welcome amenity for the West Loop neighborhood and the public at large. Interestingly, a curving pedestrian path echoed on the façade’s parabolic arch, is imprinted on the plaza, forming a central event lawn, facing the water. The pathways lead to botanical gardens, several courtyards using decomposed granite, and a large

202

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.32 Acknowledging its neighboring building 333 West Wacker, River Point’s sleek, sculpted form, creates a striking image. Its shimmering convex façade adds a remarkable new landmark for Chicago to enjoy (Photograph by author)

6.5 Exotic Confluence

203

entry plaza. Covered restaurant terraces reach out into the park above the native garden, where a series of artistic sound walls soften train noise from the Amtrak line. The plaza also connects seamlessly to the Chicago Riverwalk by integrating a 560foot-long (171-m) walkway along the river. River Point’s plaza and the landscaped Riverwalk offer much-needed open space and spectacular views of the skyscraperlined waterfront. Ample seating encourages people to use the plaza, as does a ramp that leads to the plaza from Lake Street. Other amenities of the building include a 150-car garage, retail, fine dining restaurant, fitness center, and building conference center.

6.5.5 150 North Riverside Located immediately south of River Point, 150 North Riverside is a new landmark skyscraper in the City of Chicago. The tower’s sleek, light skin resembles that of River Point. Besides, both towers feature similar heights and faced similar structural problems; collectively, they were perceived as “sister towers.” 150 North Riverside sits on a site that has been empty for almost 80 years because of active railroad tracks that run through it. “The tracks, combined with city easement and Riverwalk requirements, absorbed more than 75% of the property, leaving a buildable site that measured only 39 feet wide [12-m]” (Chicago Architecture Center). In 2012, Riverside Investment and Development purchased the land and teamed with Goettsch Partners and Magnusson Klemencic Associates (MKA) to construct a 1.5-millionsquare-foot (139,355 m2 ) tower. These two firms brought together complementary talents and have previously worked on challenging projects (e.g., 111 South Wacker Drive). Upon completion in 2017, the 54-story 150 North Riverside skyscraper has become one of the most recognizable buildings in the city. Because of the small footprint imposed on the building, architects and engineers had to invent a solution for building the tower. Contrary to the common practice of building a skyscraper, which usually features a broad base and narrower shaft and top to respond effectively to wind and gravity forces, 150 North Riverside reverses this order by embracing a narrow bottom that widens at the upper floors. That is, the tower rises out of a small footprint, and then it slopes outward at an angle for the first eight stories, reaching the full width of the site. Finally, the tower rises to the top of the building with sleek facades that reflect the river and surrounding buildings (Fig. 6.33). Structurally, the footprint occupies a robust reinforced concrete core with mega columns at the north and south sides, able to support the weight of 26 fully loaded and fully fueled 747 jets. In addition to housing vertical circulation, the core bears the peripheral structural loads, which are transferred through diagonal giant steel trusses. Construction workers tied together large floating barges to stabilize a two-million-pound crane that lifted the giant steel trusses (Chicago Architecture Center). The employed inventive structural system enabled the building to splay out from 39 ft/12 m (at the base) to 120 ft/37 m (at the far end). The resulting angled cantilever

204

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.33 150 North Riverside. This handsome tower, seemingly precariously perched on its site, lends a new landmark to both the skyline and streetscape (Photograph by author)

6.5 Exotic Confluence

205

is most appreciated at the eastern façade that overlooks the Chicago River—from the river’s level, the building seems to reach out and “hugs” viewers. Boat riders can view their reflections on this slanted facade. Given Chicago’s swampy soil, engineers had to drill caissons more than 110 ft/344 m below grade level and sink five feet into the bedrock to provide a stable foundation. Further, due to the tower’s slender profile, problems of sway and vibration due to wind were severe. The slenderness ratio of the building (the building’s height relative to width) is 20:1. The average skyscraper ratio is 12:1. Wind tunnel tests revealed that the building acted as a sail against the southwest summer winds, which tended to push it toward the river. In response, engineers placed 12 “tuned liquid sloshing dampers”—that hold 200,000 gallons (757,082 L) of water at the building’s top to dampen and reduce the building’s sway. At the lobby level, the western façade comprises a 110-ft (34-m) tall cable net-wall of glass that blurs the boundaries between interior and exterior spaces. The lobby is adorned with a massive LED display showcasing ever-changing artwork. A full-time creative director/curator was hired to engage Chicago artists and teachers to project their artwork on this sizeable digital display. Outside, a landscaped park and riverfront promenade hides parking and provides green space for tenants and passersby. Vertical metal fins were placed on the building’s exterior to help in shading the building. Overall, both towers (150 North Riverside and neighboring River Point) transformed challenging sites that marred the riverfront with unsightly, exposed railroad tracks into lively state-of-the-art places. Both projects required extreme engineering. Instead of a deserted lot, 150 North Riverside is a “grand statement of optimism, strength, and power,” according to former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (Chicago Architecture Center). Anthony Markese of Pickard Chilton explained, “the location not only posed the considerable logistical challenge of constructing a skyscraper immediately adjacent to operating train tracks, but guided how the building would eventually look” (Chicago Architecture Center).

6.5.6 Boeing International Headquarters Located immediately south of 150 North Riverside across West Randolph Street, Boeing International Headquarters faced similar construction challenges where some of the structural members needed to support the building would land right in the middle of active rail tracks. In response, engineers created an innovative skeletal system that uses steel trusses to “hold the building in the air,” providing space for the Amtrak and Metra railroad tracks beneath it. According to the study results, the building’s design synthesizes several movements of modern architecture, including Prairie School, International Style, Futurism, and High Modernism. The building blends simple Modernist glasswork, steel, gray granite, aluminum in a modernized “cathedral architectural” style, giving it a subtle decorative appearance, a hallmark of Postmodernism (Fig. 6.34). Ralph Johnson of Perkins and Will designed this iconic 36-story, 171 m (560 ft) commercial office tower. The building was completed in 1990.

206

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.34 Boeing Headquarters. A powerful landmark along the river, the building’s design blends simple Modernist glasswork, steel, gray granite, and aluminum in a revival of the “cathedral architectural” style. The subtle decorative elements are a hallmark of Postmodernism (Photograph by author)

6.5 Exotic Confluence

207

An exciting feature of the building is a clock tower on the east side. It is the second highest clock tower in the US after that of the Metropolitan Life Tower in New York. Two promenades run along the east side of the building: one at the building’s main level and the other at the river’s level. Another notable design is seen in the lobby, which is landscaped with a Japanese garden integrating combed pebbles and bamboo groves. The building’s south wing houses a major computer facility for the local telecommunications carrier and a 6-level parking garage. In 1993, the American Institute of Architects presented the building’s architects with an Honor Award (Bosch 2008). Formerly, the building was known as the Morton International Building, the company that commissioned the construction. However, in 2001, a $50-million incentive package, provided by special state legislation, encouraged Boeing to move its headquarters from Seattle, home for almost 100 years, to Chicago. From 1913 to 1920, the 18-story Butler Brothers Warehouse II stood on the same site. The building is colloquially known as the Boeing Building, referring to the American aerospace company, the world’s largest (Bosch 2008).

6.5.7 Residences at Riverbend Also known as Riverbend Condominiums, Residences at Riverbend is located immediately north of River Point. The building was designed by DeSterono and Partners and completed in 2002. According to the study participants, the most notable feature of this building is its eastern façade that slightly bends with the river’s graceful arc. Working with a shallow lot, architect Robert Bistry placed a corridor that runs along the west side of the building, providing access to residential units while facilitating panoramic views to outdoor. All residential units face eastward to enjoy the river views. The lowest levels are townhouses, while the seven-story valet-serviced parking garage is placed above. Freight elevators lift cars into the garage because the building is too narrow to accommodate a ramp. A spacious sidewalk that runs along the riverside of the property is intended to connect eventually with the Chicago River pedestrian network (Bosch 2008).

6.5.8 Wolf Point West Located east of Residences at Riverbend across the river, Wolf Point West sits on historic Wolf Point site; the building’s name is indicative of location. Wolf Point West is part of a multi-phase complex consisting of three towers. The other two towers are Wolf Point East (nearing completion) and Wolf Point South (proposed). The 48-story Wolf Point West rises to 148 m (485 ft) and offers 509 residential apartments and 180 parking spaces fully concealed in an underground parking structure. Designed by bKL Architecture and completed in 2016, the building has a sleek appearance.

208

6 The Chicago River

However, its facades’ design echoes that of the neighboring Residences at Riverbend by integrating horizontal bands and balconies of similar size and shape (Bosch 2008).

6.5.9 Merchandise Mart The mammoth Merchandise Mart continues to be one of the most significant commercial buildings worldwide. When completed in 1930, this almost four-million-squarefoot (371,612 m2 ) building, covering the equivalent of two-and-a-half city blocks, was the world’s largest. The idea of this enormous building was to centralize Merchandise Mart’s wholesale merchandising that was, at the time, scattered in at least 13 different Chicago warehouses; consequently, uniting the sales of furniture, fabric, and other decorative materials under one roof. The Great Depression, however, forced it out of the wholesale market, and the $32 million building stood half-empty until Joseph P. Kennedy purchased it in 1945 for one-half of its original cost (Bosch 2008). The Kennedy family held onto the property for more than three decades and sold the building in 1998 to Vornado Realty Trust, who “green” retrofitted the building; and subsequently, earned LEED Gold certification. Currently, the building continues to be a designer showcase, and a good portion of it is leased by technological innovation companies. Merchandise Mart is also renowned for being one of the first to be built over railway air rights. It was also constructed over the tunnels that were used to move ashes to the lakefront; ashes created a landfill at Grant Park after the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. Due to its massive footprint and significant height, the building enjoys a commanding presence on the north bank of the Main Branch of the Chicago River. Designed by Alfred P. Shaw of the architecture firm Graham, Anderson, Probst and White, the 25-story Merchandise Mart embraces an Art Deco style epitomizing an architectural trend that proliferated throughout Chicago in the 1920s. Mr. Shaw utilized a steel-framed structure and clad the building in limestone, terra cotta, and bronze. He also adorned the building with ornamentation of the style’s popular motifs, e.g., rows of decorative chevrons (zigzags) and diagonal towers. Besides, he employed recessed vertical windows with dark spandrels to balance out the building’s horizontal mass. The entry lobby features murals by Jules Guerin, the illustrator of 1909 Plan of Chicago by Daniel Burnham and Edward H. Bennet. In 1953, Mr. Kennedy created the Merchant’s Hall of Fame along the river esplanade to commemorate remarkable American merchants. These bronze busts include Marshall Field, Edward Albert Filene, George Huntington Hartford, Julius Rosenwald, John Wanamaker, Aaron Montgomery Ward, Franklin Winfield Woolworth, and Robert Elkington Wood (Saliga and Clarke 1998).

6.6 Welcoming Gateway

209

6.6 Welcoming Gateway Looking at Lakeshore East’s numerous construction projects, one can hardly imagine this location as a former landfill. The development’s motto—“Where the river meets the lake”—would not have been a selling point for a residential community in the early 1900s, given the poor conditions of the river. Since these conditions have been improved significantly over the years, today, many families enjoy living near the river, in buildings that take design cues from the natural setting. A cluster of outstanding buildings along the river’s mouth creates a “Welcoming Gateway” to the city (Fig. 6.2).

6.6.1 River View I and II River View I is a 27-story, 98 m (321 ft) building that was completed in 2000, and River View II is a 32-story, 122 m (399 ft) building that was completed in 2004. Both towers provide residential condominiums and were designed by DeStefano & Partners. They are among the most colorful residential buildings in Downtown Chicago. The study participants like how these towers incorporate a combination of traditional and modern architectural elements, including Alucobond Plus material, red bricks, green metal, highly polished aluminum, white concrete, and limestone. River View I integrates a cornice that is decorated with a projecting crown, while River View II features porthole windows and a lobe with a rounded end at the southwest corner. The towers’ bases have integrated several four-story townhouses made of brick and limestone. Not only do these townhouses cover up the building’s parking garage located north, but they also mediate a smooth transition between the towers and the river. By providing a pleasant human-scale aesthetic for pedestrian traffic along the River Esplanade, River View I and II improve the visual experience for both residents and visitors (Bosch 2008) (Fig. 6.35).

6.6.2 The Regatta and the Chandler The Regatta is a 45-story, 146 m (480 ft) high-rise building, and the Chandler is a 36-story, 118 m (389 ft) high-rise building. These residential towers were completed in 2007 and 2008, respectively, and were designed by DeStefano & Partners. Study participants expressed appreciation of the buildings’ design, which feature tinted glass, curving balconies, and green spaces that harmonize with the natural setting provided by the Chicago River and Lake Michigan. Such design touches distinguish the Lakeshore East buildings from the modernist skyscraper of the Illinois Center and postmodernist NBC Tower built immediately across the river (Fig. 6.36).

210

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.35 River View I and II (right and left). These “sibling” buildings are among the most colorful residential buildings in Downtown Chicago, making them stand out from the rest of the iconic buildings along the river (Photograph by author)

6.6 Welcoming Gateway

211

Fig. 6.36 The Regatta building (right) and The Chandler building (left). These “sibling” buildings feature tinted glass, curving balconies, and green spaces, drawing on the natural setting provided by the Chicago River and Lake Michigan (Photograph by author)

212

6 The Chicago River

According to the study results, the Regatta and The Chandler, River View I and II, and neighboring residential towers create a coherent “Welcoming Gateway.”

6.6.3 The NBC Tower Located along the north bank of the Main Branch of the Chicago River, the 37story NBC Tower houses NBC’s Chicago offices, studios, and owned-and-operated television station WMAQ-TV. Completed in 1989 and designed by Adrian Smith during his tenure at SOM, the 191 m (627 ft) tower embraces the Art Deco style by integrating strong vertical lines and clear-tiered stepbacks. The office tower takes cues from its neighboring Art Deco masterpiece, the Chicago Tribune Tower, as well as the Raymond Hood’s classic Art Deco RCA Tower at the heart of New York’s Rockefeller Plaza, which functions as NBC’s global headquarters. For designing the tower, Adrian Smith also conducted an in-depth study of other Art Deco buildings in Chicago, including the LondonHouse Building, 333 North Michigan Avenue, and Palmolive buildings. As such, he attempted in his research to capture the shared essence and some of the details of tall buildings that feature Art Deco style. The goal was to produce an innovative design with its own contemporary expression, rather than a pastiche design that imitates earlier style. Indeed, the resulting NBC building features a cheerful, innovative tower “whose image is clear, calm, serious, but almost subliminally a touch rakish” (Gapp 1989). Specific historic references are seen in the building’s crown, flying buttresses, modules, punched windows, light brown color, exterior limestone, granite spandrels, and recessed tinted glass (Fig. 6.37). The tower’s design honors Chicago’s 1923 Zoning Ordinance, establishing the first stepback at 264 ft (80 m), marking the height of other historic buildings along the river. Furthermore, the tower’s second stepback—at the 20th floor—mirrors that of the nearby Tribune Tower. The recessed profile yields various floor sizes (ranging from 29,670 ft2 /2,756 m2 at the widest part of the tower to 14,920 ft2 /1,386 m2 at the penthouse level), enhancing the building’s marketability. The bowed center section of the NBC tower’s west facade handsomely runs its full height. It is topped with a 40 m (130 ft) spire, strengthening the imageability of the tower and giving the nod to Michigan Avenue. In contrast to the west side, resembling a “cliff,” the tower’s east side features a delicate stepping profile. Alternate use of limestone piers, recessed double-glazed bronze glass, and coated precast panels that resemble terra cotta give the facade both depth and vertical expressions. The building’s base employs a darker color scheme, featuring black, gray, and green granite, which is further improved by intricate, polished bronze latticework defining entrances on the east and west sides. The NBC peacock logo decorates the building’s crown and entrance. The total area of the complex is approximately 896,770 ft2 (83,312 m2 ). Connected to the main tower is a four-story radio and television broadcasting facility where popular shows are taped. A three-floor underground parking garage with 261 spaces serves the building.

6.6 Welcoming Gateway

213

Fig. 6.37 The NBC Tower is “the best-looking masonry-clad skyscraper constructed in Chicago since the 1930s. Its crisp, shimmering, and mesmerizing presence on the skyline is a triumph of good taste, skillful detailing and mature respect for architectural history that sidesteps the tiresome cosmetics of Postmodernism” (Gapp 1989) (Photograph by author)

214

6 The Chicago River

Overall, the study results agree with Emporis’ assessment (Emporis is a popular website dedicated to cataloging skyscraper statistics) that the NBC Tower is “one of the truest reproductions of the Art Deco style in any Postmodern skyscraper” (https:// www.emporis.com/). Similarly, the Chicago Tribune’s architecture critic Paul Gapp described it as “the best-looking masonry-clad skyscraper constructed in Chicago since the 1930s. Its crisp, shimmering, almost mesmerizing presence on the skyline is a triumph of good taste, skillful detailing and mature respect for architectural history that sidesteps the tiresome cosmetics of Postmodernism” (Gapp 1989). Indeed, the tower successfully blends historic motifs with contemporary touches. Paul Gapp explained this concept by stating, “The magic of the NBC office tower is that it recalls and directly reflects much of the best Art Moderne architecture done in the years between the two world wars while maintaining its own distinct character and place in time. Its ancestral lineage is proclaimed, yet this is clearly a building in the spirit of 1989” (Gapp 1989). Gapp further explained, “No matter what lies ahead, however, the crisply delivered perfection of the NBC Building will always be counted as one of Chicago’s strongest late 20th-century design performances. It marks Adrian Smith unmistakably as one of the nation’s most important designers, and underscores the fact that Skidmore, Owings and Merrill remains a formidable force in American architecture” (Gapp 1989). The NBC Tower was the first building to be constructed in the Cityfront Center, a multi-phase, 50-acre (20-ha) development, connecting Chicago’s Near North Side with the Loop. Conceived by Alex Cooper of SOM, it was framed by a desire to benefit business tenants, residents, and pedestrians alike. The NBC Tower’s exceptional design played an important role in demonstrating the physical guidelines for the entire development manifested in height, density, stepbacks, and relationship to the streets surrounding the tower. The tower thoughtfully integrates within the historic 1920s Michigan Avenue Bridge District, an area highlighted by the Wrigley Building, 333 North Michigan, LondonHouse Building, the Tribune Tower, and Pioneer Court.

6.6.4 Swissotel Located along the south bank of the Main Branch of the Chicago River, opposite of the NBC Tower, Swissotel rises to 139 m (457 ft). Designed by Chicago architect Harry Weese (1915–1998), the 43-story building embraces a triangular form, which was attractive to the study participants. As it is widely known, the angular profile is evident in Weese’s several buildings including the Metropolitan Correctional Center (1975), 200 South Wacker Drive (1981), and the visionary plans for the New Eastside area. It is narrated that the triangular shape reflects Mr. Weese’s passion for sail. Strategically located, the triangular shape of the Swissotel offers unobstructed panoramic views of the Chicago River, Lake Michigan, Navy Pier, and Millennium Park, which are within walking distance. Dressed with reflective, sleek all-glass skin

6.6 Welcoming Gateway

215

that integrates alternating horizontal bands of light gray non-reflective glass, Swissotel enjoys extraordinary modern facades that contrast well with the postmodern NBC building located across the river, as the study participants pointed out. The building’s core, vertical circulation, and services are placed in the center, allowing all hotel rooms at the perimeter to enjoy maximum views of the spectacular surrounding. Among the most prominent neighboring buildings are the Aqua Tower (2009), Three Illinois Center (1972), and Aon Center (1973). Indeed, the lighter color triangular building contrasts sharply with the neighboring dark Three Illinois Center built according to the International Style (Fig. 6.38). However, Swissotel’s unique shape makes it stand out from the rest of the neighboring buildings. Located at 323 East Wacker Drive, the iconic, late-modernist style Swissotel was completed in 1989. In 2012, the building’s lobby was renovated with décor inspired by Swiss elegance and contemporary European style.

6.6.5 Illinois Center The Illinois Center (IC) is a 30-year master plan set by the Office of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. The program intended to develop an 83-acre (34-ha) site into a multiuse, tri-level city-within-a-city project. The site is bordered by Randolph Street, Michigan Avenue, the Chicago River, and Lake Shore Drive. The outcome of the project was a complex that comprises three buildings: One Illinois Center, Two Illinois Center, and Three Illinois Center, completed in 1970, 1972, and 1979, respectively. One Illinois Center is a 30-story, 110 m (362 ft) commercial office high-rise building; Two Illinois Center is a 32-story, 114 m (375 ft) commercial office high-rise building; and Three Illinois Center is a 28-story, 106 m (350 ft) commercial office highrise building. While Ludwig Mies van der Rohe designed One Illinois Center, the other two buildings were designed by Fujikawa Johnson & Associates following the Miesian architectural style. One Illinois Center and Three Illinois Center are located along the south bank of the Main Branch of the Chicago River, and Two Illinois Center is situated in the same neighborhood but right on Michigan Avenue.

6.6.6 Lake Point Tower Placed west of the Navy Pier, the isolated location and distinct form of the Lake Point Tower demand attention, as study participants indicated. Completed in 1968, the building follows the International Style and was designed by the architectural firm Schipporeit & Heinrich. The building’s architects based their design on a 1921 sketch made by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe—their former teacher and employer. Instead of the four wings called for by Mies’s design, the architects gave the structure a Y shape to provide better views and ventilation while reducing the impact of the wind on the building. Overall, the architects gave this residential building a unique clover shape

216

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.38 Strategically located along the river, the triangular shape of the Swissotel offers unobstructed panoramic views of the Chicago River, Lake Michigan, Navy Pier, and Millennium Park (Photograph by author)

6.6 Welcoming Gateway

217

to deflect strong lake winds more easily around the building’s perimeter, thereby mitigating their direct effects on the structure (Al-Kodmany 2017) (Fig. 6.39). At the time of construction, Lake Point Tower’s location was controversial. In 1836, Chicago’s founding fathers had decreed that the city’s lakefront was to be “public ground—a common to remain forever open, clear, and free of any buildings, or other obstruction whatever” (Encyclopedia of Chicago). This dictum was not strictly observed. In 1964, the city planning department reaffirmed the need to protect the lakefront from development, with the exception of land on both sides of the river’s mouth—most of which was owned by Chicago Dock and Canal Trust (CDCT). The exception was meant to encourage improved harbor and terminal facilities rather than residential development. Interestingly, during that same year, CDCT leased its land to a Texas-based company that began to erect this tall building. Subsequently, the planning commission closed the loophole with an amendment that banned multistory buildings from the water’s edge. However, it was too late to halt the construction of Lake Point Tower.

6.7 Summary The Chicago River offers a profound introduction to the city’s splendid history and architecture. Skyscrapers are organized along its banks in an appealing manner, creating vivid edges, influential nodes, and exotic pathways. The study identified unique places along the river, including a “Sublime Edge,” “Elegant Edge,” “Exotic Confluence,” and “Welcoming Gateway.” Interestingly, each building speaks to a unique story, collectively narrating the city’s evolution and challenges. It is no wonder that the Chicago River Tour is among the most popular in America. Therefore, the river continues to attract tourists from all over the world. Augmented with rich history and design talents, the river continues to inspire designers, architects, artists, and entrepreneurs. Its natural beauty is complemented, engaged, and leveraged by carefully conceived views, vistas, and the public places between Chicago’s iconic riverside buildings. Overall, the Chicago River is a marvelous example of placemaking.

218

6 The Chicago River

Fig. 6.39 Lake Point Tower (1968). The building’s architects based their design on a 1921 sketch made by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, their former teacher and employer. Instead of the four wings called for by Mies’s design, the architects gave the structure a Y shape to provide better views and ventilation while reducing the impact of the wind on the building. The resulting form, twinned with an ultra-unique location, makes it a significant landmark (Photograph by author)

References

219

References Al-Kodmany K (2018) The Vertical City: a sustainable development model. WIT Press, Southampton Al-Kodmany K (2017) Understanding tall buildings. Routledge, London Al-Kodmany K, Ali MM (2013) The future of the city: tall buildings and urban design. WIT Press, Southampton Armistead TF (2015) Project of the year and best project residential/hospitality: OneEleven, ENRMidwest, November 16. https://www.enr.com/articles/37897-project-of-the-year-and-bestproject-residentialhospitality-oneeleven. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Baker W, James P, Tomlinson R, Weiss T (2009) Case study: Trump International Hotel and Tower. CTBUH J 3:16–22 Bosch J (2008) A view from the river: The Chicago Architecture Foundation River Cruise. Pomegranate Communications, Portland, OR Chicago Architecture Center, 333 WEST WACKER. http://www.architecture.org/learn/resources/ buildings-of-chicago/building/333-west-wacker/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Chicago Architecture Center, 150 North Riverside. http://www.architecture.org/learn/resources/bui ldings-of-chicago/building/150-north-riverside/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Chicago Architecture Center, Chicago Building Boom. http://www.architecture.org/news/evolvingchicago/chicago-river-building-boom/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Curtis W (1996) Modern architecture since 1900. Phaidon Press, London Dupre J (2008) Skyscrapers: a history of the World’s most extraordinary buildings. Blackdog and Leventhal Publishers, NYC Dyja TL (2014) The third Coast: when Chicago built the American dream. Penguin, NYC Encyclopedia of Chicago, Map of Chicago and Additions (1863). http://www.encyclopedia.chicag ohistory.org/pages/10636.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Gapp P (1989) NBC’s 40-Story Peacock, Chicago Tribune, April 23. https://www.chicagotribune. com/news/ct-xpm-1989-04-23-8904060535-story.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Hunt B, DeVries JB (2017) Planning Chicago. Routledge, London Johnson EW (2006) Chicago metropolis 2020: the Chicago plan for the twenty-first century. The University of Chicago Press Chicago, Chicago, IL Kamin B (2001) Why architecture matters: lessons from Chicago. The University of Chicago press, Chicago, IL Kamin B (2016) Curvy new skyscraper reflects river and rising design ambition, Chicago Tribune, December 16. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-river-point-kaminmet-1218-20161216-story.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Marjanovi´c I, Rüedi K (2010) Marina City: Bertrand Goldberg’s urban vision. Princeton Architectural Press, NYC Miller DL (1996) City of the century: the epic of Chicago and the making of America. Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, NYC Saliga PA, Clarke JH (1998) The sky’s the limit: a century of skyscrapers in Chicago. Rizzoli, NYC Schulze F, Harrington K (2003) Chicago’s famous buildings. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Smith CS (2006) The plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the remaking of the American City. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

Chapter 7

The Magnificent Mile

Abstract This chapter examines the Magnificent Mile, one of the most popular commercial places in North America. The chapter first offers a brief history of its development and the factors that made it significant. Visual and spatial analysis indicates that tall buildings along this vital path create two remarkable clusters, the “Grand Gateway” and the “City’s Signature.” Near the intersection of the Chicago River with Michigan Avenue, an outstanding group of tall buildings forms one of the most elegant urban spaces in the city. Similarly, a group of tall buildings near the historic Chicago Water Tower forges a unique place. In both cases, tall buildings exhibit authentic architectural styles and exceptional spatial compositions, which collectively evoke a strong sense of place and identity. Overall, a provocative spatial mosaic of vibrant public plazas, vital commercial activities, and iconic buildings along the Magnificent Mile contribute to splendid placemaking.

7.1 Introduction The Magnificent Mile is the realization of a lofty vision for creating the “world’s greatest thoroughfare” (Smith 2006). It is an upscale section of Chicago’s Michigan Avenue, running from the Chicago River to Oak Street on the Near North Side, spanning 13 city blocks. Known as Pine Street before World War I, it gained prominence over a century ago as the connector street between the affluent Gold Coast and the Chicago Loop. In the late nineteenth century, the Loop became an undesirable place filled with noise, smoke, and congestion. Simultaneously, the land north of the river appeared to be remarkably promising and positively Edenic in comparison (Dyja 2014). In the early 1900s, the need to widen North Michigan Avenue and to construct a bridge that connects the south and north parts of the city became apparent. This need was underscored by Burnham and Bennett’s Plan of Chicago in 1909, which envisioned the northern extension of Michigan Avenue as an elegant European inspired streetscape, lined with low-scale classical buildings (Bruegmann 2012). In the early 1910s, one of the groups that was formed to promote the construction of the Michigan Avenue Bridge and the widening of North Michigan Avenue was the © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_7

221

222

7 The Magnificent Mile

North Central Business District Association, renamed as the Greater North Michigan Avenue Association (GNMAA). The Association demanded a grand architectural ensemble of outstanding buildings and urban landscape that would create a worldclass commercial district. The opening of the Michigan Avenue Bridge in May 1920 was celebrated as the most important realization of the 1909 Plan of Chicago. The area around the new bridge became known as the “New Gateway of the Greater Chicago.” Commercial development of the Magnificent Mile followed throughout the 1920s, seeing the construction of over 30 significant buildings in less than a decade. Further stimulating this development was the opening of Wacker Drive in 1926, a two-level road extending along the south side of the Chicago River, connecting with Michigan Avenue (Hunt and DeVries 2017). As is the case with the entire city, the rapid growth of the Magnificent Mile was slowed down by the Great Depression (1929–1939). In the 1930s, bankruptcies were the prevailing news, rather than news of constructing new buildings. Later, public work projects laid the foundation for future growth along Michigan Avenue, including the Lake Shore Drive Bridge in 1937 and the State Street Subway in 1943, which put North Michigan Avenue within easy walking distance of the City’s rapid transit system for the first time. It was around this time that North Michigan Avenue began to be known as The Magnificent Mile. By revitalizing existing buildings and constructing new ones in the 1950s, the Magnificent Mile recommenced its transformational journey into becoming a world-renowned center of retail. Overall, most businesses were set in handsome, medium-size commercial buildings of limestone and brick, with neoclassical architectural styles, including Renaissance, Art Deco, and Georgian (Smith 2006). This unique urban model, however, was dramatically altered in the 1970s and 1980s, when the giant buildings and vertical malls were introduced, making the Magnificent Mile Chicago’s dominant retail street until today. The twenty-first century brought further changes by adding new mega vertical malls and mixeduse buildings. In the early 2000s, the Greater North Michigan Avenue Association crafted Vision 2012 to ensure that The Magnificent Mile sustains its character as a beautiful, vibrant, architecturally significant, economically thriving commercial corridor (The Magnificent Mile). In 2009, the construction of the Trump International Hotel & Tower, the city’s second tallest building, reinforced the Grand Gateway of the Magnificent Mile. In 2014, the Greater North Michigan Avenue Association changed its name to The Magnificent Mile Association to reflect the strength of the brand identification it has earned over the years (Al-Kodmany 2018). Today, the Magnificent Mile is one of the world’s premier shopping districts. It is a spectacular showcase of style, flavor, and entertainment with more than 460 stores, 275 restaurants, 60 hotels, and unique entertainment options and attractions. It is estimated that about 22 million people visit the corridor annually. The area remains one of the liveliest and most compelling urban passages, one of the finest in any American city. “It is a place where residents, business people, shoppers, and visitors come to feel magnificent” (themagnificentmile.com).

7.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

223

7.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis According to the study results and based on the Lynchian theory, the Magnificent Mile qualifies as a significant path, illustrated in Figs. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5. The path contains major landmarks, which they cluster in two primary locations. The first cluster occurs where Michigan Avenue intersects with the Chicago River (Figs. 7.6 and 7.7). The second cluster is located in the area near the historic Chicago Water Tower, discussed in the second part of this chapter.

7.3 Grand Gateway A stunning agglomeration of historic skyscrapers along DuSable Bridge creates a Grand Gateway to the Magnificent Mile. These are the Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower, LondonHouse Chicago, 333 North Michigan Avenue, and the InterContinental Hotel. This spectacular cluster of tall buildings has helped to define spatially one of the city’s most exciting urban places. Beaux-Arts Classicism architectural style makes this place unique, and the design of the historic buildings follows. The cluster is reminiscent of buildings in the “White City” at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893 (Smith 2006). Interestingly, all these buildings have distinctive bases, shafts, and tops, contributing to the urban design coherence of the place. Today, additional nearby tall buildings, such as the Equitable Building and Trump International Hotel & Tower (detailed in the previous chapter), have further strengthened this spatial urban node. In addition, the 1920 DuSable Bridge that centers this cluster adds beauty, significance, and drama.

7.3.1 The Wrigley Building According to the study results, the Wrigley Building is one of Chicago’s most beloved tall buildings due to multiple factors including the location (located at the northwest corner of Michigan Avenue and the Chicago River), approach, historic character, cultural significance, and architectural design. Because of Michigan Avenue’s shift to the east at the Chicago River, the building’s visibility is increased. As such, the building functions as a visual terminus for both the first segment of the main branch of the Chicago River and South Michigan Avenue. Further, the triangular shape of the site allows the building to have a maximum visibility (Figs. 7.8 and 7.9). The study results indicated that creative alignment of the irregular site broke up the massing of the Wrigley Building and gave it high visibility on the skyline, further emphasized by its profusion of Renaissance-style ornaments. Besides, since the building’s loading docks were consigned to the new lower level of Michigan Avenue, the Wrigley presented bright facades on all sides. As architectural historian

224

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.1 Michigan Avenue, looking south, as seen in the Chicago three-dimensional massing model by the Chicago Architecture Center (CAC) (Photograph by author)

7.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

225

Fig. 7.2 Michigan Avenue, looking north. A conglomeration of tall buildings featuring diverse architectural styles, shapes, and colors, creates a beautiful, memorable path (Photograph by author)

226

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.3 Wrigley Building (left) and Tribune Tower (right) frame views of the Magnificent Mile, creating a welcoming gateway (Photograph by author)

7.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

227

Fig. 7.4 Skyscrapers along North Michigan Avenue form an intriguing edge (Photograph by author)

228

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.5 Commercial activities along Michigan Avenue enliven the path and improve sense of place (Photograph by author)

7.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

229

Fig. 7.6 At the beginning of the Magnificent Mile, one can enjoy panoramic views of stunning tall buildings, looking north (top) and south (bottom). This unique spatial cluster of outstanding tall buildings contributes to strong placemaking (Photograph by author)

230

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.7 Plazas at the beginning of the Magnificent Mile offer lovely vistas. Majestic tall buildings improve sense of visual enclosure and protection from the elements, vital for placemaking (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

231

Fig. 7.8 With a soaring clock tower and festive walls of white terra cotta, the Wrigley Building was the first remarkable commercial building to be constructed north of the Chicago River, which consequently stimulated the development of the Magnificent Mile. Overall, the Wrigley Building is considered a significant landmark that improves placemaking at the heart of Chicago Downtown (Photograph by author)

232

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.9 Due to tilt in Michigan Avenue, the historic Wrigley Building serves as a splendid visual terminus. Its attractive aesthetics and distinguished architectural style reinforce a commanding presence that enhances placemaking (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

233

Sally Chappell observed in Chicago Architecture, 1872—1922 (1987) “The Wrigley Building meets the rest of the city with urbanistic grace at every level” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 123). Historically, the site enjoys an extraordinary legacy because it is located near Chicago’s first home, the homestead of Jean Baptiste Point du Sable. A friend of William Wrigley, Jr. and Fellow Lincoln Park Commissioner, Bertram M. Winston, helped him in identifying the site, which “reflected his [Wrigley’s] astute business sense and a knack of seizing opportunities at the right time” (CCLDR1). Indeed, Wrigley made an excellent choice for the site to build the headquarters of his thriving company, the world’s largest producer of chewing gum. Wrigley founded his company in 1911. By 1915, the company had factories and offices in North American cities, including Chicago, New York, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, and Toronto as well as in London, UK. By 1919, the annual sales grew to over $27 million (CCLDR1). Architecturally, Wrigley intended his building to be a stunning landmark that symbolized the success of his flourishing business. The result was not only a distinguished building but also a catalyst that promoted a construction boom to the north side of Michigan Avenue. This boom drew shoppers and businesses after the opening of the DuSable Bridge. Wrigley commissioned the renowned architectural firm of Graham, Anderson, Probst, and White, a firm that designed many of Chicago’s most prominent buildings, including Union Station (1925), the John G. Shedd Aquarium (1929), the Civic Opera Building (1929), and the Merchandise Mart (1930). Charles G. Beersman (1888–1946), a young and talented architect, served as the lead architect on the project. Beersman joined the architectural firm in 1919 after winning the Le Brun Fellowship. Beersman’s design drew on a variety of influences, including European classicism—mainly the Parisian Ecole de Beaux-Arts, early skyscraper development in Chicago with distinct commercial style, as well as the ideals of the City Beautiful movement, exemplified in the Columbian Exposition’s White City. The building also embraces a tripartite design that comprises three distinct parts: base, shaft, and crown. The base and the shaft rise to 210 ft (64 m), while the tower above rises to 188 ft (57 m), making the building’s height 398 feet, two feet short of the city’s 400-foot height limit for buildings in 1921. Structurally, the building is anchored to the bedrock with caissons and stands up using a steel-framed system encased in concrete. The most distinctive feature, however, is the 11-story tower that rises above the roofline topped with a two-story clock. Architect Beersman modeled the tower after La Giralda, once a minaret, now part of the Seville Cathedral, the largest Gothic cathedral in the world. The clock has four faces; each has a diameter of 19 feet and 7 inches (5.97 m). The tower is crowned with a ring colonnade and cupola from which rises a 32-foot (10 m) silvered spike. The building’s ornamental forms take cues from the sixteenth-century architecture of the French Renaissance. It especially borrows forms and shapes from the historical period of Francis I. Fleur-de-lis. We observe gryphons (winged mythological creatures with the head of an eagle and the body of a lion) supporting urns, swags, and cornucopias. These are examples of numerous decorative forms integrated into the Wrigley Building, which they add beauty and

234

7 The Magnificent Mile

make the building appear majestic (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 123). The building’s rooflines terminate in an exuberant display of ornament (Fig. 7.10). The construction of this French Renaissance-inspired building started while the DuSable Bridge was under construction. It was also the first large office building construction to take place north of the Chicago River. The building comprises two significant parts linked by a third-floor enclosed walkway. The south building (27 stories, 134 m/440 ft) was completed in 1922, creating a considerable landmark that dominated Chicago downtown. Remarkably, before completing the south building, its spaces were rented out, partially because it was the first in Chicago to offer air conditioning. The north building (18 stories, 90 m/294 ft) was completed in 1924. The two towers have a combined area of 453,433 ft2 (42,125 m2 ). In 1931, another enclosed walkway was added to the 14th floor, improving access between the two buildings. Constructing the bridge was to comply with laws against branch banking in the State of Illinois. In 1956, the space between the two buildings was reconfigured into a plaza, named “the Plaza of the Americas.” The pedestrian plaza was constructed after nearby soap and cheese factories closed, which made the space more comfortable and attractive for being free of nuisances and smell emitted by these factories. The building’s two parts as well as the plaza follow the irregular shape of the site (Al-Kodmany 2018). The building is clad in enameled terra cotta tiles, rendered with six subtly different shades ranging from grayish-white at the base to a pale cream color at the top. The building architects intended that the increased brightness in the upper floors would make the building appear to blend with the sky. The terra cotta is glazed to protect the color from changing due to exposure to climate and to reduce maintenance. Glazing also gives the tower a “gleaming” look. With over 250,000 tiles of terra cotta, the building is renowned for being the most highly ornamented terra cotta building in the city.1 The building’s beauty is not only transmitted during the daytime but also at night. As such, the building architects designed an outstanding lighting system that illuminates the structure at night, turning it into a beacon for nighttime sailors and a landmark for evening strollers on Michigan Avenue. The original design employed reflectors that provided brilliant light that bathed the building, with the strongest focusing on the clock tower. Since its completion, the building has been continuously floodlit but with three exceptions: (1) during World War II, (2) amid a project that involved replacing the older lights in 1971, and (3) during the energy crisis of 1973–74 (Saliga and Clarke 1998). The 1909 Plan of Chicago recommended that the city should capitalize on the river’s edge, and this was accomplished in the Wrigley Building landing stage, where tour boats now dock. The semicircular plaza at the upper level, owned by the city but maintained by the Wrigley Company, also follows the spirit of the Plan. As explained earlier, in 1924–25, a building addition skillfully extended the Wrigley complex northward, joining the two with a third-floor bridge. The landscaped public courtyard between them was completed by the company in 1957. According to 1 The

Northwestern Terra Cotta Company manufactured the tiles.

7.3 Grand Gateway

235

Fig. 7.10 Among the most elegant features of the Wrigley Building is its 11-story clock tower, adorned with a four-sided clock, crowned with a ring colonnade, cupola, and finished with a spire. The clock tower is a prominent placemaker that orients passersby to the beginning of the Magnificent Mile (Photograph by author)

236

7 The Magnificent Mile

the study participants, the architectural language and vocabularies employed in the building are accessible and can be appreciated by both the novice and experts. Indeed, the almost one century-old building continues to communicate beauty and inspire new designs. Historically, it spurred the development of the North Michigan Avenue business district and it continues to anchor it today spatially. It was featured in the 1957 sci-fi film “Beginning of the End,” where it was attacked by giant grasshoppers (CCLDR1). In 1977, the building’s terra cotta facades that had some cracks were repaired. In 2011, the building was sold to a group of investors that included Zeller Realty Group and Groupon co-founders Eric Lefkofsky and Brad Keywell. The new owners wanted to renovate the building interior to accommodate modern needs while retaining its historic integrity and serving a unique mix of twenty-first-century tenants. They tried to incorporate new businesses and facilities such as Walgreens, a coffee shop, a fitness center, and a nursing room for mothers. As such, during 2012–2013, the architectural firm Goettsch Partners conducted a comprehensive renovation of the building after Wrigley moved to its new home, the Goose Island campus. Over the years, the majority of the terra cotta tiles have been replaced for ongoing maintenance, renovation, and restoration. In 2012, the City of Chicago named the building a landmark. Although Wrigley’s offices no longer occupy the building, the name will never change based on an agreement made when the building was sold. Most recently, in 2018, the building was sold to Chicago billionaire Joe Mansueto for $225 million (thewrigleybuilding.com). Overall, this study confirms that the Wrigley Building is recognized widely as a true Chicago original, an enduring symbol of Chicago’s preeminence in architecture and commerce. “Always in the spotlight, The Wrigley Building stands as a beacon for the City of Big Shoulders……London has Big Ben, Paris has the Eiffel Tower, and Chicago has the Wrigley Building” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 123).

7.3.2 The Tribune Tower Based on the study results, similar to the Wrigley Building, the Tribune Tower enjoys great popularity. Its prominent location near the main branch of the Chicago River, Michigan Avenue, DuSable Bridge, Wacker Drive, and the Chicago Loop, as well as its attractive architecture, make it a stunning landmark. The Chicago Tribune is the city’s most prominent daily newspaper and has a significant influence on the city for many years (Fig. 7.11). In 1922, the newspaper publisher and president of the Chicago Tribune Company, Colonel Robert R. McCormick, decided to construct a new home for the company. He purchased what he perceived to be an appropriate site at the heart of the city, to the northeast of the unfinished DuSable Bridge. The location provided an easy-access way to the Chicago River, Lake Michigan, railroads, and a double-decker street along the banks of the river, which were all vital means for local, national, and international

7.3 Grand Gateway

237

Fig. 7.11 Built in the 1925, the Chicago Tribune Tower is one of the most beautiful office buildings in the city. It embraces a Neo-Gothic architectural style and relies on natural ventilation and daylighting. Chicago Tribune Tower is a stunning example of marrying beauty with functionality, which together boost placemaking (Photograph by author)

238

7 The Magnificent Mile

shipping. Importantly, the site was chosen for its proximity to the old printing plant, which was built in 1916 and still stands on the east side of the tower. Interestingly, Robert McCormick purchased the Chicago Tribune site right after William Wrigley, Jr. purchased the site of his new building. McCormick intended to build a monument that would rival the Wrigley Building and that would be remembered through generations. To that end, he did not select an architect to do the job; instead, he held an international design competition. Indeed, on June 9, 1922, and during the annual meeting of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) held that year in Chicago, the Tribune announced an international architectural competition for the design of its new corporate headquarters. The next day, which was the 75th anniversary of the newspaper’s founding, the story appeared on the front page of the paper. Entries were due November 1, with a 1-month grace period for deliveries from distant countries. To fuel enthusiasm, McCormick offered substantial prizes for the winners. He also set an explicit criterion for the winning design entry of what he called creating the most beautiful and unique office building in the world. The rationale was simple: the world’s most significant newspaper deserves to be housed in the world’s most beautiful building (Zukowsky et al. 2004, p. 56). More than 260 architectural offices from all over the world submitted their entries, representing a wide range of designs and aesthetics, and coming from 23 countries, making this architectural competition exceptional. Notably, the competition entries were well-publicized, spreading images of the skyscrapers across the nation, commencing what historian Merrill Schleier has dubbed a “skyscraper mania” (Keegan 2008). As such, the Chicago Tribune Tower competition marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of the skyscraper and was a turning point in American architectural history. Several of the entries in the Tribune Tower design competition, including the winning one, had a strong influence on future skyscrapers. The relatively young and unknown design team of New York architects, John Mead Howells (1868–1959) and Raymond Hood (1888–1934), won the first place through their Neo-Gothic design. The second and third place winners were Eliel Saarinen and Holabird & Roche. Hood and Howells, who had both attended the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston, modeled their design after the Tour de Beurre in Rouen, France and the tower of the Malines Cathedral in Belgium. Notably, Hood later helped in designing Manhattan’s Rockefeller Center (Keegan 2008). Choosing a Neo-Gothic design over the prevailing Prairie architecture traditions of Chicago did surprise many architects of that time. The Neo-Gothic design was also perceived to be too historic for the flashy era of the 1920s. Perhaps, Hood and Howells were influenced by a well-known precedent, Cass Gilbert’s Woolworth Building (1913) built in the Gothic style in New York City, often referred to as the Cathedral of Commerce. The competition announcement stated, “The Tribune sees naught incompatible between ancient beauty and modern uses” (Solomonson 2001, p. 22). Significantly, the wining 34-story proposal not only offered remarkable aesthetics, elegance, and refinement but also met the functional needs of the daily operation of the newspaper (Saliga and Clarke 1998).

7.3 Grand Gateway

239

When completed in 1925, the 463-foot (141-m) Tribune Tower set a new record in the city and added a remarkable jewel to the Chicago Skyline. The tower featured a composite structure of steel and concrete and the eight enormous flying buttresses— with sculptures of bats carved into them. They connect the structural piers of the lower portion of the tower with the ornamental crown. The architects clad the tower in variegated shades of gray Indiana limestone and embellished the facades with traditional medieval ornamentation, an infinite range of grotesques, gargoyles, and animal sculptures (O’Gorman 2003, p. 50) (Figs. 7.12, 7.13, and 7.14). At the street level, the tower’s walls display a collection of stones that were collected from famous monuments and sites around the world (e.g., the Arc de Triomphe, Parthenon, Great Wall of China, Forbidden City, Taj Mahal, Great Pyramid of Cheops, etc. (Murphy and Reilly 2017)). The lobby walls are inscribed with quotations of famous persons, representing the newspaper’s ideals. The centerpiece is a relief map of North America made of shredded dollar notes and plaster (Fig. 7.15). Similar to the Wrigley Building, the Tribune’s top is illuminated at night, making the 34-story medieval tower more visible in the Chicago Skyline. The 25th-floor terrace was a public observation deck until the 1950s when a higher observatory in One Prudential Plaza took away much of its business. Secret passageways connect the offices on the upper floors. The construction costs were about $8.5 million. When the building was completed in 1925, the Chicago Tribune moved in, relocating from its previous offices in the First Federal Building. In 1935, a low-rise addition to the north was built, which featured a small courtyard centered with a statue of Revolutionary War hero Nathan Hale (Fig. 7.16). In recent years, the space between the Tribune Tower and the Equitable Building has been converted into a “garden oasis” that provides a respite from the hustle and bustle of Michigan Avenue (Fig. 7.17). Further, in 1982, the printing facility of the Chicago Tribune was relocated from this tower to the Freedom Center on the North Branch of the Chicago River. Recently, Los Angeles-based developer CIM Group bought the Tribune Tower for $240 million and the new owners embarked on a $1 billion-plus project that involves repurposing the existing building into 163 residential condominiums and retail space and constructing Chicago’s second tallest skyscraper on a surface parking lot just northeast of the tower. The developers, Chicago-based Golub & Co. and CIM Group set the new landmark tower (named Tribune East) to rise to 1,422 ft (433 m), only 29 ft (9 m) shorter than Willis Tower, the city’s tallest. Tribune East features a tapering and curving shaft of metal and glass. The skinny skyscraper will house a 200-room hotel, 439 rental apartments, and 125 condominiums on its upper floors. With a floor count of 113, the Tribune East would become the highest floor count of all buildings in the city. The Chicago Tribune moved its offices from the Neo-Gothic landmark, its home for nearly a century, to One Prudential Plaza. Indeed, the new project, if constructed, will invite more bustle, visitors, spending, and selfies on Michigan Avenue (Al-Kodmany 2018).

240

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.12 A building’s top is an important element of placemaking. Among the most distinctive features of the Tribune Tower is its crown with flying buttresses that stand more than 24 stories above the street level and enhance the proportions of the stone massing (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

241

Fig. 7.13 Adorned with beautiful details and ornamentation, the Tribune Tower’s base invites visitors, tenants, and passersby to enjoy stunning aesthetic. These fine architectural details lend a strong identity to the tower and enhance placemaking (Photograph by author)

242

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.14 Tribune’s entryway is a one-of-a-kind in the city. It gives the tower a unique identity and enhances placemaking (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

243

Fig. 7.15 Tribune Tower. At the base, walls display a collection of stones that were collected from famous monuments and sites around the world. Occasionally, pedestrians pause, stare, and even touch some of these stones. The bright installation connects the tower with the world community, stitching together a fascinating history that evokes a unique sense of place (Photograph by author)

244

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.16 In 1935, a low-rise addition to the north was built featuring a small courtyard centered by a statue of Revolutionary War hero Nathan Hale. Overall, elegant ornamentation and proportions of this entryway evoke a strong sense of place (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

245

Fig. 7.17 The space between the Tribune Tower and the Equitable Building has been converted into a “garden oasis” that provides a respite from the hustle and bustle of Michigan Avenue. Note that the splendid contrast between the dark ledges and metal frames (foreground) and whitish Wrigley Building (background) contributes positively to placemaking (Photograph by author)

246

7 The Magnificent Mile

7.3.3 LondonHouse Chicago LondonHouse Chicago is located across the Chicago River from the Wrigley Building. When completed in 1923, this 22-story building was one of the four iconic buildings that anchored Michigan Avenue. The other buildings include the Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower, and 333 North Michigan. With a corner location between Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive and rising to 97 m (318 ft), the LondonHouse Chicago enjoys excellent visibility. It is a local and national landmark, and it forms a part of the Michigan–Wacker Historic District. Alfred S. Alschuler of the Chicago firm Alfred S. Alschuler, Inc. (today is known as Friedman, Alschuler, and Sincere) designed the building. Formerly known as London Guarantee & Accident Building, it is renowned for being “one of the city’s few and best examples of Beaux Arts-style classicism applied to the design of a tall office building” (O’Gorman 2003, p. 71). The building incorporates elaborate classical references and detailing like Corinthian columns and Roman figures (lions and god Neptune) engraved in the stone façade. It also embraces a tripartite design with a distinct base, shaft, and top, where the top and bottom are treated monumentally. In contrast, the shaft is treated as a uniformed, straightforward office tower (Fig. 7.18). Four Corinthian columns with an arch above frame the main entrance within the five-story masonry base. The building’s crown comprises eight, three-story Corinthian columns topped by a four-story cupola. Together, their beautiful design makes the most prominent feature of the building and serves as a counterpoint to the Wrigley Building across the river. The collective image resembles that of the Choragic Monument in Athens, though the architect Alfred S. Alschuler claimed that the Stockholm Stadshus inspired his design (Fig. 7.19). The building is one of Alschuler’s best works. The Lake Shore Trust and Savings Bank awarded him with the 1923 Gold Medal for excellence in design. In making the award for the London Guarantee & Accident Building, the jury has counted not only the architectural merit of the building but also its contribution to the development of the City of Chicago (CCLDR2). The building’s footprint follows the irregular trapezoidal borders of the site, shaped partially by the Chicago River’s bend. The east facade follows the straight south-north axis of Michigan Avenue, while the west facade follows the southwesterly orientation of the double-decked Wacker Drive. With a slightly concave wall facing the river, the building’s principal facade joins these two parts. The concave wall gives the nod to the DuSable Bridge and creates a graceful forecourt on the ground floor. The building’s eastern façade was shaped by unanticipated factors when the owner of one of the lots, John W. Keogh, refused to sell his small parcel upon which stood a two-story brick building on Michigan Avenue. Consequently, Alschuler had to “tweak” the building around this parcel, while incorporating a light court on Michigan Avenue. Later, after construction started, John S. Miller representing the building corporation obtained a 198-year lease to that small parcel and

7.3 Grand Gateway

247

Fig. 7.18 LondonHouse Chicago. Formerly known as London Guarantee & Accident Building, it is celebrated for being one of the city’s few and best examples of Beaux Arts-style classicism applied to the design of a tall office building. As is the case with the Wrigley Building and Tribune Tower, this building reinforces the spatial cluster around DuSable Bridge, which they collectively enhance placemaking (Photograph by author)

248

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.19 LondonHouse Chicago embraces a tripartite design with distinct base, shaft, and crown, where the base and head are treated monumentally. In contrast, the shaft is treated as a uniform straightforward office tower. The elegantly integrated architectural details give this building its unique identity and enhance placemaking (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

249

Alschuler designed a five-story structure compatible with the base that filled the two ends of the light court (O’Gorman 2003). Partially built on the site of Fort Dearborn that stood between 1803 and 1856, LondonHouse Chicago enjoys historic significance. Fort Dearborn was one of the frontier outposts constructed under the administration of President Thomas Jefferson. Officials of the Army, State, City, the Chicago Historical Society, and the London Guarantee & Accident Company attended the cornerstone ceremony of the building in 1922. Alschuler designed a large bronze relief panel with imagery depicting Fort Dearborn that was placed over the central entrance doors of the building near the Michigan Wacker corner to commemorate the site. During a recent remodeling, the panel was removed and donated to the Chicago Historical Society. For pedestrians, today, the Fort Dearborn reference is preserved by an engraved metal strip in the sidewalk (O’Gorman 2003). Initially, the building was designed for the British company London Guarantee & Accident (a shipping insurer) to serve as its headquarters near one of the world’s busiest ports in the world. In 1946, the British owners sold the company to a Chicago company, Michigan Wacker Building Corporation, and the building was known under different names, including Stone Container Building and Crain Communications Building. Since 2016, the primary occupant is the LondonHouse Chicago Hotel. The building is also known by its street address, 360 North Michigan Avenue. In 2001, Lohan Associates restored much of the building. During 2010–2016, Chicago’s Goettsch Partners engaged another restoration project that converted the building from offices to a 450-key hotel and built a 21-story modernist glass annex. The retrofit project sought a LEED-NC Silver Rating (Al-Kodmany 2018).

7.3.4 333 North Michigan 333 North Michigan is located east of LondonHouse Chicago across Michigan Avenue. It is considered one of the most remarkable Art Deco skyscrapers in Chicago due to the building’s form that features sharp vertical lines, dramatic stepbacks, and embellished base. The Chicago architectural firm of Holabird and Roche designed the building. At the time, the firm had been in business with a solid reputation for almost half a century. Both architects had received earlier training by William Le Baron Jenney, one of the pioneers of skyscraper’s skeletal construction. Therefore, completed in 1928, 333 North Michigan Building is one of the significant buildings that were built in the 1920s that flanked the Michigan Avenue Bridge, defining one of the city’s—and nation’s—finest urban spaces. The unique spatial location further heightens the building’s prominence. Similar to the case of the Wrigley Building, due to the jog of Michigan Avenue at the bridge, 333 North Michigan serves as a visual terminus for North Michigan Avenue when looking southward, and vice versa, tenants inside the building enjoy unobstructed views of North Michigan Avenue (Zukowsky et al. 2004).

250

7 The Magnificent Mile

Rising to 121 m (396 ft), the building appears to consist of two seemingly connected masses. The first is a 24-story thin slab at the southern end, and the second is a 34-story tower at the northern end with dramatic Art Deco stepbacks conforming to the city’s 1923 zoning ordinance. Following the 1916 New York Ordinance, the law allowed tall buildings to reach greater heights if they applied stepbacks on the upper floors. Many architects took advantage of this law to introduce new skyscraper styles that profoundly affected city skyline. Known by different names, stepbacks, setbacks, or wedding-cake style, Holabird and Roche pioneered this trend, as exemplified by their first attempt in this building (Zukowsky et al. 2004). According to John Root, Eliel Saarinen’s second-place design in Chicago Tribune competition entry of 1923 inspired 333 North Michigan architecture. His design used small stepbacks and unified them by introducing continuous recessed channels of windows on the building’s facades. As a result, the facades’ vertical lines draw the viewer’s eyes upward to the rooftop without any obstructions from horizontal stops (Figs. 7.20 and 7.21). The building’s long and narrow profile and solid massing resembles that of the Monadnock Building, which was designed by Root’s father John Wellborn Root. Functionally, the building’s long and slender floor plates (only 60 ft/18 m wide by 200 ft/61 m long) offer maximum natural daylighting in interior spaces. All offices have windows overlooking the surrounding streets, including Michigan Avenue, Wacker Drive, and Beaubien court. The southern façade also integrates windows since its neighboring building rises only two stories (Saliga and Clarke 1998). Among the distinct features is the building’s base. Cast-iron storefronts line the base, and it is clad in polished Oriental Granite from Rockville, Minnesota. The visual impact is enhanced by applying the granite in variegated shades of black, purple, mauve, gray, and pink. Befitting its location on the historic site of Fort Dearborn, the building incorporates a frieze depicting Chicago’s early pioneers and symbolizing the growth and history of the city. The frieze is sharply incised in low relief at the fifthfloor level. Sculptor Fred M. Torrey included images of The Hunter, The Indian, The Pioneer Woman, The Struggle, and The Missionaries (Miller 1996). The remainder of the building is clad in buff-colored Indiana limestone. Adjoining roof terraces along floors 25 and 26 house the Tavern Club. Founded in 1927 by defectors of the Cliff Dwellers Club. The Tavern Club is a social organization of men from the arts, sciences, and businesses. Among its notable past members were Frank Lloyd Wright, Mayor Richard J. Daley, Carl Sandburg, Helen Hayes, and William Wrigley, Jr. A series of murals by John Warner Norton cover the Tavern Club’s walls. Called “Pagan Paradise,” the paintings depict exotic tropical scenes. The National Park Service designated the building as a National Landmark, and the City of Chicago designated the building as a Chicago Landmark. In recent years, the building underwent significant renovations by Goettsch Partners and subsequently earned LEED Silver certification (Al-Kodmany 2018).

7.3 Grand Gateway

251

Fig. 7.20 333 North Michigan. Rising to 121 m (396 ft), the building appears to consist of two connected masses. The first is a 24-story thin slab at the southern end, and the second is a 34-story tower at the northern end with dramatic Art Deco stepbacks conforming to the city’s 1923 zoning ordinance. This elegant building is a powerful placemaker along Michigan Avenue (Photograph by author)

252

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.21 333 North Michigan also features an outstanding crown. Notably, the vertical lines of the facades draw the viewer’s eyes upward to the crown without any horizontal obstructions (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

253

7.3.5 Intercontinental Chicago Magnificent Mile As the study participants walked along the Magnificent Mile, near the Tribune Tower, they noted one of the most curious sights, the historic 42-story, south tower of the Intercontinental complex. The building was once the Medina Athletic Club and was designed by Walter W. Alschlager. Completed in 1929, the tower rises to 144 m (471 ft) and embraces an eclectic design that integrates an audacious assortment of architectural styles: Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Medieval, with Art Deco references, Assyrian ornaments, and George Unger’s theatrical influences (Keegan 2008). Overall, as the study participants indicated, the historic building evokes a sense of grandeur, lavishness, and extravagance. Some of the noted prominent features of the building include dramatic stepbacks, a gold dome, and “mooring mast.” Indeed, it is recognized from afar and calls attention due to its shape, color, and remarkable height. On the 8th floor, the building is wrapped with sculptural relief carvings, depicting the allegories of Wisdom (north panel), Contribution (south panel), and Consecration (west panel). These were designed by George Unger and sculpted by Carl Beil and Leon Hermant. Additionally, the 12th-floor stepback above the Michigan Avenue entrance contains three Sumerian warriors carved into the façade. The building’s east wall is painted with a giant mural depicting humpback whales swimming. All of these features are vividly visible (Figs. 7.22, 7.23, and 7.24). Lavish design exhibited on the facades permeates into interior spaces. The original building had a stunningly embellished seven-story lobby that extended in a series of exotic themed rooms connected by small staircases. The second floor features the Hall of Lions, where two bas-relief lions flank a grand staircase with a small fountain. The fifth and six floors contain the lobby’s most spectacular room. Called the Spanish Court, it includes a central terra cotta fountain and colorfully stenciled gothic arcades at both sides (Saliga and Clarke 1998). The new lobby is four stories and contains a grand staircase with cast-bronze friezes. As guests pass through the bronze doorway on Michigan Avenue, they are welcomed by the Shriner’s original Arabic inspired greeting, engraved in marble centering the two columns: “ES SALUMU ALEIKUM,” meaning “Peace be Upon You.” Exotic embellishments in elevator lobbies, marble and tile mosaic, and murals adorn interior spaces (O’Gorman 2003). When the building opened in 1929, it had unique amenities. On the 14th floor, the building incorporated an enormous Art Deco Olympic-size swimming pool with cool blue Spanish tile, which was one of the world’s highest pools. The pool has been preserved to the present and is known now as the Johnny Weissmuller Pool in reference to the renowned Olympic athlete and actor who trained in it. Additional amenities included a miniature golf course with water hazards and a babbling brook on the 23rd floor, as well as a shooting range and a billiards hall on the 9th floor (Keegan 2008). Besides, an elegant Grand Ballroom, a two-story, 100-foot (30-m) elliptical space was decorated with ornaments in Egyptian, Assyrian, and Greek styles. Another grand room, named King Arthur Court, had heavy timbering, stained glass windows, and a frieze depicting stories of King Arthur and Parsifal. Further, King Arthur Court

254

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.22 One of the most curious sights along Magnificent Mile, near the Tribune Tower, is the historic 42-story South Tower of the Hotel InterContinental complex. Embracing multiple architectural styles, including Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, and Medieval, the eclectic design themes ensure that the InterContinental Hotel has a unique contribution among Chicago’s architectural offerings (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

255

Fig. 7.23 Some prominent features of the InterContinental Hotel include stepbacks, a gold dome, extensive ornamentation and “mooring mast,” which make the building highly recognizable from afar, improving placemaking (Photograph by author)

256

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.24 The 8th floor of the InterContinental Hotel is wrapped with sculptural relief carvings, depicting abstraction of various historic scenes, including the “Contribution” seen here in the south panel (top). Additionally, the 12-floor stepback above the Michigan Avenue entrance presents three Sumerian warriors carved into the façade (bottom). These extraordinary sculptures give the building a unique identity and a distinct sense of place (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

257

conveyed a masculine aesthetic and functioned as the men’s smoking lounge, running track, gym, archery range, bowling alley, and a two-story boxing arena. The tower had 440 rooms accessible to the club’s 3,500 members and their guests exclusively (Keegan 2008). Despite its outstanding beauty, the tower has faced some economic hardship. When opened in 1929, occupancy was 30% only. Five years after opening, due to the Great Recession, the Shriners had lost their masterpiece. Since then the tower has served multiple clients and functions. It was converted to an apartment building, then to Radisson Hotel, a Sheraton Hotel, and the InterContinental Chicago since 1990. Currently, the hotel is a member of Historic Hotels of America® , the official program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation that recognizes the premium historic hotels in the nation.

7.3.6 Equitable Building In the mid-1960s, the Equitable building relocated from 29 South LaSalle Street to its current prestigious location, right next to Tribune Tower and Wrigley Building. Featuring over three-quarters of million square feet (69,677 m2 ), it was capable to accommodate the growing operations of the company. However, the seller of the site, the Chicago Tribune Company, set stringent conditions. That is, the new building had to be set back a minimum of 135 ft (41 m) from the Michigan Avenue right of way, and the open space had to be developed as a public plaza. The intent of applying the setback was to maintain the high visibility of the Tribune building. The Tribune agreed to share the development cost of constructing a public plaza to ensure great visibility to its building and to help mitigate the impact of tallness of the new building while promoting a monumental civic space. The Equitable demanded that the building should be as large as zoning laws would allow. These conditions presented the building’s architectural and engineering firm, Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM), with unique design parameters (Saliga and Clarke 1998). Design partner Patricia Swan, a partner in charge Roy Allen, project manager Robert Cutler, and the firm’s senior design partner Bruce Graham took the lead on this project. Their solution was to construct a simple, metallic “box” that contrasts with the ornate masonry of the Tribune while offering maximum square footage. To establish the contrast, the building was clad in bronze-tinted aluminum with bronze-toned windows and black spandrels. The result was that the 35-story Equitable Building serves as a neutral backdrop to the Tribune, while each building communicates an architectural style that belongs to different yet important architectural eras, classical and modern. Bruce Graham described the Equitable as the most sophisticated office that SOM has done (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 190) (Fig. 7.25). Simultaneously, the 139-m (457 ft) tall “box” offers maximum views to its surrounding; the narrow end of the rectangular building overlooks the river, and the longer side, five bays wide, overlooks Michigan Avenue and the plaza. To allow

258

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.25 Another tall building that strengthens the imageability of the Grand Gateway is the Equitable Building. Completed in 1965, the building features a Miesien design of exceptional elegance and beauty, offering an excellent example of the International Style that prevailed in the 1960s. DuSable Bridge is seen in the foreground. The tower’s sublime qualities improve placemaking (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

259

outdoor views of the spacious square to flow into the building’s lobby, the tower’s base is recessed and employs clear glass all over. Likewise, the plaza offers spectacular views of the surrounding buildings, Tribune Tower, Wrigley Building, LondonHouse Chicago, and 333 North Michigan. In an attempt to root the plaza in the city’s history, the Equitable named the plaza “the Pioneer Court,” referring to the belief that the same site once was the home of Chicago’s first permanent resident, Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, around 1779. Since its completion, the spacious, granite-paved plaza has been hosting numerous civic, cultural, and advertising events as well as art installations, performances, and festivals. The plaza also hosts temporary and permanent statues of prominent and historic figures (Figs. 7.26, 7.27, and 7.28). Pioneer Court’s design also manifests a recommendation of the 1909 Plan of Chicago to provide public access to the riverfront. To that end, SOM’s landscape architects linked the plaza with river via an open staircase that spiraled down in a sweeping curve, circling a tree before reaching the riverfront. During summertime, this area of the riverfront is busy with people in outdoor restaurants and pleasure boats. In 1980, the Cityfront Center project was initiated and resulted in furthering the development of the northern bank of the river that connected with the Pioneer Court. In 1992, the Pioneer Court, near the Tribune Tower, was redesigned and extended eastward by Cooper, Robertson & Partners. The expanded open space includes multiple features, dense trees, flowers, shrubs, and dark grant seating places, collectively creating a “garden oasis” (Al-Kodmany 2017).

7.3.7 DuSable Bridge Commonly known as the Michigan Avenue Bridge, it was officially renamed the DuSable Bridge in 2010 to honor Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, “the Father of Chicago,” who was the first non-native settler in Chicago. It is the most recognizable of all Chicago bascule bridges because of its prominent location. Connecting the downtown Loop with the Magnificent Mile, it is viewed as the “Main Street Bridge” of Chicago, a gateway to the Magnificent Mile. The artwork on the four bridge tenders makes references to Chicago history. The bridge is also one of the fewer doubledecked bridges that cross the river. In 2009, in a historic restoration project, the city placed replicas of the original ornate railings and removed the relatively mundane pedestrian railings on the bridge. The project has dramatically increased the historic appearance and beauty of the bridge. The bridge continues to be moveable. It opens to allow boats and ships pass through, as needed (Fig. 7.29). The four bridge tender houses that anchor the bridge contain the control machines needed to operate the bridge. They also function as posts to monitor river traffic and to ensure the safe passage of water traffic and vehicle traffic on the bridge. In 1928, the outward-facing walls of the four bridge tender houses were adorned by sculptures depicting scenes from Chicago’s history. William Wrigley, Jr. commissioned artist James Earle Fraser to create The Pioneers and The Discoverers limestone relief

260

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.26 The Pioneer Court often hosts temporary statues and public art installations: Abraham Lincoln with the modern-day man (top); Marilyn Monroe (bottom). Crafted by Seward Johnson, these sculptures invite passersby to look, wonder, and ponder, sparking casual conversations. As such, these temporary public art masterpieces add a cultural/didactic dimension to placemaking (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

261

Fig. 7.27 Statue of legendary Chicago broadcaster Jack Brickhouse at the edge of the Pioneer Court is one of the sculptures that root the place in its deep history, thereby contributing to placemaking (Photograph by author)

262

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.28 Near the south edge of the Pioneer Court, a statue honors Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, the first non-native settler in Chicago. The statue roots the place in its history and contributes to placemaking (Photograph by author)

7.3 Grand Gateway

263

Fig. 7.29 The DuSable Bridge. The four bridge tender houses spatially anchor the bridge and address the street, creating a sense of visual enclosure and a distinct sense of place (Photograph by author)

264

7 The Magnificent Mile

sculptures. Placed on the Northwest Tower, The Pioneers sculpture depicts John Kinzie leading a non-native settler group through the wilderness. Across Michigan Avenue, the Northeast Tower contains The Discoverers sculpture, which depicts French explorers, including Louis Joliet, Jacques Marquette, René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, and Henri de Tonti. Further, trustees of Benjamin F. Ferguson Monument Fund commissioned artist Henry Hering to create The Defense and The Regeneration limestone relief sculptures. Placed on the Southwest Tower, The Defense depicts the Fort Dearborn Massacre of August 15, 1812. Across Michigan Avenue, the Southeast Tower contains The Regeneration sculpture, which illustrates workers reconstructing Chicago following the Great Fire of 1871 (Fig. 7.30). The four sculptural reliefs follow the Beaux-Arts style that features deeply carved scenes depicting historical and allegorical figures. Precisely, they resemble the reliefs on L’Arc de Triomphe in Paris (O’Gorman 2003). The southwest bridge tender house contains the McCormick Bridgehouse & Chicago River Museum, which offers a history of the bridge and the Chicago River. It also allows visitors to view the motors, breaks, trunnion, and other mechanical parts of the movable bridge. The McCormick Bridgehouse & Chicago River Museum extends five stories, starting at the river level. Once at the top of the Bridgehouse, visitors can enjoy 360° views of the river and surroundings.

7.3.8 Apple Michigan Avenue Most recently, Apple Inc. has opened its new flagship store at the southern edge of the Pioneer Court Plaza. The design cleverly takes advantage of the drop-in elevation between the plaza and the river by elegantly tucking the store into the site, mitigating its visual impact. While the store is not a soaring skyscraper that exerts tremendous visible presence, it has a profound socio-technological effect on the experience of spaces around it, including the riverfront and the Grand Gateway. The store is an architectural marvel and contains several intriguing touches and smart details. Designed by Foster + Partners, the store comprises sleek glass walls and four interior columns that together support an ultra-thin, ultra-light, carbon-fiber roof. The northern columns are also thin and made of stainless steel, while the southern columns are much-thicker, steel-supported columns, encased in Italian stone. The glass is made of thin laminated sheets (like “glass plywood”) that elevate the glass properties from merely functioning as a partition, to working as a bearing wall. The glass type is ultra-low-iron, which increases transparency, allowing visitors to see through and feel seemingly connected with the outdoor environment. Besides, passersby can see through the store and enjoy expansive views of the river. To display further technological advances, the glass wall features four dramatic round corners. On its underside, the 34-by-30-m (10-by-9-m) roof is elegantly clad in white oak. To discourage seagulls from landing and despoiling it, the roof integrates fine wires. Further, the ultra-thin roof cantilevers in four directions over the glass wall.

7.3 Grand Gateway

265

Fig. 7.30 Each bridge tender house presents a sculpture conveying a significant historic event in Chicago. This photo shows the “Regeneration” sculpture. Placed on the southeast bridge tender house, it depicts workers rebuilding the city after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Overall, these four spectacular sculptures infuse the area with a strong sense of history that contributes to placemaking (Photograph by author)

266

7 The Magnificent Mile

The resulting image of the store is a “floating” masterpiece of architecture, simulating boats that float over the adjacent Chicago River (Kamin 2017) (Fig. 7.31). Notably, through an expansive public staircase, the store offers a direct pedestrian link that connects the riverfront with Michigan Avenue. The granite staircase is punctuated by trees and benches that overlook the riverfront. To encourage people to sit and enjoy the surrounding environment, Apple provides free Wi-Fi in outdoor spaces. Most interestingly, the cascading staircase extends into the interior space of the store, bringing the outdoor environment indoors and vice versa. This architectural trick epitomizes the modernist tradition of blending interior and exterior spaces. Interestingly, interior spaces feature remarkable openness. They offer communal learning areas and abundant gathering spaces, to encourage people to stay and linger. Large gathering spaces are also designed to allow the company to host an array of events, including the “Today at Apple” program (Fig. 7.32). Walking into the store from the Pioneer Court, visitors encounter a “genius gallery,” a row of bleacher-like seats that overhang the interior space. The gallery overlooks a projection screen on the lower level while viewing the river in the background. The 11-foot-tall (3.4-m-tall), 25-foot-wide (7.6-m-wide) screen displays presentations, artwork, and product information. Short white oak stools and leather balls are placed near the screen. A fascinating visual experience results from being able to see the screen (projecting abstraction of reality) and the real activities that take place on the riverfront. Located underside of the “genius gallery,” the sales floor is column-free and dotted with the simple wood tables that display products. Overall, the high-quality architecture of the store and its attractive outdoor spaces enrich and extend the Chicago tradition of providing top-tier architecture and inviting public spaces. Blair Kamin, a Chicago Tribune critic, reflects on the store’s design by stating: “The very company that has caused us to stare endlessly into our cell phones is now inviting to look up and come together in a shared space—its space. More than inside and outside are merging here. So are the civic and the commercial realms. It is the latest twist of the digital age” (Kamin 2017).

7.4 City’s Signature The second cluster of remarkable buildings, mainly tall buildings, is located between the Chicago Water Tower and One Magnificent Mile Building. It is characterized by a blend of historic, modern, and ultra-modern buildings. The following describes these buildings and associated plazas, starting by the southern end of the node and marching toward the northern end.

7.4 City’s Signature

267

Fig. 7.31 A very prosperous new addition to the Grand Gateway is the Apple Michigan Avenue Store, pictured here, exterior view (top) and interior view (bottom). The building features a thin roof and large glass walls, deliberately blurring the lines between the indoors and outdoors. Overall, the building’s light, minimalist design hardly intrudes on the site. The building is at once respectful of context while confidently projecting its own unique identity and sense of place (Photograph by author)

268

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.32 Among the most amusing elements of Apple Michigan Avenue are the outdoor stairways connecting Pioneer Plaza with the Chicago Riverwalk. These stairways stretch into the interior spaces, thereby creating an uninterrupted visual dialog between indoor and outdoor environments (Photograph by author)

7.4 City’s Signature

269

7.4.1 Chicago Water Tower Although not a tall building, the 55 m (182 ft) Chicago Water Tower is a vital structure. According to the study results, it is considered one of the most cherished and treasured landmarks in the city. It functions as a significant spatial anchor to the upper part of the Magnificent Mile. Completed in 1869, the tower was built using large yellow Joliet limestone blocks with an ornate castellated Gothic Revival style, evoking the image of a European medieval castle (Fig. 7.33). It is the second oldest water tower in the United States, after the Louisville Water Tower in Louisville, Kentucky (Leroux 2007). Both the tower and the pumping stations across Michigan Avenue (then Pine Street) were designed by the acclaimed architect, William W. Boyington, and they feature a similar exterior design and building material. Their intricate design reflects the value and importance the city put on water infrastructure during the late nineteenth century. With their distinguished design and architectural style, these buildings create a splendid contrast with the neighboring modern skyscrapers, such as the John Hancock Center and Water Tower Place. The tower disguises a 3-foot-diameter (1 m), 140-foot-tall (43 m) iron standpipe as part of a more extensive water system. Together with the pumping station, they were connected to a tunnel that reached two miles out into Lake Michigan, where an octagonal crib collected water from the lake. Clean water was pulled from Lake Michigan and sent through underground tunnels to the Pumping Station, which pumped it to the top of the Water Tower. The standpipe stored water and provided pressure that helped to distribute water through the city’s water mains, particularly the city’s North Side. Overall, the pumping system provided the city with clean water. Before this system, the city retrieved water from basins along the shoreline, which were polluted by water from the Chicago River. Ellis Chesbrough was a principal engineer on this project. Since it was erected, the tower received admiration from local citizens and visitors. Lady Duffus Hardy, a British novelist and traveler who toured the city in 1880, wrote: “The new waterworks are the most beautiful illustrations of the vagaries of the architectural brain. … Never were so many cupolas and buttresses, pinnacles, and towers grouped together on one spot; none but a true artist could have arranged them into so harmonious a whole, and produced from a combination of such opposite forms so imposing an effect” (Pierce 2004, p. 228). The tower and the pumping station gained significance for being among the few structures that survived the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 because they were built with little or no wood. On the day following the fire, the Water Tower served as a guidepost that helped citizens to locate their homes through the ruins. Over the years, the iconic tower became a significant landmark, a potent symbol of resilience for a city determined to rise from its own ashes. The tower also commemorates the victims of the fire (Leroux 2007). In 1969, the year of its centennial anniversary, the Water Tower was nationally recognized as the First American Water Landmark and in 1972, the Chicago Landmarks Commission designated the Chicago Water Tower and the Chicago Avenue

270

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.33 Chicago Water Tower (1869). As one of the few buildings to survive the Great Fire of 1871, it has become a symbol of Chicago’s strength and resilience. A true Chicago artifact, the tower, and surrounding activities bring together all the elements of successful placemaking (Photograph by author)

7.4 City’s Signature

271

Pumping Station as City landmarks. The tower has undergone two renovations. The first took place during a 3-year period, 1913–1916. At that time, many of the limestone blocks were replaced. The second renovation occurred in 1978. This renovation consisted mostly of interior changes, with only minor changes made to the exterior of the building. In 2014, the small plaza at the tower’s foot was created and named after former Chicago Mayor Jane M. Byrne, the first women to serve as a mayor in the years 1979–1983. The plaza enlivens the space and offers pedestrians a place to rest and enjoy looking at the historic, spectacular Water Tower (Fig. 7.34). Today, the Water Tower is home to the Chicago Office of Tourism’s art gallery, which displays the work of local photographers, artists, and filmmakers.

7.4.2 Water Tower Place Located immediately northeast of Chicago Water Tower across Michigan Avenue, the Water Tower Place has been a major landmark in the city since its completion in 1976. It comprises two major parts: (1) a block-long, an eight-story podium that contains a high-end shopping mall, and (2) a slab tower that contains offices, RitzCarlton hotel, and luxury condominiums. A stunning eight-level terraced atrium, featuring glass elevators housed in three bundled hexagonal glass tubes, anchors the mall’s interior space and brings about vitality and vigor. Replete with cosmopolitan elegance, the 758,000 ft2 (70,400 m2 ) mall is renowned for its vast selection of over 100 stores in addition to major brands such as Macy’s department store. In addition to retails, the mall offers amenities, including restaurants, entertainment options such as a live theatre, dining places, and the like. Due to its wide variety of shops, Water Tower Place is a shopping destination for residents and visitors alike. It is considered one of the first vertical malls in the world. Admittedly, it was the first indoor mall in the city, and it continues to be one of Chicagoland’s favorite shopping destinations. Design by Modernist Architect Edward D. Dart of Loebl Schlossman and Hackl, the complex features a sleek exterior with predominantly gray marble and black straps. Upon completion, the 74-story (262-m/859-ft) slab tower was the world’s tallest building constructed using reinforced concrete. It retained the title until the completion of 311 South Wacker in 1990. Given its exceptional height and spacious location, its tenants enjoy unobstructed views of Lake Michigan and the Chicago Skyline (O’Gorman 2003). This mixed-use complex successfully addresses the challenge of providing separate entries and vertical circulation. The 12-story Pearson Hotel that stood at the southeast corner of the site was demolished to make way for Water Tower Place. Part of the site was bought from the John Hancock Center, with an easement restricting the tower to the southeast corner of the lot to preserve the Hancock’s views. The complex was named after the nearby Chicago Water Tower, located across Michigan Avenue southwest of the building (Saliga and Clarke 1998) (Figs. 7.35 and 7.36).

272

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.34 Jane M. Byrne Plaza. This small “urban oasis” houses the Chicago Water Tower and offers pedestrians a place to sit, relax, and enjoy looking at the historic, spectacular Water Tower (Photograph by author)

7.4 City’s Signature

273

Fig. 7.35 Completed in 1976, Water Tower Place (right) features a sleek exterior grid pattern, offering an instant contrast to Hancock Center’s bold dark skin and diagonal bracings, completed in 1969. Note how these towers, along with the historic pumping station (bottom), create a living urban collage that promotes sense of place (Photograph by author)

274

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.36 Water Tower Place. A stunning eight-level terraced atrium fosters a sense of vitality and dynamism. Glass elevators, housed in three bundled hexagonal glass tubes, anchor the mall’s interior space (Photograph by author)

7.4 City’s Signature

275

7.4.3 Park Tower Located immediately west of the historic Chicago Water Tower, Park Tower is a slender, mixed-use tower that rises to 257 m (844 ft). The 68-story building contains hotel spaces from the second floor through the 22nd and 117 condominiums above. It offers parking spaces on the 2nd through 6th floors. There are shops on the first and second floors, and mechanical equipment is placed on the 19th floor and atop the building. The top eight floors contain one residence per floor, allowing residents to enjoy 360° panoramic views of the city. The postmodern tower was designed by Lucien Lagrange Architects and completed in 2000. Park Tower replaced Pritzkers’ 16-story Park Hyatt Hotel, which was built in 1960 (Kamin 2000). Park Tower has been renowned for being the world’s second tallest building clad in precast concrete panels, trailing the Transamerica Pyramid Building in San Francisco, CA. The study participants noted that the almost golden-hued concrete panels of Park Tower match that of the yellowish Joliet limestone of the neighboring historic Chicago Water Tower, thereby establishing contextual relationships. Besides, the tapering of Park Tower resembles that of the Water Tower, reinforcing contextual links. Further, the tower employs traditional stepbacks and curving columns recalling 1920s Chicago towers. It also integrates curving balconies, which communicate the residential function of the building. A restaurant that projects from the 7th floor over the park enriches the visual experience. False windows and precast concrete cladding completely disguise the parking garage. Although Park Tower rises like a rocket and is taller than the nearby Chicago Water Tower by almost five times, the contextual design strategies and sculpted profile have partially mitigated this problem (Fig. 7.37). Using the words of Blair Kamin “The Park Tower easily could have been a visually oppressive box, but, for the most part, the architect has succeeded in making it something else: a slender, sculpted object” (Kamin 2000). Interestingly, the building was planned to reach 650 ft (198 m) in height. However, for marketability reasons, Pritzker’s Hyatt Development Corp. increased the height of each floor a foot and a half, making the building reaches 844 ft (257 m) height. The resulting slender tower (given the significant height and small building footprint) posed structural challenges. Wind tunnel tests indicated that the building would face serious sway problems caused by wind coming from Lake Michigan and bounced off the nearby John Hancock Center and Water Tower Place. Consequently, engineers bulked up the tower’s steel-reinforced concrete frame of the east and west facades and integrated a 400-ton tuned mass damper. It is suspended from steel cables placed beneath the tower’s top so that when wind pressures the tower in one direction, the damper pushes in the opposite direction, resulting in sway reduction. In contrast to many tall buildings that were retrofitted with dampers, Park Towers incorporated a damper from the outset (Kamin 2000).

276

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.37 Park Tower. The golden-hued concrete used in Park Tower picks up on the yellow tones in the Joliet limestone used to build the historic Water Tower (foreground). Besides, the tapering profile of Park Tower resembles that of the Water Tower, reinforcing contextual relationships and enhancing placemaking (Photograph by author)

7.4 City’s Signature

277

7.4.4 North Michigan Avenue 875 North Michigan Avenue (widely known as the John Hancock Center) is a 100story skyscraper located immediately north of the Water Tower Place across East Chestnut Street. According to the study results, the tower can be described as bold, high-tech, honest, authoritative, iconic, tall, and stable with timeless form and beautiful silhouette. It is locally known as the “Big John,” and symbolically is the Eiffel Tower of Chicago. The Chicago’s John Hancock is the quintessential model of a brilliantly engineered skyscraper that adds beauty through its innovative structure. It is an integral piece of the Chicago Skyline, and one of Chicago’s most beautiful works of architecture. When completed in 1969, it became Chicago’s tallest building and the world’s second tallest building, following New York City’s 1931 Empire State Building. The skyscraper rises to 344 m (1,128 ft) and reaches a height of 459 m (1,506 ft) when measured to the top of its two identical antennas. It is currently the fifth tallest building in Chicago trailing Willis Tower, Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago, Vista Tower, and Aon Center. Construction on the tower started in 1965. Despite a financial crunch amid construction that entailed changing the building’s ownership from Jerry Wolman to John Hancock, the building was completed on time. The story of the building goes as follows. Jerry Wolman approached Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) and expressed a desire to build a mixed-use project on the site he acquired on the Magnificent Mile. Therefore, the SOM team, led by architect Bruce Graham and structural engineer Fazlur R. Khan, proposed constructing two buildings: a 70-story apartment tower and a 45-story office tower. However, the private Casino Club east of the site refused to sell its lot. A smaller site engenders a tight squeeze, and the SOM team recognized that it was not adequate for the two planned towers. That is, the footprints of the two towers would have occupied most of the site. Also, the proximity of these two towers would have compromised privacy and natural daylighting. Additionally, lower floors would have suffered from noise from the busy Michigan Avenue. Further, for marketing purposes, a record high tower would allow the developer to advertise the building as “world’s highest residences,” and economic analysis revealed that a single tower was more costeffective. Consequently, Jerry Wolman and the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company favored a single-tower scheme, and a decision was made to combine the two towers into one. The ensuing design resulted in placing commercial and parking spaces on lower floors, and office and residential spaces on upper floors. In recent years, as the John Hancock Insurance Company moved its offices from the building, its name changed from John Hancock Center to 875 North Michigan. Functionally, it is a mini-city that stands on its own. It is one of the world’s first mixed-use tower, a concept that is increasingly embraced by sustainable skyscrapers today. Completed in 1969, the tower places commercial space on a sub-level concourse and the first five levels, followed by six levels of 710-car parking garage. The parking garage can be accessed via a detached reinforced concrete ramp that resembles Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum in New York. Interestingly, the ramp not only eases accessing the building from a busy neighborhood but also

278

7 The Magnificent Mile

serves as an eye-catching sculptural piece. Offices are placed in 27–48 floors, and 700 condominiums are set above. Dining facilities and observation deck (renamed 360 Chicago) occupy the 95th floor along a bar on the 96th floor. Finally, a broadcasting equipment space is placed on the roof. The dining area and observation deck are accessible to the public and offer spectacular views of Lake Michigan and the city from every angle. On a clear day, neighboring states are visible from the deck. Halfway up the building, on the 44th floor, a sky lobby features one of America’s highest indoor swimming pools. The building also incorporates fast elevators; it takes only 39 s to reach the Observatory. Collectively, residents can live, work, shop, and play without ever leaving the building—a neighborhood encapsulated—while the public can enjoy some of its amenities (Al-Kodmany and Ali 2013). The flowing, tapering form eminently suits this mixed-use tower. It provides the largest spans on the lower floors where they are needed for retail stores and the parking garage, and smallest span for office and residential spaces above—the first level consists of 47,000 ft2 (4,366 m2 ) while the roof is only 17,000 ft2 (1,579 m2 ). The mid-level office floors are flexible and open. Above, five apartment designs take into account the diminishing floor area. In addition to larger floor plans needed for retail and parking garages, these spaces require fewer windows, thus sensibly placing them on lower floors. In contrast, office and residential spaces suit upper floors that offer spectacular external views. Additionally, the tapered form significantly reduces wind loads and results in lowering the required structural materials. From an urban design point of view, Hancock’s tapering profile lessens its massiveness. Concisely, the building’s design fits Chicago tradition: form follows function. Notably, the skyscraper’s groundbreaking structural engineering helped the building to reach record heights with reasonable costs. In other words, conventional structural methods available at the time could have sufficed to construct a 100-story tower. However, the costs could have been too high. Structurally, the tower can be viewed as a tapered rectangular tube with a combined structural system—a “braced tube” structure—that comprises giant trusses on each of the four sides and exterior columns. Each side of the building has five X-shaped braces that stretch from floors 2–20, 21–37, 38–55, 56–74, to 75–91. An additional half a brace extends from floors 92 to 97 on all sides. This bundled tube system improved the tower’s resistance of wind, reduced required steel, and provided a column-free open floor plan. The tower “honestly” expresses its structural system on its façades. The tower’s exterior exhibits the diagonal load transference of its tubular structure. No ornamentation or décor is present in the building’s skin. Structural engineer Fazlur R. Khan’s idea of the “braced tube system” was an essential stage in the development of the skyscraper. As mentioned earlier, this design made it possible to build a remarkable height. According to Bruce Graham, the diagonal braces distribute the gravity load to all exterior columns, which formed “the equivalent of rigid external bearing walls on all four sides” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 154). Aesthetically, the X-bracing along the exterior cladding of black anodized aluminum with tinted bronze glass makes the signature feature of the tower. Due to Chicago’s swampy soil (particularly close to Lake Michigan) and significant weight of the building, caissons were sunk 190 ft (58 m) into bedrock, the deepest in the world at the time of construction (Fig. 7.38).

7.4 City’s Signature

279

Fig. 7.38 875 North Michigan Avenue. Widely known as the John Hancock Center, its signature feature is the black anodized aluminum crossbeam bracing. The tower’s robust exoskeleton structure, soaring height, and bold color make it a crucial urban symbol. Representing a seminal breakthrough in tall building engineering, the Hancock is an iconic Chicago placemaker (Photograph by author)

280

7 The Magnificent Mile

Architectural historians recount that constructing the John Hancock Center involved at least three significant gambles: financial, structural, and urban scale. The financial risk refers to place a sizeable mixed-use tower, the first “experimental” scheme in terms of mixed-use functions and extraordinary height. This gamble was most acute, giving the fact that the tower is away from mass transit rails. Luckily, the financial risk paid off. The building witnessed a demand for its residential and office space because people perceived it to be an impressive building in a prestigious neighborhood. The structural gamble involved inventing a new skeletal system to reach an unprecedented height economically. According to Graham in Real Estate Forum, the diagonal braces saved $15 million, because no expensive rectilinear Vierendeel trusses were necessary. Finally, the urban scale issue concerned introducing a giant structure with more than a double-height of any neighboring ones. There was a fear that the tower will be totally out of scale. However, this problem was mitigated incrementally as more towers with significant heights were built near it. Since the tower footprint occupies only half of the site, there was plenty of room to accommodate a public space or a plaza. As such, the developer constructed a rectangular sunken plaza at the edge of Michigan Avenue containing trees and an open ice skating rink. However, the plaza provided neither an impressive entrance to the building nor a lively gathering place. Later, when shopping meccas such as Water Tower Place and 900 North Michigan Avenue were built and completed, they adversely affected the retail floors of the Hancock Center. Consequently, pressure mounted to enclose the plaza. In 1988, the Center’s owner planned to cover the plaza with a gabled glass atrium, though Mayor Richard M. Daley and the residents rejected the proposal. In 1992, a solution by Hiltscher, Shapiro, and Associates that engaged reshaping the plaza into an attractive one was accepted and subsequently built in 1995. Named the Garden Level Plaza, the space was successfully refashioned into a semicircular sub-level space accessible through four staircases that extend to the street level. The renovation included the replacement of the previous white marble by gray/black granite, which more closely resembles that of the building (Binder 2015). At the sub-ground level, the plaza provides sufficient sitting areas with plenty of recreational options. There is a permanent seating area built into the semicircular granite structure that is interspersed with planted sections and stairs. The plaza’s middle point is slightly raised and contains a fountain and a 12-foot (4-m) curving waterfall. It serves as a place for movable chairs, tables, and stages for smallprogrammed events. The plaza offers excellent access to shopping and restaurants, with the south end of the square being used as the Cheesecake Factory’s outdoor seating area (Fig. 7.39). One can enjoy a miniature “urban oasis” here in the summer and experience what has become known as the neighborhood’s unofficial Christmas tree in the winter. Overall, the sunken plaza’s small size and narrow footprint bring it into scale with the richly pedestrian setting of the area, balancing the massive towers that dominate this section of Downtown Chicago and the nearly constant stream of shoppers, tourists, and business people that pass by. Furthermore, because the street and the John Hancock Center above are mostly unseen, one does not have the feeling of being overpowered by either. Finally, in 2014, the building’s owner debuted the

7.4 City’s Signature

281

Fig. 7.39 The reimagined sunken Garden Level Plaza at John Hancock Center replaces an earlier unsuccessful version. The plazas’ vibrant social life enhances sense of place (Photograph by author)

282

7 The Magnificent Mile

360 Chicago—TILT, offering a spectacular window to the city. Located 1,000 ft (305 m) above The Magnificent Mile, TILT is an enclosed, glass and steel moveable platform that holds up to eight visitors per cycle and tilts outward with a 30° angle, generating thrilling downward-facing views of the city (Fig. 7.40).

7.4.5 900 North Michigan Avenue Located northwest of the John Hancock Center across Michigan Avenue, 900 North Michigan Avenue is a 66-story postmodern building. Urban Retail Properties developed and completed this 265-m (871-ft) tall tower in 1989 as an upscale sister to Water Tower Place (1976), which stands one block southeast, thereby making it the second vertical mall built along the Magnificent Mile. By offering similar components to those of Water Tower Place, the building represents a robust example of a mixed-use tower that contains residential condominiums and apartments, hotel and office spaces, shopping malls, medical clinics, restaurants, amenities, a parking garage, and a green roof. New York firm Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF) designed the building, for which William Pedersen acted as the design partner and Sudhir Jambhekar as the senior designer. James Allen, a partner in charge of the Chicago firm Perkins and Will, supervised the construction (Murphy and Reilly 2017). 900 North Michigan’s development reflects the increased land value along the Magnificent Mile. For economic reasons, the previous 10-story apartment building that was constructed in the 1920s had to be replaced with a taller one, the new 66story tower. In paying respect to the older building, KPF recessed the tower’s shaft from the Avenue and made the podium’s height to be the same as the original 900 North Michigan. The study participants described the tower as embellished, massive, and ornate. They admired its tripartite design that consists of a clear base, shaft, and top. The base is a street-defining mass and aligns with Michigan Avenue. The podium’s design features attractive textures, subtle colors, and rich details that are communicated via a composition of granite, marble, and limestone. Overall, the 8story podium addresses the pedestrian’s need for attractive perceptual characteristics and honors Chicago’s tradition of respecting human scale. Therefore, the podium attempts lessening the impact of the building’s enormous bulk and recalls the height and scale of Michigan Avenue buildings in the early 1920s. Meanwhile, the shaft’s iconic image is achieved through vertical striation defining windows and cladding patterns. The slim tower rises from the base with stepbacks that relate to Holabird and Root’s nearby Palmolive Building and punched windows like those of the Drake Hotel. Importantly, the building’s top is most recognizable by integrating four corner pavilions and ornamental lanterns, which change color in special holidays and seasons such as Christmas time. The tower’s skin comprises cream-colored limestone and light-reflective green glass (Fig. 7.41). Overall, Pedersen is renowned for his contextual architecture. It is narrated that for creating the design of this building, he examined the shapes, colors, textures, heights, and bulks of buildings along Michigan Avenue from beginning to end, focusing on

7.4 City’s Signature

283

Fig. 7.40 In 2014, the building’s owner debuted the 360 Chicago—TILT, offering a new spectacular vantage point to view the city (Photograph by author)

284

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.41 Located northwest of the John Hancock Center, 900 North Michigan Avenue is a 66story classically postmodern building. The study participants described the tower as embellished, massive, and ornate. They admired its tripartite design that consists of a clear base, shaft, and top (Photograph by author)

7.4 City’s Signature

285

the collective perceptual characteristics of the avenue. Then, he took visual cues from 333 North Michigan tower in particular and applied that to 900 North Michigan. In his May 6, 1986, Chicago Sun-Times article, journalist M. W. Newman explained: Pedersen has a knowing eye, and he chose 333 North Michigan, at the other end of the avenue, as a compliment. It’s a slender, limestone-clad aristocrat of the Art Moderne 1920s, with a marble base and towering setbacks [stepbacks] at its peak. Seen from the north, 333 almost seems to stand by itself, thanks to a turn in the boulevard. Actually, it fits in tightly while defining the avenue like a classical column set in space (O’Gorman 2003). According to the study results, the building establishes a beautiful contextual relationship with its surroundings. Its limestone color and feel echo that of the Chicago Water Tower. Besides, the tower’s postmodern design, cladding, color, and tripartite composition contrast sharply with the neighboring John Hancock Center, characterized by a dark “obelisk,” modern high-tech form. 900 North Michigan also offers a pleasant contrast with the boxy, plain, spider-web marble facing of Water Tower Place. That is, the building relates and takes visual cues from the surrounding urban fabric, stressing endured Pedersen’s contextual design philosophy. In Kohn Pedersen Fox: Buildings and Projects 1976–1986 (1987), Pedersen states: “We intended to ‘gather’ the meaning of our buildings into, hopefully, an artistic unity sensitively scaled to the city … we intended to introduce the complexity of the modern city into the individual building” (Chao and Abramson 1987, p. 152). Collectively, the employed architectural elements are among the distinctive features of Chicago architecture. Structurally, the building consists of two parts: a steel skeleton built on top of a concrete frame. These two structural systems come together on the 13th floor. Another modest but practical innovation is in the basement: a motorized turntable that lines up trucks with 12 loading docks. Entering the building from Michigan Avenue, one meets a six-story retail atrium that centers an upscale shopping mall, called 900 North Michigan Shops. Since Bloomingdale’s is the shopping mall’s anchor tenant, the building is commonly referred to as “Bloomingdale’s Building.” Bloomingdale’s became a magnet to shoppers upon the building’s opening. The mall also contains over 70 upscale shops that include a lineup of world-renowned brands. Consequently, the mall is a destination for style and sophistication unparalleled anywhere else in the city. One successful interior design strategy is placing the entrance to Bloomingdale’s deep within the mall, forcing shoppers to pass the boutiques and specialty stores before reaching the department store’s doors. Remarkably, the office floors were all leased before the building was completed, underscoring the success of a mixed-use scheme at the north end of town. Progress has continued in the 1990s despite the opening of two similar complexes at 678 and 700 North Michigan. Recently, the building underwent a substantial renovation that engaged a wide range of spaces including the grand entry, mall, shared work, and social spaces, cafes, restaurants, concierge services, the entrance from the first level of the parking deck, the main corridor connecting the parking garage to the retail space, and the restrooms. Several elements were targeted, including facades, ceilings, lighting, interior décor, and acoustics. The renovation even involved installing one of the city’s

286

7 The Magnificent Mile

largest LED canopies (184 ft/56 m) that projects stimulating video artwork in the existing atrium ceiling (Fig. 7.42). In another mode, the canopy displays tenant names and products in a mesmerizing, kaleidoscope colors and patterns. Renovations also added greenery and elements inspired by nature that evoke a park-like atmosphere. Earlier, the building was retrofitted with a verdant green roof, mainly above the parking garage. It features five planting mixes in an irregular grid pattern, two of which employ the LiveRoof Deep System (6 in/15 cm). The green roof includes ornamental grasses, a variety of irrigated sedums, grasses, trees, and flowering perennials (Al-Kodmany 2018).

7.4.6 Palmolive Building Located immediately on the block north of 875 North Michigan Avenue and completed in 1929, the Palmolive Building was the first commercial skyscraper built far from the Loop—at the northern end of the Magnificent Mile. In contrast to the Loop, this area enjoyed quieter streets, cleaner air, more pleasant surroundings, yet it was convenient to the automobile and bus lines. The building was built as the headquarters for the Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company, one of the world’s leading soap manufacturers; the building symbolically represented a “monument to cleanliness” (Al-Kodmany 2015). Designed by the architectural firm Holabird & Root, the 37-floor building is one of the crown jewels of Chicago architecture. It represents a premier example of Art Deco-style “stepback” skyscraper. It features six series of stepbacks on all four sides that add elegance to the tower’s profile (Fig. 7.43). “Although the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building may be flashier; the Palmolive Building is the perfect distillation of the stripped-down, stepped-back architectural style that was popular all over the country in the 1920s” (Handley 2003). Indeed, the design of this beautiful tower was influenced by municipal zoning laws and the dramatic renderings of New York architect Hugh Ferris. The stepbacks could also be used as terraces, beautified with planting. They are also used to place the lighting system, which, at night, highlights the stepbacks and the beautiful spatial profile of the buildings. Supported by a caisson foundation system, the tower employs a steel frame covered by brick and limestone. Given the strategic location of the tower, it offers far-sweeping views over Lake Michigan and the city at large. The building has an interesting history of clients and ownerships. In 1960, the first Playboy Club occupied the building’s ground floor. Between 1967 and 1989, the building served as the headquarters for the Playboy Magazine, changing the building’s name to The Playboy Building. On both sides of the building, the name PLAYBOY was spelled out on a neon sign with nine-foot illuminated letters. Upon the departure of the Playboy Enterprise in 1989 (it moved offices to 680 North Lake Shore Drive), the building was renamed as 919 North Michigan Avenue. This name of the building was retained up to 2001 when the building was sold to developer Draper and Kramer, who embarked on a remarkable adaptive reuse project, converting the

7.4 City’s Signature

287

Fig. 7.42 900 North Michigan Avenue. The building renovation involved installing a large LED canopy (184 ft/56 m) that projects changing video artwork on the existing atrium ceilings (Photograph by author)

288

7 The Magnificent Mile

Fig. 7.43 The 37-floor Palmolive Building is one of the crown jewels of Chicago architecture. It represents a premier example of Art Deco-style “stepback” skyscraper. Six series of stepbacks on all four sides add elegance to the tower’s profile. An interesting spatial dialog is engendered between the Art Deco Palmolive and High-Tech Modernist John Hancock Center (background), evovking a unique sense of place (Photograph by author)

7.4 City’s Signature

289

building to residential use with the first two floors dedicated to upscale office and retail space. A total of 102 ultra-luxury condominiums with an average price of more than $2 Million occupy the rest of the building. The new owners restored the building’s name to the Palmolive Building. In 2000, the building was designated as a Chicago Landmark, and in 2003, it was added to the federal National Register of Historic Places. One of the exciting features of the building is the Lindbergh Beacon. In 1930, a 97-foot (30-m) spire, carrying a beacon (powerful revolving light), was mounted atop the flat roof. The beacon rotated a full 360° and was intended to help guide airplanes safely to Midway Airport. Empowered with excessive candlepower and watts, the beacon was seen by planes from a distance as far as 225 miles away. As such, it was once one of Chicago’s most visible landmarks. However, during the Second World War, from 1942 to 1944, the beacon was turned off fearing that it could have been used for navigation by invading forces. Later, in 1981, when high-rises were erected near the building, the beacon was turned off again so that projected light would not intrude on neighbors. In 2007, the Lindbergh Beacon was reactivated but with limited hours from 8 pm until midnight and with a direct beam toward Lake Michigan instead of a rotating one. The beacon was named after Charles Lindbergh, an American explorer, aviator, author, inventor, and environmental activist (Al-Kodmany 2015).

7.4.7 One Magnificent Mile Located immediately north of 900 North Avenue across East Walton Street, One Magnificent Mile is a 57-story mixed-use tower. It contains 58,734 sf2 (5,456 m2 ) of fashion retailers on the first three floors, and 341,470 sf2 (31,723 m2 ) of office space on its middle floors (4 through 19). Floors 20 and 21 house mechanical equipment, and floors 22–56 house 181 luxury condominiums. The lower floors contain a parking garage. Interestingly, the functional division is expressed on the facades by applying large oversized windows to mechanical floors that sit between residential and office spaces. Residential units vary in size from one-bedroom apartments to penthouses. This full-amenity building features an indoor pool, sundeck, fitness center, restaurants, and the like. The tower’s construction started in 1978 and completed in 1983. It was aptly named after its location at the head of the Magnificent Mile.

290

7 The Magnificent Mile

Designed by SOM, the 205 m (673 ft) tower comprises four hexagonal bundled tubes with varying heights, 5, 21, 49, and 57 floors, while each has a sloping roof. The hexagonal geometry suited the site by making parts of the building face the Oak Street Beach and other parts align with the city grid simultaneously. The varying heights of the tower were determined to minimize afternoon shadows on the beach. Structurally, the bundled tube provided strength—it is a similar structural system that was applied earlier to the Sears Tower by the same architect Bruce Graham and structural engineer Fazlur R. Khan (Fig. 7.44). The tower won the Best Structure Award from the Structural Engineers Association of Illinois in 1984. SOM designed the tower with the modernist style, featuring playful geometry and pink granite cladding. Overall, the tower’s unique location and appealing architecture make it a stunning landmark. It has been described as “disciplined, moderately assertive and well-mannered building that is in the Chicago tradition of solidity and good taste” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 179).

7.5 Summary This chapter examined the Magnificent Mile as a significant path in the City of Chicago. It identified two remarkable spatial clusters of tall buildings. The first cluster has shaped a stunning Grand Gateway to the Magnificent Mile, comprising iconic buildings, including The Wrigley Building, The Tribune Tower, LondonHouse Chicago, 333 North Michigan, Equitable Building, InterContinental Hotel, and Trump Hotel & International Hotel. The Michigan Avenue Bridge functions as a significant spatial anchor to this cluster; the four bridge tender houses reinforce the sense of gateway. Together with the surrounding buildings and plazas, they define one of the city’s—and nation’s—most beautiful urban spaces. The second cluster embodies a stretch marked by the historic Chicago Water Tower at the south end and the One Magnificent Mile at the north end. In between, prominent tall buildings evoke strong imageability for this area. These buildings include the Water Tower Place, John Hancock Center, 900 North Michigan, Park Tower, and Palmolive Building. They offer upscale commercial services and supply luxury residential units. Overall, these spatial nodes play an essential role in improving the imageability of Michigan Avenue and ensuring the Mag Mile as a world-class public place.

7.5 Summary

291

Fig. 7.44 Completed in 1983, One Magnificent Mile comprises four hexagonal bundled tubes with varying heights, 5, 21, 49, and 57 floors, each has a sloping roof. The tower has been described as “disciplined, moderately assertive and well-mannered building that is in the Chicago tradition of solidity and good taste” (Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 179) (Photograph by author)

292

7 The Magnificent Mile

References Al-Kodmany K (2015) Eco-towers. WIT Press, Southampton Al-Kodmany K (2017) Understanding tall buildings. Routledge, London Al-Kodmany K (2018) The vertical city: a sustainable development model. WIT Press, Southampton Al-Kodmany K, Ali MM (2013) The future of the city: tall buildings and urban design. WIT Press, Southampton Binder G (2015) Tall buildings of China. Images Publishing, Mulgrave, Australia Bruegmann R (2012) Art Robert Deco Chicago: designing modern America. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT CCLDR1 City of Chicago (2019) Landmark designation report 1, wrigley building. https://www.cit yofchicago.org/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preservation/Publications/Wrigley_Building.pdf CCLDR2 City of Chicago Landmark Designation Reports (2019) London Guarantee Building. https://archive.org/stream/CityOfChicagoLandmarkDesignationReports/LondonGua ranteeBuilding_djvu.txt Chao S, Abramson T (1987) Kohn Pedersen Fox: buildings and projects 1976–1986. Rizzoli, NYC Chicago Architecture Center (CAC) (2019) The wrigley building. http://www.architecture.org/ learn/resources/buildings-of-chicago/building/wrigley-building/ Dyja TL (2014) The third coast: when Chicago built the American dream. Penguin, NYC Handley J (2003) Art deco tower gets new life as pricey condos. Chicago Tribune Hunt B, DeVries JB (2017) Planning Chicago. Routledge, London Kamin B (2000) Park tower stands tall but fall to soar, Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotr ibune.com/news/ct-xpm-2000-07-23-0007230144-story.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Kamin B (2017) Apple’s new flagship store an understated gem on the Chicago River, Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kamin/ct-met-apple-storereview-20171017-story.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Keegan E (2008) Chicago architecture: 1885 to today. Rizzoli, NYC Leroux C (2007) The Chicago water tower, Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/nationworld/politics/chi-chicagodays-watertower-story-story.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Miller DL (1996) City of the century: the epic of Chicago and the making of America. Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, NYC Murphy KD, Reilly L (ed) (2017) Architecture skyscraper gothic: Medieval style and modernist buildings. University of Virginia Press, Arlington, VA O’Gorman TJ (2003) Architecture in detail Chicago. PRC publishing, NYC Pierce BL (2004) As others see Chicago: impression of visitors, 1673–1933. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL The Wrigley Building: A Revolutionary Development. Reimaged, Revitalize. http://www.thewri gleybuilding.com/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Saliga PA, Clarke JH (1998) The sky’s the limit: a century of skyscrapers in Chicago. Rizzoli, NYC Smith CS (2006) The plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the remaking of the American City. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Solomonson K (2001) The Chicago Tribune tower competition: skyscraper design and cultural change in the 1920s. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge The Magnificent Mile (2019) History. https://www.themagnificentmile.com/neighborhood/history/ Zukowsky J, Thorne M, Tigerman S (2004) Masterpieces of Chicago architecture. Rizzoli, NYC

Chapter 8

The Chicago Loop

Abstract This chapter investigates the Chicago Loop, the city’s Central Business District (CBD). A large concentration of tall buildings in a relatively small area (about a square mile) reinforces a powerful downtown image. The chapter first explains briefly the history of development of the Loop. Next, based on the preliminary research findings, it examines in-depth several outstanding clusters of tall buildings, including “Graceful Sky Touch,” “City’s Heart and Soul,” “Loop Oasis,” “City’s Political Pulse,” “Millennium Gateway,” and “Eclectic Edge.” Further, the chapter reports on delightful public plazas in the Loop that promote vibrant social life and support placemaking. On the skyline, key skyscrapers form major focal points and create a dynamic silhouette. Overall, the Loop evokes a powerful skyscraper CBD image.

8.1 Introduction Located at the epicenter of the city, the Loop is quintessentially Chicago. It is a bustling expanse, featuring vibrant pedestrian flows, busy roads, vital public spaces, and stunning skyscrapers. It is home to City Hall, seat of Cook County, banks, national and international corporate headquarters, stock and trading centers, and a myriad of shops, restaurants, and other support services. Bounded by bodies of water, Lake Michigan on the east and the Chicago River on the north and west, the resulting limited geography, known as the Loop, was deemed highly valuable. Since the land was a premium here, various businesses competed for this central and prestigious space, creating a remarkable Central Business District (CBD). The Loop’s history predates the Great Fire of 1871. When horse-drawn omnibuses were introduced on State St. in 1859, the Loop laid the groundwork for transit lines, connecting commuting populations at the peripheries with the urban core. In the 1880s, Chicago witnessed rapid growth. It was the fastest-growing city in the country, a national center of industry, commerce, and finance. By 1870, the city’s population had surged to 298,977; and by 1880, Chicago’s population exploded to 500,000. Consequently, during this time, Chicago introduced cable car lines, circling part of the urban core, thus originating the term “Loop” (Miller 1996). © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_8

293

294

8 The Chicago Loop

Importantly, the Great Chicago Fire that destroyed much of the Loop gave ambitious and talented architects the opportunity to create something entirely new: a district of skyscrapers. The prevailing cutting-edge technologies at that time enabled constructing ever-taller skyscrapers. Building tall was also needed to accommodate the increasing population; Chicago’s population reached more than 1,000,000 in 1890. As downtown became jammed with horses, carts, and carriages, Chicagoans envisioned that elevated tracks would solve traffic problems as opposed to subways that would have been too costly to construct. Consequently, in 1892, the city built the first “L” (short for “elevated”) section, and in 1897, the Union Loop Elevated Railway was completed, cementing the term “Loop” (Dyja 2014). The Loop continued to grow rapidly, and in the 1920s, it witnessed an enormous construction boom of buildings with increasing height—buildings of 20 and 25 stories became the norm. Later, in the 1930s and 1940s, due to the Great Depression and World War II, and later, the “white flight” to suburban communities, population growth slowed down. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Loop seemed reborn. However, it faced depression again in the early 1990s but witnessed a rebirth again in the 2000s, precipitated by the city’s commitment to the construction of residential towers and amenities, particularly, the Millennium Park, Maggie Daley Park, Chicago Riverwalk, and Navy Pier (Miller 1996). The Loop today accommodates a plethora of transportation modes, including elevated rapid transit system (the “L”), biking, walking, and street networks. The Loop provides a direct link between two of the city’s busiest commuter highways, I-290 (Congress Parkway) and Highway 41 (Lake Shore Drive). Lower and Upper Wacker Drive facilitate ease in entering and exiting the Loop, improving navigation, and reducing congestion in the area. An underground pedestrian network, called “Pedway,” connects many of the Loop’s buildings, parking garages, skybridges, and amenities, providing convenience in extreme weather conditions, cold winter, and hot summer. The Loop’s central role has been reinforced by several new significant developments such as Lakeshore East, which is a multibillion-dollar mixed-use development rising atop the long-fallow Illinois Central rail yard at the mouth of the Chicago River. Similarly, the city’s signature green spaces, Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park, are built atop an old rail yard (Smith 2006). Today, the Loop is a vibrant 24/7 district with offices, shopping, restaurants, theaters, colleges and is expanding in east, west, and south directions. According to Richard Greene, a Northern Illinois University geographer and urban researcher, Chicago’s central population leaped 114% from 1990 to 2010, hitting 141,511. If it were counted separately, the greater Loop would be the sixth-largest municipality in the state, with population count similar to that of Joliet and Naperville. In fact, the Census Bureau reported in 2012 that Chicago gained more people within two miles of the City Hall—48,288, or 36.2%—than any other American city, including New York, in the previous decade, in both absolute and percentage terms. Many of these new residents are young, ages 25 to 34. By the city’s estimate, 38,000 full-time college students attend classes in the greater Loop. In his book The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City, Alan Ehrenhalt (2013, p. 183) writes that “in the year 2020, no matter how many condos are built or sold, Chicago is likely to be

8.1 Introduction

295

a nest of center-city affluence unequaled in size—or even approached—by anyplace in America.” Overall, despite changing and challenging circumstances, the Loop serves as the heart of the city and as a potent urban symbol (Al-Kodmany 2017).

8.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis Based on the study’s results and by viewing the Loop district through Lynch’s model, we identify significant paths, edges, illustrated in Figs. 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, and 8.13, as well as substantial landmarks and nodes, illustrated in the subsequent figures in this chapter. These imageability elements are discussed in the following sections.

8.3 Graceful Sky Touch At the western side of the Loop, near the Chicago River, there is an outstanding agglomeration of exceedingly tall buildings. Among the buildings that form this node are the Willis Tower, 311 South Wacker Drive, and Franklin Center. The study participants nicknamed this cluster as a “Graceful Sky Touch,” referring to how these buildings elegantly rise to “touch” the sky and to the Willis Tower’s Skydeck that connects people with the sky.

8.3.1 Willis Tower As the tallest building in the city, it is an unmistakable landmark. Formerly and perhaps more widely known as Sears Tower, this 108-story, 527 m (1,729 ft) tower (including antennas, and 442 m/1,451 ft without) was the world’s tallest building for nearly a quarter-century, from 1974 to 1998. Then, it was surpassed by the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, though without counting the height of the Sear’s antennas. The Council On Tall Buildings And Urban Habitat (CTBUH) ruled out that antennas should not be part of measurements, the case of the Sears. At the same time, spires that are architecturally integrated into the design of the tower should count, the case of the Petronas Towers. Of course, this method of measurement sparked international controversy. Regardless, the Sears Tower continues to be Chicago’s most recognizable and vital building. Its Skydeck is the ultimate viewing point of the city and in recent years, “Ledges” were added, offering exhilarating experience and more fabulous views of the city (Al-Kodmany and Ali 2013) (Fig. 8.14). The story of the Sears goes back to serious efforts by former Mayor Richard J. Daley to revive downtown and revitalize the city’s economy. He agreed to sell a

296

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.1 LaSalle Street, a major corporate corridor, looking South. Older and contemporary tall buildings create a legible path leading to the heart of the Chicago Loop. Note the original Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) building in the background serves as a splendid visual terminus. The building uses a series of lateral stepbacks to evoke a thronelike massing and draw the eye up to the golden statue of Ceres (Photograph by author)

8.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

297

Fig. 8.2 Wabash Avenue. Among its exciting features is the dark horizontal stretch of the “L” that contrasts with the lighter color and strong verticality of the Trump International Hotel & Tower, which also serves as a spectacular visual terminus (Photograph by author)

298

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.3 Dearborn Street hosts a remarkable mix of historic and modern buildings, making it a one-of-a-kind path, visually appealing along its entire length (Photograph by author)

8.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

299

Fig. 8.4 As the birthplace of the large American department store, the State Street is a major commercial thoroughfare and home to the theater district in the Loop. Note how Chicago’s tradition of discrete signage is appropriately ignored by the bright and bold signage outside the Chicago Theater (Photograph by author)

300

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.5 West Madison Street cuts through the heart of the Chicago Loop. Featuring buildings of comparable heights and compatible architectural styles, Madison functions as a welcoming gateway to the Loop (Photograph by author)

8.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

301

Fig. 8.6 The broad Wacker Drive features significant tall buildings along either side, creating a meaningful path in the CBD (Photograph by author)

302

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.7 The Chicago River, Wacker Drive, and skyscrapers create a spectacular urban boulevard engendering a unique sense of place (Photograph by author)

8.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

303

Fig. 8.8 A slight bend in Wacker Drive reveals an intriguing display of skyscrapers that evokes a strong sense of place (Photograph by author)

304

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.9 Wacker Drive, looking west (top), looking east (bottom). This spacious boulevard integrates remarkable vistas that offer some of the best views of the city (Photograph by author)

8.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

305

Fig. 8.10 Placed side by side, 77 West Wacker (left), and OneEleven (right) create a welcoming, balanced gateway to the Loop (Photograph by author)

306

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.11 Featuring old dark massive steel structure, the “L” establishes a splendid contrast with surrounding sleek modern skyscrapers. Collectively, they capture the March of time and evoke a unique sense of place (Photograph by author)

8.2 Visual and Spatial Synthesis

307

Fig. 8.12 Double-decker historic bridges that cross the Chicago River are integral elements of the downtown image. In addition to serving transportation functions, they serve as significant landmarks and foster unique sense of place (Photograph by author)

308

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.13 Characterized by an outstanding structure with intriguing shadow interplay, the “L” forms an “overhead edge” that strengthens the imageability of the Chicago Loop (Photograph by author)

8.3 Graceful Sky Touch

309

Fig. 8.14 Willis Tower. Formerly known as Sears Tower, this 108-story tower features a striking modern exterior comprised of 28 acres of black anodized aluminum panels and approximately 16,100 bronze-tinted windows. Undoubtedly, the massive size, humongous height, brilliant engineering, and outstanding architecture make it the permanent Chicago landmark (Photograph by author)

310

8 The Chicago Loop

portion of Quincy Street to Sears, Roebuck and Company1 (colloquially known as Sears) to enable the construction of the world’s tallest building: The Sears Tower. The Sears company occupied the tower for 20 years, but due to competition from other discount stores, the company moved to suburban Hoffmann Estates. In 1998, Sears, Roebuck and Company sold and moved out of the building, while retaining the Sears Tower name. However, in 2009, it was renamed Willis Tower after the Willis Group Holdings, a global insurance broker, called the Tower its Midwest home. This Chicago icon is currently the second tallest building in the Western Hemisphere after New York City’s One World Trade Center. The four and a half million square feet (418,064 m2 ) building covers two full city blocks bounded by Franklin Street, Wacker Drive, Adams Street, and Jackson Boulevard. When completed in 1974, the Sears Tower at 233 South Wacker Drive garnered global attention. Designed by architect Bruce Graham and structural-engineer Fazlur R. Khan, two of Skidmore’s most renowned figures, the office tower embraced an International Style and has substantially reshaped the city skyline. It is a significant tourist attraction in the city; its observation deck attracts over 1.5 million visitors a year. The tower’s innovative bundled tubular structure allowed it to reach an unprecedented height. At the base, there are nine bundled tubes. To improve the tower’s silhouette and resistance to wind, the tubes stop at different heights. Two tubes stop at the 55th floor, two at the 66th floor, three at the 90th floor, and the remaining two rises to the top (Fig. 8.15). Commenting on its structure, T. J. O’Gorman in his book Architecture in Detail Chicago (2003, p. 82) explains: “The best way to understand the Sears Tower’s design is to imagine a pack of cigarettes in which nine individual cigarettes are lifted above the rest. Two emerge to a mid-level, two are pulled out slightly higher, three are pulled out even further, and the final two are pulled out higher than all the rest. This arrangement was Fazlur Kahn’s solution to the massive Sears—to build nine towers, all connected, all bundled together for strength. Imagine these cigarettes each to be seventy-five-feet square. Out of this gigantic “bundled tube,” the Sears Tower was born.” Interestingly, the staggered “stepbacks” employed to improve the tower’s silhouette; certainly, without these stepbacks the tower will quickly amount to a dull box. Besides, these stepbacks respond to programmatic needs, requiring larger spaces on the lower floor for retail activities and smaller areas for offices on the upper floors. This functional necessity accounts for a similar “tapering” design in the Bank One Building and the John Hancock Center. The stepbacks also improve the tower’s resistance of strong wind at higher altitudes. Overall, the tower bundled tube design and stepback profile are structurally efficient, using 22% less steel than the Empire State Building (ESB), which employed a traditional steel frame structure. This innovative design was not only structurally efficient, but it also managed to be economical as well. It has proven to be a remarkably influential design typology and has been used in most supertall buildings constructed since the Willis Tower, including Burj Khalifa (Al-Kodmany 2015). 1 It

is an American chain of department stores founded by Richard Warren Sears and Alvah Curtis Roebuck in 1893.

8.3 Graceful Sky Touch

311

Fig. 8.15 Willis Tower’s top. To improve the tower’s silhouette and resistance to wind, the structural bundled tubes stop at varying heights (Photograph by author)

312

8 The Chicago Loop

The towers’ striking exterior comprises 28 acres (11 hectares) of black anodized aluminum panels and approximately 16,100 bronze-tinted windows. The steel frame and glass curtain-style design, as well as the tower’s sleek, slender, and clean lines, are a reminder of modernist high-rise artistry across the city. As is the case with the Federal Center (few blocks from the Sears), the American sculptor Alexander Calder was commissioned to create a monumental artwork for the Sears Tower. It was named the Universe, a moving wall piece that adorns the foyer. It has been disassembled in recent years (O’Gorman 2003). To improve this enormous skyscraper’s image at the ground level, the tower underwent renovations by SOM in 1985 and afterward by another Chicago architectural firm DeStefano and Partners in 1994. To enhance the entryways of the building, the renovations resulted in the addition of a second-floor plaza, a distinct tourist entrance on the south side of the building along Jackson Boulevard, and a barrelvaulted entrance pavilion on the west side of the building along Wacker Drive. The red granite plaza features seasonal seating and often draws crowds in the summer, particularly at lunchtime. Here, visitors can relax, stroll, or just sit to enjoy concerts and farmers’ markets in fair weather (Kamin 2003). Currently, the base is undergoing an additional retrofit by the Chicago office of global architecture firm Gensler. Among the most exciting additions to Willis Tower was the Skydeck entrance pavilion. It featured a suspended roof structure and an elegant glass skin, and consequently, the interior space is filled with an abundance of natural light, which makes the pavilion appear radiant from the outside. The pavilion’s roof substantially protruded over the glazed facades, exposing its structural trusses at street level. In this way, the transparent pavilion makes the internal structural columns more viewable, while the reflective glass produced aesthetic harmony, mimicking the roof’s structural elements. Terraced planters clad in pink granite and filled with plants, shrubs, and flowers further defined the entrance. Put together, the highly transparent pavilion glass, the solid, dark steel roof, and the giant pink terraced planters create a splendid contrast for all to enjoy (Fig. 8.16). Overall, this well-designed entrance pavilion has become a visual landmark for thousands of pedestrians who visit and pass by (Lepik 2008; Saliga and Clarke 1998). Also, the presence of large crowds near the entrance—the Skydeck attracts over 1.5 million visitors a year—humanizes the space even further. Interestingly, in 2009, the Willis Tower (previously Sears Tower) has added “The Ledge” to its observation deck, creating an even more exhilarating experience for viewers. The Ledge transforms how visitors experience Chicago. At 412 m (1,353 ft) height, the introduced Ledge includes four glass boxes that extend out 1.3 m (4.3 ft) from the building, providing breathtaking aerial views of the city (Fig. 8.17).

8.3.2 311 South Wacker Drive Located immediately south of the Willis Tower across from Jackson Boulevard, 311 South Wacker is a 65-story, 293 m (961 ft) tall postmodern commercial office

8.3 Graceful Sky Touch

313

Fig. 8.16 Renovations were undertaken to offset the Willis Tower’s massive image at the ground level, resulting in the addition of a second-floor plaza and a distinct tourist entrance on the south side of the building along Jackson Boulevard. Note that this addition has been removed recently (Photograph by author)

314

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.17 A cozy place in the sky. The Skydeck added to the Willis Tower is the ultimate viewing point. In recent years, “Ledges” were integrated, offering an exhilarating experience and a real aerial view of the city (Photograph by author)

8.3 Graceful Sky Touch

315

skyscraper. When completed in 1990, it was the world’s tallest building constructed using reinforced concrete, and it retained that title until Central Plaza in Hong Kong was completed in 1992, then Chicago’s Trump International Hotel & Tower in 2009, and later New York’s 432 Park Avenue in 2015. This 1.3-million ft2 (0.12 million m2 ) skyscraper was designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KPF). 311 South Wacker Drive remains as one of the tallest postmodern skyscrapers. Many scholars consider it as a symbol of the evolution of skyscraper design from the early days of the 1960s International Style, to the 1970s Modernism, and to the 1990s Postmodernism. It was the tallest building in the world known only by its street address until New York’s 432 Park Avenue completed in 2015. Further, at 293 m (961 ft) height, the skyscraper falls a bit short of naming it a supertall, a category that requires the building to be 300 m (984 ft) tall minimum (Fig. 8.18). Among the building’s main features is its two-level lobby. It is situated in an impressive four-story winter garden that contains palm trees, a fountain, and bronze sculpture called “Gem of the Lakes” by Raymond Kaskey, depicting a sizeable Neptunian figure drying himself over a seashell fountain. The winter garden has a 26 m (85 ft) vaulted glass-ceiling that resembles Rookery Building’s light court. During Chicago’s cold winter months, the winter garden feels like an outdoor plaza. In front of the winter garden, a canopy over the sidewalk was added in 2002 (O’Gorman 2003). At the northwest corner, the skyscraper has an attractive one-acre plaza; an urban oasis that integrates the most extensive lawn in the Chicago Loop. It is a trendy place and is used heavily during lunchtime in warmer months. In addition to local tenants, tourists who visit the neighboring Willis Tower, also visit this plaza. Occasionally, special events take place in this place, for example, farmers’ markets, musical concerts, and various art, and cultural festivals (Fig. 8.19). 311 South Wacker has a distinctive capital. Atop the tower sits a 70-ft-tall, 65-ftdiameter (21 m, 20 m) cylindrical glass crown surrounded by four smaller cylinders. One prototype design included four spires around the circumference. At night, the crown is lit by 1,852 fluorescent tubes, creating a light bright enough “to compete with the full moon,” making the tower visible from afar. The tower’s “lantern” projects different colors to indicate various holidays and special events. The architectural design of the building top was inspired by the neo-Gothic design of Tribune Tower—a nod to the rich history of Chicago architecture (Saliga and Clarke 1998). When completed, 311 South Wacker received Chicago’s First BOMA International TOBY Award for The Office Building of the Year in the over one million square feet category. In addition to commercial office space, the building contains retail space and three levels of underground parking. The building sits on a unique site that offers panoramic views of the city and beyond. The original design envisioned constructing two towers in the places of the existing plaza at northwest corner and the parking lot at the southwest corner. Recently developers presented plans to fulfill that vision, depicting twin 48-story office towers (Al-Kodmany 2018).

316

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.18 311 South Wacker remains one of the tallest postmodern skyscrapers. Its architectural style and lighter skin create a stark contrast with the surrounding dark steel skyscrapers, particularly the Willis Tower, engendering a unique sense of place (Photograph by author)

8.3 Graceful Sky Touch

317

Fig. 8.19 At the northwest corner, 311 South Wacker features an attractive one-acre plaza. It is an “urban oasis” that integrates the most extensive lawn in the Chicago Loop. One of the most popular seating options is the Adirondack chairs that visitors use to lounge, converse, and enjoy the space. By drawing people in, this busy plaza improves placemaking in the area (Photograph by author)

318

8 The Chicago Loop

8.3.3 The Franklin Center Situated one block north of the Willis Tower (Sears Tower), the study results indicate that the Franklin Center is highly admired for its architectural significance. The Center comprises primarily two towers, completed in 1989 and 1992. The first is Franklin Center North Tower (60 stories, 307 m/1,007 ft), which is located at 227 West Monroe Street. The second is Franklin Center South Tower (35 stories, 164 m/538 ft), which is located at 222 West Adams Street. These two towers are linked by a “neck,” a 16-story base building. Two 100 + ft (30 + m) spires rise from the center of the rooftop of the North Tower. This tower was the tallest building constructed in the city during the last quarter of the twentieth century. Its official height was increased from 886 ft/270 m (roof) to 1,007 ft/307 m (spire) when the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) began to include ornamental spires after the Willis Tower and Petronas Towers height controversy. Both towers integrate underground parking garages. The North Tower was intended to consolidate the American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) Company, and the South Tower is dedicated for use by the United States Gypsum (USG) Company. In 2004, the real estate company, Tishman Speyer, acquired both towers. The complex enjoys proximity to public transportation, including the Chicago “L” and Metra (Zukowsky et al. 2004). Adrian D. Smith designed the Franklin Center during his tenure at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), the same architect who applied a similar postmodern design to the NBC Tower in Chicago, completed in 1989. To make the Franklin Center stand out in the city’s busy skyline, particularly from the neighboring giant Willis Tower, Mr. Smith applied a few strategies. First, he placed the taller tower at the corner of the block farthest from the Willis Tower to mitigate a “dwarfing” impact. Second, he applied a glittering, postmodern skin with distinctive granite-clad texture to the towers so that it establishes a stark contrast with Willis’s ebony, sleek skin. To stress the postmodern architectural style, the building is characterized by sharp vertical lines with Gothic detailing, spiked roof pinnacles, granite cladding, and stepbacks. The granite has a deep red color at the base, but it changes to rose-beige at the top. As such, the building’s verticality evokes images of 1920s buildings and contrasts with the modernist Willis Tower. At night the stepbacks, finials, and spires are accented by softly colored lights. Finally, the Franklin Center’s design features a slender silhouette: the building’s mass narrows gradually with small stepbacks at the 15th, 30th, and 45th floors. Consequently, the building gets lighter as it rises and reinforces contrast with the “heavy” Willis. The study participants reinforced these architectural design observations, confirming that the resulting urban collage by the Franklin Center and the Willis Tower promotes sense of place (Fig. 8.20). The Franklin Center lobby is one of the most lavish and attractive in Chicago. It features stylized lighting fixtures, sumptuous chandeliers, marble walls, bronze, goldleaf oak trim, and floors in bold, brightly colored patterns in granite and marble. The elevator banks in the lobby are lit by flamboyant bands of neo-deco lighting extending

8.3 Graceful Sky Touch

319

Fig. 8.20 The Franklin Center’s postmodern style contrasts well with the International Style of neighboring Willis Tower. The resulting urban collage draws on the dimension of progress through time to enhance placemaking (Photograph by author)

320

8 The Chicago Loop

from one wall to the other. These subtle details evoke the past and make it remembered without being imitated. The lobby extends through the block, with a grand entrance hall at Monroe Street and a 16-story full height atrium in the link between the AT&T and USG towers. Collectively, the Franklin Center is considered one of the best of SOM’s postmodern towers. The postmodern Franklin Center contrasts with the modern towers that the firm built, including the John Hancock Center and the Willis Tower (O’Gorman 2003).

8.4 City’s Heart and Soul A cluster of tall buildings and associated plazas form a special space in the Loop, the “City’s Heart and Soul,” as the study participants nicknamed it. These buildings include the Richard J. Daley Center, James R. Thompson Center, Grant Thornton Tower, and the City Hall.

8.4.1 Richard J. Daley Center Located in the heart of Chicago’s Loop, the Richard J. Daley Center is a 32-story, 198m (648-ft) tall tower. Designed by C.F. Murphy Associates, the building embraces the International Style of architecture, classic Miesian design. The building is constructed out of Cor-Ten steel, which, when rusted, strengthens the structure and gives it a unique reddish-brown color. The tower’s exterior is buttressed by 12 large cruciform columns that enable column-free interior spaces (Fig. 8.21). The ground floor is completely enclosed in wall-to-wall glass windows, allowing passersby a glimpse into the main lobby. In essence, the Daley Center is an island of steel and glass in a sea of granite, with the plaza covering 80% of the entire block, not counting the space created by the setbacks. The Daley Center was the tallest building in the city when it was built in 1965. However, the tower’s ranking was short-lived, given the completion of the John Hancock Center only 5 years later. Predominantly occupying the southern half of the block, the plaza resembles a “grand public space” typology, using the language of Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis (1998). It is often the setting for programmed events such as concerts, performances, and political rallies, featuring an untitled Picasso sculpture, which stands 15 m (50 ft). Constructed out of the same Cor-Ten steel as the Daley Center, the Picasso sculpture serves as the Plaza’s centerpiece and is also a popular sitting area. The large sloping base proves an irresistible playground for children, who delight in showing off their sliding skills to parents and the public. Likewise, parents enjoy watching children’s performances. Other notable features include an eternal flame honoring fallen American soldiers and a large fountain at the ground level. During the summer months, children delight in the fountain’s cool water, often splashing their watchful parents. The fountain also produces low levels of “white noise,” which

8.4 City’s Heart and Soul

321

Fig. 8.21 Located in the heart of Chicago Loop, the Richard J. Daley Center is constructed out of Cor-Ten steel, which when rusted, it features a unique brownish color, making the tower a distinguishable landmark (Photograph by author)

322

8 The Chicago Loop

masks the cacophony of the street and creates a calming effect for nearby sitters. Interestingly, the plaza also facilitates access to Chicago’s underground pedway system (Fig. 8.22). Overall, similar to the case of the Federal Plaza, the Daley Plaza follows an austere, minimalist, modern design theme that provides few sitting places or green spaces. However, its permeable and flexible urban form can accommodate a large crowd or casual pedestrians without either feeling particularly uncomfortable. As such, the Daley Plaza offers year-round activities and festivals for Chicago residents and visitors alike. For instance, in October, the space is transformed into Franken Plaza, for a Halloween-themed festival, inviting various food vendors, tent shelters, and a stage for acrobatic performances. In keeping with the spirit of Halloween, the fountain water is dyed orange, creating a surreal, yet pleasantly entertaining spectacle for plaza-goers. Other festivals include the Christkindlemarket, a Germanthemed Christmas celebration, which hosts a multitude of ethnic-themed foods, arts, and crafts from all over the world. The plaza also hosts farmers’ markets (Keegan 2008). Daley Plaza also serves as the rendezvous point for Critical Mass, a monthly exhibition of Chicago’s bicycle enthusiasts. At approximately 6 p.m. on the last Friday of every month, thousands of cyclists descend upon the plaza forming a large ring around the building, which blocks traffic and leaves pedestrians dumbstruck. The resulting caravan runs a few “victory laps” before abruptly continuing, along a usually undetermined path, throughout the city. It is this spirit of cultural diversity and acceptance that makes Daley Plaza a genuinely unique urban hotspot. Interestingly, the spacious Daley Plaza offers generous views of the neighboring City Hall. The contrast of architectural styles, between the classical City Hall building and modernist Miesian Daley Center is fascinating. The City Hall, completed in 1911 before World War I, embraces a tripartite design with rows of giant Corinthian columns that form the building’s shaft, dividing a three-story base from a bold attic level. This classical design contrasts with Daley Plaza’s minimalist design featuring a plain base and a shaft without a crown. Further, City Hall’s whitish, stone exterior contrasts sharply with the dark brownish Cor-Ten exterior of the Daley Center. As such, placed side by side, these two buildings narrate a transition in construction and architectural styles.

8.4.2 James R. Thompson Center Located immediately northeast of the Richard J. Daley Center, the James R. Thompson Center (JRTC) is a 17-story, 94 m (308 ft) building. Although it is a relatively short building, it offers a provocative design. Helmut Jahn, the building’s architect, has formulated an exciting design that is distinguished by sweeping arcs of blue and salmon glass that wrap around an enormous cylindrical atrium, spanning the building’s full height. The steel and glass structure encloses a 300-foot-tall (91 m) atrium, topped by a cylindrical skylight soaring 75 ft (23 m) above the roof level. The building was completed in 1985 (Jahn 2015).

8.4 City’s Heart and Soul

323

Fig. 8.22 Constructed out of the same Cor-Ten steel used for the Daley Center, the Picasso sculpture serves as the Plaza’s centerpiece and is also a popular seating and play area. During the summer months, adults and children delight in the fountain’s cool water. The fountain also produces “white noise” that masks the cacophony of the street. The sculpture and fountain invite activity and enhance the sense of place (Photograph by author)

324

8 The Chicago Loop

The building’s transparent appearance is meant to reflect the “openness,” “accessibility,” and “transparency” of government in a democratic society. As the central office for State government employees, housing more than 50 government agencies, boards, and commissions, the building is also known as the State of Illinois Center. Its skylight and central atrium represent a modern interpretation of the traditional rotunda or dome (Jahn 2015). The 160-feet-in-diameter (49-m) cylindrical form and truncated roof are consciously derived from the tradition of large central spaces found in state capitols and county courthouses throughout America. This rotunda refers explicitly to the Henry Ives Cobb Federal Building (1905), which was demolished to make way for the Mies van der Rohe’s Federal Center in the 1960s. Viewed from outside, the changing patterns of light and shadow create a dynamic visual display along the tapered facade of the building, enriching the experience of this urban space (Figs. 8.23 and 8.24). At the time of its completion in 1985, the building was considered a significant departure from more prevalent modern architecture. According to the study results, one of the most exciting features of the building is how it connects with the ground, caving in on the first floor to create a pedestrian arcade. Additionally, people liked the plaza and its elements, including seating places, planters, trees, and the “Monument with Standing Beast” sculpture by French artist Jean Dubuffet. These elements enrich the visual experience and support the human scale. Also, people liked the building’s tapering profile, for it mitigates the problem of “tallness” (Fig. 8.25). Overall, given these unique design features, along with its colorful blue glass, salmon-pink panels, red structural elements, and pink granite, the study participants view JRTC as one of Chicago’s more iconic structures. The study participants also noted that the building’s vast, sloping, aggressively curvilinear mass, with colorful glass skin, contrasts with the neighboring rectilinear, heavy-looking, classical City Hall. Viewed differently, the modern State of Illinois Center with its curvy, tapering glass curtainwall salutes the rectilinear, heavy stone, historic City Hall.

8.4.3 Grant Thornton Tower Located immediately east of James R. Thompson Center across North Clark Street, Grant Thornton Tower is a 50-story office building. Completed in 1992, it was built on a former Greyhound Bus Station. Initially, the plan comprised a twin tower but was placed on hold after the completion of the first tower (the south tower). In 2000, the plan was revived, only to be ignored yet again in 2001, after the 9/11 terror attacks. A multi-level parking structure currently occupies the space where the north tower was intended to be built. The building’s basement connects to Chicago Pedway. Alternative names of Grant Thornton Tower include Chicago Title & Trust Center, 161 North Clark, and Chicago Title Tower. Grant Thornton, LLP, is one of the world’s leading organizations specializing in audit, tax, and advisory services (Dyja 2014). Designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KPF), the iconic postmodern Grant Thornton Tower rises to 231 m (756 ft). Its striking features include a façade of

8.4 City’s Heart and Soul

325

Fig. 8.23 James R. Thompson Building (also known as the State of Illinois Center). Architect Helmut Jahn has formulated a dramatic design that incorporates sweeping arcs of blue and salmon glass. The skin wraps around an enormous cylindrical atrium, spanning the building’s full height. Undoubtedly, the bold design makes it an unmistakable landmark in the Loop (Photograph by author)

326

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.24 James R. Thompson Center. The steel and glass structure encloses a 300 ft/91 m tall atrium topped by a cylindrical skylight soaring 75 ft above the roof level. Upon walking into the lobby, visitors are immediately awestruck (Photograph by author)

8.4 City’s Heart and Soul

327

Fig. 8.25 James R. Thompson Center. A sculpture entitled “Monument with Standing Beast” by French artist Jean Dubuffet (top) and caved-in arcade (bottom). These elements humanize the space and improve the pedestrian experience (Photograph by author)

328

8 The Chicago Loop

aluminum, granite, and glass; a horizontal entrance canopy; and a decorated, slanted top often likened to the roof comb of a Mayan temple. At night, the top of the building is flooded with light, creating a memorable presence on the Chicago Skyline. The building’s crown offers a modern interpretation of the Randolph Tower. The study participants noted that the lighter color, postmodern style of Grant Thornton Tower makes a stark contrast with its neighboring, ebony-colored, modernist Richard J. Daley Plaza; as well as with the tapering curves of James R. Thompson Center. Two years before completing the tower in 1992, the original plan for the twin towers received the Chicago Athenaeum’s “Best Building” Architecture Award (Fig. 8.26).

8.5 Loop Oasis Continuing south of Daley Plaza, the study identifies another cluster of buildings and plazas that have architectural and urban design significance. Nicknamed as the Loop Oasis, the cluster comprises Chase Center (at the center) flanked by Inland Steel Building, One South Dearborn east, and 55 West Monroe (Xerox Building) south, as follows.

8.5.1 Chase Tower Completed in 1969, the 60-story skyscraper soars 259 m (850 ft), making it the tallest building in the inner Loop, defined by the elevated CTA train tracks. Designed by Perkins and Will in collaboration with C.F. Murphy Associates, the Chase Tower’s prime feature is a massive yet graceful upward curving wall that reduces the tower’s width from 200 ft (61 m) at the base to 95 ft (29 m) at the top. The sloped curved façades improve the tower’s relationship at the ground level and thereby enhance the human scale. While it is aesthetically pleasing, the curvy profile stems from functional needs that required more extensive floors at the base for tellers, customers, and banking activities. In this regard, Saliga and Clarke 1998, p. 151 explain, “Although the curved form grew out of a literal interpretation of functional needs, it provided this large bank with a distinctive architectural image, which Architectural Record2 (September 1970) whimsically likened to a “huge ribbed sail caught in the Chicago wind” (Fig. 8.27). The building’s cores that contain vertical circulation paths were placed at the eastern and western ends of the building to ease the flow of tenants and customers and to add structural stability to the tower. Other skyscrapers that feature a similar swooping curvy profile include the Solow Building and the W. R. Grace Building in New York and Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Head Office Building in Tokyo. 2 Architecture Record is an American monthly magazine that reports about architecture and interior

design projects.

8.5 Loop Oasis

329

Fig. 8.26 Grant Thornton Tower. Designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF), this postmodern tower with robust and bright verticality contrasts with the neighboring modern James R. Thompson Center, seen in the foreground. The outstanding, regular articulation of elements makes it a significant landmark (Photograph by author)

330

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.27 Completed in 1969, the 60-story Chase Tower soars 259 m (850 ft), making it the tallest building in the inner Loop. Its main feature is a massive yet graceful upward curving wall. The curve improves the tower’s relationship at the ground level and establishes a more human-scale relationship with the streets (Photograph by author)

8.5 Loop Oasis

331

The study participants liked, in particular, the tower’s plazas, a busy place during lunch hour. They admired serval features, including a pronounced clock tower, central fountain, and an attractive, colorful mosaic of a ceramic mural by Marc Chagall, titled “Four Seasons.” The 21 m (70 ft) long, 4 m (14 ft) high, and 3 m (10 ft) wide mural/sculptural piece contains 4,000 ft2 (372 m2 ) of mosaic tiles that were imported from Italy, France, Norway, Belgium, and Israel. Initially, the mosaic was displayed in an open-air setting and, therefore, subjected to Chicago’s harsh winter, causing the piece to be renovated in 1988 with the replacement of 25% of its tiles. In 1996, SOM designed a steel and glass shelter to protect the Four Seasons from any further weather damage. Four Seasons’ design was a gift to the city from the artist, and its construction was made possible by a grant from Mr. and Mrs. William Wood Prince (O’Gorman 2003). One of the plaza’s most attractive elements is a centrally located fountain. The square fountain features a shallow stepped basin, which is divided into nine sections, each containing a water jet. This fountain can be seen from the street level even when it is turned off. However, it is particularly alluring when it is turned on, capturing the attention of pedestrians. The fountain has a full edge that runs along the perimeter, holding a sheet of shallow water that is contained by a metal lip. This shallow water prevents visitors from sitting on the ledge or entering the deeper basin but still allows them to interact with the fountain by touching the water’s edge (Pridmore and Larson 2005). The plaza offers a wide range of seating options, including steps, ledges, and stone benches. During lunch hours, tables, and chairs are temporarily set out along the edges of Chase Tower, at the lower levels, to accommodate employees and visitors. The vegetation in the plaza is made up of mostly ground cover and hedges, but these plants are bright and colorful, adding vibrancy to the space. The plaza offers a multitude of food options, which are appreciated by visitors who work in Chase Tower and the neighboring buildings. Being in Chase Plaza can be an extraordinary experience, given how the space is separated from the city and how the surrounding skyscrapers fade into the background. The wall of the sunken level moves to the forefront, creating a human-scale environment. Overall, the plaza fits the “urban oasis” typology, given its separateness. It also fits the “outdoor room” typology, specifically for eating, given its food offerings. The Chase Plaza is also known as the Exelon Plaza. It consists of three levels: the street level, the intermediate level, and the lower level. Collectively, the plaza’s unique features along with the tower’s remarkable height make it an unmistakable landmark in the city (Fig. 8.28). The plaza is in the place of the demolished D. H. Burnham and Co. First National Bank Building (1896). Construction of the plaza was completed about 3 years after completing the tower in late 1972. Both the plaza and the tower are covered in light gray granite, unifying their appearance. Interestingly, the Chase Bank has undergone numerous ownership changes, including First National Bank of Chicago (1969) and Bank One Cooperation (1998). In 2005, New York-based Chase acquired Bank One, after which it became Chase Bank. The tower was built as a direct response to former Illinois State banking laws, which demanded the consolidation of bank branches and limiting the number of branches any bank could have. This policy constraint made a skyscraper the ideal

332

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.28 Chase Tower is particularly renowned for its vibrant plaza, a favorite spot for workers on their lunch breaks. It features a central fountain and a prominent clock tower (Photograph by author)

8.5 Loop Oasis

333

place to concentrate a large number of workers and operations under one roof. The building replaced several high-rises, including the Morrison Hotel. The old First National Bank Building remained standing until the bank moved, then the older building was torn down to build the plaza.

8.5.2 Inland Steel Building Overlooking Chase Plaza and rising from the east corner of South Dearborn and West Monroe, the Inland Steel Building was the first high-rise to be erected in the Chicago Loop after the Great Depression. Completed in 1958, the 19-story (101 m/332 ft) building features clean, rectangular geometry, basic components of the International Style. It is clad in shimmering stainless steel and green glass and is supported by gleaming exterior columns running the vertical length of the building’s nineteen floors. Exterior columns are a part of the building. A separate squarish metal-clad tower, which contains vertical circulation (elevators and stairways) and services, connects to the central tower through a short “neck.” As such, interior spaces are unencumbered by mechanicals and service apparatus. The tower’s elegant form enjoys graceful proportions with restrained details. Since structural columns jut out slightly from the building, interior spaces enjoy uninterrupted, maximized openness. Consequently, the office floors feature a plan layout with enormous flexibility. Regarding the building’s foundation, steel was drilled to the bedrock 85 feet below grade, a structural engineering method that was pioneered in this building (Saliga and Clarke 1998). Designed by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM), the Inland Steel Building is a design triumph that combines utilitarian functionalism and modern aesthetics. At the time, it offered a new, bold prototype of modernist towers, a model for the future of Chicago architecture. The style provided the steel company a unique opportunity to display their own product in the making of their office space. The tower is perhaps Chicago’s most significant post-war commercial high-rise office building; it has exerted an enormous influence on the city’s architecture, as evident in the Daley Center, the John Hancock Center, and the Willis Tower. Although Inland Steel was a small tower by Chicago standards, it was a catalyst that created a renaissance in commercial office construction in the Loop. As noted by the study participants, even though the tower is old (over 60 years), surprisingly, it continues to feature a bright and fresh appearance as if it were constructed recently (Fig. 8.29).

8.5.3 One South Dearborn Located immediately north of the Inland Steel Building, the 39-story, 174 m (571 ft) One South Dearborn tower offers a fresh reinterpretation of modernism. The onemillion-square-foot (92,903 m2 ) office tower features a graceful curtainwall made of

334

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.29 Completed in 1958 by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM), the Inland Steel Building was a design triumph that combined utilitarian functionalism and modern aesthetics. It offered a new, bold prototype of modernist towers, a model for the future of Chicago architecture. The foreground of the photo shows the Chase Plaza (Photograph by author)

8.5 Loop Oasis

335

aluminum and a mix of reflective and transparent glass laid out over a grid. According to the study findings, the visual interplay of these elements makes the building’s façade most noticeable, particularly at the base, which comprises six floors. The base also contains composite panels and painted aluminum spandrel glass. Inside, the lobby is defined by floor-to-ceiling, clear glass windows, providing an abundance of natural light, uninterrupted views to the outside, making visitors and passersby feel welcome. The lobby is inlaid with granite, marble, textured glass, and stainless steel, making the interior appear even more attractive. A backlit stone cladding, etched with sandblasted patterns, has been integrated into the base as well (Sinkevitch and McGovern 2014). Designed by DeStefano and Partners and completed in 2005, the building contains amenities including conference facilities, retail space, a fitness center, and a 160space four-floor parking garage (floors three through six). Interestingly, the tower culminates in a series of rectangular translucent “lanterns,” soaring 60 ft (18 m) above the structure on the east and west façades. During the daytime, the lanterns are lit naturally by sunlight, and at night they are illuminated by artificial lights, making the building’s top quite visible on the skyline. The tower is set back on the west side in order not to block views to the neighboring “dignified” Inland Steel Building. The resulting space, about 16,000 ft2 (1,486 m2 ), is used as a public plaza. Simulating an “urban oasis,” the plaza is packed with mature trees, smooth river rocks, and angled benches made from Italian granite. Overall, the plaza and the base enhance the human scale, improving the building’s relationship with the street and beckoning pedestrians inside. Given its accessibility, the plaza is well used, particularly during lunchtime (Sinkevitch and McGovern 2014) (Figs. 8.30 and 8.31).

8.5.4 55 West Monroe Located immediately south of the Chase Plaza across West Monroe Street, 55 West Monroe rises to 151 m (495 ft). Originally named the Xerox Center, the 41-story modernist tower provides a striking contrast to the dark Marquette Building (140 South Dearborn Street) nearby. As a nod to the neighboring historic Marquette Building, the Dearborn Street facade was set back from the property line along the sidewalk. Along with the 55 West Monroe, Helmut Jahn epitomized the “Silvers,” a new architectural design trend in the 1980s that sought a sleek, shimmering, machinelike minimalism. The study participants liked the way the tower is dressed with a flush curtainwall of highly reflective glass, complemented with white aluminum panels— these form the spandrels between the floors. Simplicity and sleekness are admired and echoed by using a simple, elegant form at the two-story street base; it undulates inward, inviting people into the building. The façade also has a rounded corner that curves toward the roof, forming a “modern” crown. Overall, the tower offers a splash of brightness within a jungle of skyscrapers. Further, it sharply reflects neighboring buildings, such as the Chase Tower, engendering spatial unity (Fig. 8.32). Completed in 1980, the project won a citation in the 1978 Progressive Architecture awards. In

336

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.30 Located immediately north of the Inland Steel Building, the 39-story One South Dearborn tower offers a fresh reinterpretation of modernism. It features a graceful curtainwall made of aluminum and a mix of reflective and transparent glass laid out over a grid (Photograph by author)

8.5 Loop Oasis

337

Fig. 8.31 One South Dearborn. A small plaza near the building entrance forms an “urban oasis” (top) and the building signage anchors the northwest corner of the site (bottom). These elements humanize the space and contribute to placemaking (Photograph by author)

338

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.32 55 West Monroe. Originally named the Xerox Center, it is a 41-story modernist ultrasleek tower that provides a stark contrast to the dark Marquette Building (background) and thereby lightening up the block. The tower’s sleek skin also reflects nearby buildings, including the Chase Tower (Photograph by author)

8.5 Loop Oasis

339

contrast to this restrained and minimalist curtainwall, Helmut Jahn has designed more complex exteriors, as seen in the design of the James Thompson Center and 500 West Madison (Jahn 2015).

8.6 City’s Political Pulse Continuing south of Chase Plaza, the study identifies another important historical/political node created mainly by the Chicago Federal Center Complex, Monadnock Building, and Marquette Building. The cluster centers on the Federal Plaza, which draws masses of people for numerous civic activities, including social, political, cultural, and entertainment. Many political gatherings and rallies take place in this plaza. As such, the study participants nicknamed this cluster as the “City Political Pulse.”

8.6.1 Chicago Federal Center The Chicago Federal Center3 in Downtown Chicago has a cultured history. In 1960, the US Congress authorized the construction of a new office complex that would consolidate over 30 government agencies scattered throughout the city. Designed by Mies van der Rohe in his iconic Modern style, the Federal Center complex consists of three separate buildings of various heights with a large plaza at its center. At approximately 30,000 ft2 (2,787 m2 ), the plaza is flanked by the 30-story Dirksen Courthouse (completed in 1964), the 42-story Kluczynski Federal Building (completed in 1975), and the single-story Loop Station Post Office (completed in 1973) (Al-Kodmany 2017) (Fig. 8.33). The design of the complex was a significant departure from federal buildings that preceded it, and it is considered one of Van der Rohe’s most beautiful works. The study findings indicated that people liked the structural and architectural unity of the buildings created by black steel beams and glass panes. They also admired the design of the plaza for exhibiting a simple, austere, yet elegant layout that is not overly cluttered (Fig. 8.34). Indeed, the plaza contains few sitting spaces mirroring the design of the minimalist style. Interestingly, the site layout of the complex engenders a fascinating spatial composition and visual interplay appreciated from almost any vantage point. The Federal Center Complex is the only building in the Loop designed by Mies van der Rohe, and it contrasts sharply with the classical design of older buildings, particularly the Holabird & Roche’s famous Marquette Building across Adams Street. To improve the human scale, the Federal Center employs a very simple, yet practical modern design, using sculpture, transparency at each of the buildings’ bases, 3 also

known as Federal Plaza, Federal Center, and Federal Center Mies.

340

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.33 Designed by Mies van der Rohe in his iconic Modern style, the Federal Center Complex consists of three separate buildings of various heights with a large plaza at its center. Each of the buildings features black steel beams and glass panes, which create visual clarity and flexibility of interior space. The design of the plaza exhibits a simple, austere layout that is not overly cluttered (Photograph by author)

8.6 City’s Political Pulse

341

Fig. 8.34 The Federal Plaza artfully integrates the Flamingo Sculpture by Alexander Calder. Its brilliant color and looping form is a perfect foil to the sleek and modern, sober design of Miesian buildings. The plaza often hosts civic and cultural events like art exhibitions, farmers’ markets, and political rallies (Photograph by author)

342

8 The Chicago Loop

and some green space. Located at the south end of the plaza, the study participants liked the Flamingo Sculpture, designed by Alexander Calder, for its brilliant color and looping form. The sculpture adds a perfect contrast to the sleek and modern, sober design of Miesian buildings. This red sculpture, made of curved steel arches, offers a pleasant contrast to the imposing 42-story Kluczynski Building façade and helps to bring the plaza down to the human scale. The red flowing lines of the Flamingo act as a perfect contrast to the plain orthogonal geometry of the nearby older buildings and to the vertical black lines of the surrounding Federal Center buildings. The sculpture serves as a focal point for the plaza and offers an iconic presence to this section of the city. Some visitors enjoy simply leaning or sitting against the stabile, but most are inclined to take pictures of the piece from far away and from within. The way that the Flamingo interacts with the surrounding buildings and environment makes it a perfect backdrop for any picture. Coupled with the fact that just behind it is another iconic feature of Chicago, Willis Tower, the sculpture is a popular spot for locals and tourists alike. Along with the Flamingo, there are sitting spaces that work to complement the other physical elements of the plaza. Originally, the plaza was designed without many of these elements in mind, but it has since been retrofitted with planters and trees and now features several different cultural activities throughout the year. Transparency of the buildings’ bases adds another crucial physical element to the plaza. This physical design element helps to soften the dark, blocky massiveness of the buildings and invites viewers to gaze into the first floor of the buildings. It also creates a pleasant backdrop to the life of the plaza that would not be apparent if the black steel of the buildings went straight to the ground, obscuring transparency at the base. Overall, the plaza may be considered a “grand public place” (using the language of Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, 1998) possessing enough open space for various festivals, social, cultural, and political events. Since it is located on federal property and immediately adjacent to several government buildings, the plaza has been the site of many political rallies and protests over the last four decades. In recent years, the plaza hosts farmers’ markets and cultural events weekly. The plaza’s vast open space also facilitates foot traffic and acts as a pedestrian thoroughfare, immediately before and after business hours. During lunch, many people use the space for recreational activities such as eating, talking, or simply stretching their legs. Given the generous layout of the plaza’s benches, people can sit and stand and otherwise relax, in a variety of ways.

8.6.2 Monadnock Building Located immediately south of the Chicago Federal Center across Jackson Boulevard, the Monadnock Building rises 17 floors above the ground. It comprises two halves. The northern half was designed by Burnham & Root and completed in 1891, while the southern half was designed by Holabird & Roche and completed in 1893. Despite significant structural and subtle aesthetic differences between the two halves, they

8.6 City’s Political Pulse

343

feature architectural coherence and are in harmony, creating a unified masterpiece. The building evokes deep character, subliminal qualities of strength, simplicity, and legacy, as the study participants indicated. Indeed, the building tells an epic story of American architectural design and engineering. Structurally, it represents a transitional moment in construction, from masonry (represented in the northern half) to steel frame structure (represented in the southern half). While bricks on the facades of the northern portion are structural—bearing the weight of the building—bricks on the facades of the southern portion, are part of the cladding system, and it is the rigid metal frame that transfers loads to the ground. Notably, the northern half is the last and tallest, load-bearing brick building ever constructed, and one of the heaviest tall buildings still standing. It also became the largest office building in the world when completed in 1891. However, thick walls (six feet (1.8 m) at the base) and smaller windows presented functional problems on the interior. Smaller interior spaces with reduced natural light underscored the inefficiency of masonry structural systems for taller buildings. In contrast, the skeleton or metal frame construction eliminated the need for walls to bear the weight of the building. The steel frame divided and distributed the building’s weight evenly and transferred it directly to the foundation. This metal framing structural system reaffirmed a new era of tall building engineering that was pioneered by William Le Baron Jenney’s Home Insurance Building in 1885, allowing tall buildings to go higher and higher efficiently. In a similar fashion, the building façade epitomizes two architectural schools: the stripped-down, northern half, and the embellished ornamentation of the southern half. The northern half challenged popular trends and pointed to the stripped-down facades that would prevail decades later. In this regard, Louis Sullivan wrote in his book Ornament in Architecture (1892, p.76), “I take it as self-evident that a building, quite devoid of ornament, may convey a noble and dignified sentiment by virtue of mass and proportion.” Indeed, this courageous step in architectural design made a remarkable impression on the architecture community of the time. Remarkably, the building’s base provides pedestrians with an intriguing architectural experience and retail amenities at eye level. The facades of the northern half curve in slightly at the second story and out at its summit, resembling the Egyptian pylon. Further, the rippling bays of the northern half of the building contrast splendidly with the prismatic bays of the southern half. Sadly, the northern half was Root’s last building contribution, as he passed away in 1891. Interestingly, the massive load-bearing brick façade of the northern half sits across Jackson Boulevard, facing glass and black steel buildings of Mies van der Rohe’s celebrated, minimalist Federal Center. The study participants noted a remarkable contrast when viewing Monadnock and Federal Center. Each is built using completely different materials, colors, textures, and architectural styles, belonging to vastly different architectural schools (Fig. 8.35). However, each building evokes unique beauty and structural elegance, enriching the visual experience of the city and making it a true living architectural museum. Concisely, as the Chicago Architecture Center (CAC) explains, the building is “an architectural time capsule that bridges building styles, from the old-fashioned, brick-on-brick to modern metal frame construction.

344

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.35 The Monadnock building tells the epic story of American architectural design and engineering. Its structure literally captures a transitional moment in tall building technology. The northern half (top) is entirely built using masonry, while the southern half (bottom) was completed using steel frame construction, new at the time. While bricks on the facades of the northern half are structural (bearing the weight of the building) bricks on the facades of the southern half are part of the cladding system; it is the rigid metal frame that transfers loads to the ground (Photograph by author)

8.6 City’s Political Pulse

345

Aesthetically, it harkens back to the classicists, while previewing the modernists…” (architecture.org). The two-building halves represent the speed with which Chicago’s architects and engineers adopted new technologies and structural systems.

8.7 Millennium Gateway Often the juxtaposition of skyscrapers can create a sense of gateway for the streets they land on. One of these gateways is cleverly formed by the Crain Communications Building and The Heritage at Millennium Park located on Michigan Avenue. The area features masses of pedestrians who flow into the Millennium Park. As such, the study participants nicknamed this gate as the “Millennium Gateway.”

8.7.1 Crain Communications Building Located at 150 North Michigan Avenue, the Crain Communications Building is a remarkable icon that has adorned the city skyline for over 35 years. The Crain Communications iconicity stems from the building’s unique site and innovative form; together, these create rare architectural drama. The modernist building sits at one of the most prominent sites in the city, that is the northwest corner of Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street, immediately opposite Millennium Park. Consequently, the building enjoys maximum visibility from the parks and surrounding major thoroughfares. Likewise, its strategic location enables tenants to enjoy marvelous views of the parks, Michigan Avenue, and Lake Michigan. The significant height of the 41-story building, rising to 582 ft (177 m), also makes it impossible to miss. Sheldon Schlegman of A. Epstein and Sons designed and completed the building in 1983. Constructing the tower was remarkably fast; it took less than a year to complete. The study participants appreciated that the building tastefully reflects modern simplicity and elegance. The building’s skin employs horizontal bands of aluminum, stainless steel, and silver reflective glass, in an alternating pattern. The most distinctive feature of the Crain Communications is its profile, which consists of a ten-story diamond-shaped slope, sliced diagonally through the building top. Consequently, the building is popularly referred to as the Diamond Building. The slanted diamondshaped top rotates 45° to salute Millennium Park and to honor the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street. The middle is split into two halves, with a narrow gap in between, clad in sleek glass. The bold, sharp edges in the facades, and rooftop make the tower extra remarkable. In addition, the horizontality of the ribbon window facade complements the strong verticality of the building. Practically, bisecting the tower into two triangular shapes allowed for six corner offices offering maximum external views, rather than four; these usually garner a higher rent or lease price (Figs. 8.36 and 8.37).

346

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.36 The Heritage at Millennium Park (left) and Crane Communications Building (right) form a welcoming gateway directing visitors to Millennium Park and the Loop (Photograph by author)

8.7 Millennium Gateway

347

Fig. 8.37 The Crane Communications is a tastefully modern, simple, and elegant building. Its skin is composed of alternating horizontal bands of aluminum, stainless steel, and silver reflective glass. The slanted diamond-shaped top rotates 45° to salute Millennium Park and honor the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street. The building’s simple context-sensitive design makes it a powerful landmark in the Chicago Loop (Photograph by author)

348

8 The Chicago Loop

Indeed, the diagonal axis shift is significant in the context of Michigan Avenue as it does not follow the 1909 Plan of Chicago by Burnham and Bennett, which called for aligning all buildings along the Avenue with the city’s rectangular street grid. The grid, of course, results in a handsome wall of buildings facing Grant Park; it is often referred to as “the Cliff,” recalling the remarkable edge that faces Central Park in New York City. Along with the skewed orientation, this building is distinguished by style. Many buildings along Michigan Avenue embrace classical architectural style, which beautifully contrasts with the Crain Communications’ modern aesthetic. Spatially, the architect rotated the service core 45° from the street grid as well, producing diagonally oriented office floorplans that offer spectacular southeast views of Millennium Park, Grant Park, and Lake Michigan. The top five levels of the tower, located in the narrowest portion of the diamond, contain facilities and the HVAC equipment. They are, therefore, not included in the 41 stories count, according to the Emporis. At night, the angled diamond-shaped top is outlined with white light bulbs, which are replaced with colored ones to denote special holidays (e.g., orange for Thanksgiving, green/red for Christmas, pink for Valentine’s day, etc.). In addition, on special occasions, the lighting system inside the diamond is configured to convey short messages; or sports team names, such as “GO BEARS” and “GO SOX,” or “VOTE 2008.” Artist Yaacov Agam dedicated a sculpture that occupies the triangular niche at the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street in 1983. Called “Communication-X9,” it comprises a 43-ft (13-m) stainless steel totem with a kinetic art style so that when people walk by; it changes its colors and geometric patterns. The sculpture was restored and reinstalled in 2008. Remarkably, at the time of its construction, the Crain Communications Building was considered a smart building. Equipped with sophisticated environmental and security controls, it was publicized as the world’s first computerized office building (Dyja 2014). The building came to be known as the Crain Communications Building in 2012 when Crain Communications, an American publishing conglomerate based in Detroit, Michigan, moved its headquarters into the building. As the publisher of Crain’s Chicago Business, Crain Communications is the second-largest tenant. Previously, the building carried multiple names, including the Smurfit-Stone Building, the Stone Container Building, and the Associates Center. The building has appeared in Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) and was featured in the 1987 motion picture “Adventures in Babysitting” starring Elisabeth Shue. As is the case with the buildings described earlier, the Crain Communications Building has been printed on postcards and souvenirs and is inscribed in the memory of many local residents and visitors as a unique symbol of Chicago.

8.7.2 The Heritage at Millennium Park Located southwest of the Crane Communications Building across East Randolph Street, the Heritage at Millennium Park (The Heritage for short) rises to 192 m (631

8.7 Millennium Gateway

349

ft). Similar to the case of the Crane Communications Building, the 57-story building enjoys a unique place in the Loop neighborhood and offers spectacular views of the Millennium Park, Lake Michigan, Navy Pier, and Chicago Skyline. These views will continue to be unobstructed since nothing will be built on the neighboring site of the low-rise Chicago Cultural Center, an official city landmark. The building is also located near significant transit nodes—all of the CTA rail lines and the main Loop entrance to Metra’s Millennium Park Station are just east of the building. It is close to amenities, services, civic centers (e.g., Block 37, the Art Institute, Orchestra Hall, and the Theater District) as well as upscale retail shops along Michigan Avenue and the Magnificent Mile. The building’s basement connects to the Pedway system. As explained earlier, the Pedway is a network of underground walkways, ground level concourses, and overhead bridges that connect office buildings, retail stores, hotels, and train stations throughout more than 40 downtown blocks in the Chicago Loop. As such, the Heritage’s residents enjoy secure indoor access to transportation, the Chicago Cultural Center, and shops. The building’s street level retails have attractive frontage along Randolph Street and Wabash Avenue. Coupled with access to the Pedway, the street level experiences heavy pedestrian traffic. Measuring at over one million square feet (92,903 m2 ), the Heritage at Millennium Park is a premier residential condominium tower. It contains 358 units of 27 different floor plans, providing maximum choices to meet tenants’ needs and desires. Each unit ranges in size from 800 ft2 to 5,000 ft2 (74 m2 to 465 m2 ) in the form of studio, one, two, three, and rare four-bedroom floor plans. The two-tiered tower provides residents a wide range of amenities, e.g., a fitness center, indoor pool, whirlpool, and sundeck. The Heritage was designed by the architectural firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz. It was the tallest residential building in the Loop when completed in 2005 (Sinkevitch and McGovern 2014). The study participants expressed admiration for the building’s postmodern style adorned by intricately articulated elements. The building’s facades feature horizontal white bands at six-floor intervals, which echo the white strips of the neighboring Crane Communications Building. The Heritage’s bands have graceful concave and convex curves, each topped with a row of vertical piers with light brown color. This curvilinear design reflects the semicircular peristyle nearby in Millennium Park. As the study participants noted, the Heritage’s facades extend the grid and texture present in the neighboring historic 1920s buildings. Remarkably, Heritage’s architecture takes cues from the nearby Chicago Cultural Center (see previous case study, Figs. 8.36 and 8.37). Besides, the tower’s base aligns with the Cultural Center and features similar limestone cladding. On the north sidewalk of Randolph Street, a sculpture by Richard Hunt titled “We Will” was installed upon completion of the building. An important aspect of the planning and design of The Heritage at Millennium Park was the desire to integrate turn of the century historic landmark facades, apparent at the western base of Wabash Avenue. There are four historic commercial, five-story facades of limestone, sandstone, brick, and terra cotta, which have been masterfully restored. The process engaged “reproducing intricate terra cotta ornamentation from archival drawings and photographs, as well as cannibalizing face brick from a

350

8 The Chicago Loop

demolished building, and bracing the historic storefronts while construction went on behind them” (Sinkevitch and McGovern 2014, p. 29). Behind these storefronts are two levels of retail space, and above them is a five-level parking garage. The result is that restored five-story historic facades revive the historic redevelopment after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Developing the Heritage at Millennium Park resulted in a successful project despite that it faced serious obstacles, including (1) assembling nine separate parcels, (2) overcoming a market perception that upscale home buyers do not desire to live downtown, and (3) planning for the tower began in 2000, well before Millennium Park was constructed and became an internationally renowned public space. For example, in exchange for property rights, the developers gave the Fanny May candy company, located at Randolph and Wabash, a 25-year lease in the new building. Richard Hanson, principal of Mesa Development, commented: “Overall, this development required a giant leap of faith. We believed in the site, overlooking the unfinished Millennium Park, and believed in Mayor Daley’s vision for a 24/7 downtown. We had one chance to make this property everything it could and should be for decades to come, and that’s what we achieved” (Crown Heights). Precisely, the Heritage is a spectacular building in a spectacular location.

8.8 Eclectic Edge In contrast to the historic edge formed by buildings along South Michigan Avenue, an “eclectic” edge is formed by old, modern, and postmodern buildings that line Randolph Street, as follows.

8.8.1 Aon Center At 346 m (1,136 ft) and 83 stories, the Aon Center is the third tallest building in Chicago after the Willis Tower and Trump Tower. Completed in 1973, the building contains approximately 2,880,000 ft2 (267,561 m2 ) of floor space and features a floor area ratio (FAR) of 17.8 on a 3.7-acre (1.5-hectare) site. The building is “a vertical square tube” with 15 vertical bands of black windows on each façade that is recessed between triangular white granite piers (Saliga and Clarke 1998). As the study findings indicated, due to the building’s massive masonry, large scale, and plain design, it possesses neither architectural character nor a coherent relationship to the street, human scale, or surrounding buildings. The building previously featured a classically modern, but underutilized, sunken plaza. The plaza contained two rows of locust trees, symmetrically arranged on either side of a broad 4,000 ft2 (372 m2 ) reflecting pool and a sizeable aural sculpture, which was designed by Spanish-born American artist Harry Bertoia. In 1994, the outdoor spaces were renovated with a focus on four main areas: the sunken plaza along the

8.8 Eclectic Edge

351

south elevation, the main entrance at the north elevation, and two plazas that flank the building along the east and west elevations (Lepik 2008). The renovated sunken plaza provides direct access to the street level by stairs and an elevator, which are housed in a two-story entrance, made of tinted blue glass and a white railing. The plaza receives abundant sunlight and enjoys temperate seasonal temperatures and decreased winds, given that it is below the street level. Among the most striking features of the plaza is a 55 m (180 ft) by 2.4 m (8 ft) waterfall along the southern wall with a large round fountain at its center. Together they create pleasant “white noise” that masks auto traffic noise. The plaza also contains gazebos, seating ledges, high-tech umbrellas equipped with security cameras, and food amenities available inside the building. The space feels quiet, cozy, private, and pleasant. The plaza is also connected to the Chicago Pedway, a subterranean walkway system that is particularly popular in the winter. Overall, in the language of Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis (1998), this plaza contains elements of the “urban oasis” and “corporate foyer” typologies (Fig. 8.38). No description of the Aon Center would be complete without taking note of its exterior façade, which was originally covered with 43,000 panels of some of the world’s finest marble, mined in Italy’s Carrara Mountains. However, the marble began to show signs of bowing and weakness owing to Chicago’s extreme temperature changes and high winds. From 1990 to 1992, the entire marble exterior (amounting to 16 acres/6.5 hectares) was removed and replaced with 2-inch (5.4-cm) thick lightcolored granite panels from North Carolina at the cost of $80 million (Kamin 1994). Interestingly, the neighboring postmodern, well-articulated Two Prudential Plaza makes a stunning contrast to the overly dull Aon Center.

8.8.2 Two Prudential Plaza Located immediately west of Aon Center across Stetson Avenue, Two Prudential Plaza soars 64-story, 303 m (995 ft). It is home to many of Chicago’s premier cultural institutions including the Art Institute of Chicago, the Goodman Theater, and Orchestra Hall. Situated on the northern edge of Grant Park, the building enjoys breathtaking panoramic views of Millennium Park, Lake Michigan, and the Chicago River. It is also close to the North Michigan Avenue’s “Magnificent Mile” shopping district. The tower was completed in 1990. This one-million-square-foot (92,903-m2 ) commercial office tower embraces an Art Deco-influenced postmodern style with its stacked chevron stepbacks and a sharp, beveled Art Deco pyramidal peak, accentuated by an 80 ft (24 m) stainless steel spire. This glittering peak hides the building’s four water-cooling tanks. The open spaces in the bevels aid the cooling process. During the design process, architect Steve Wright of Loebl Schloss & Hackl created this signature peak, and stated, “To do all that work and then just plop a cooling tower or electronic switching box on the roof

352

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.38 Aeon Center. Enriched with lush landscaping and exotic water features, the remodeled plaza is an “urban oasis,” greatly appreciated in the busy Loop (Photograph by author)

8.8 Eclectic Edge

353

seems unfortunate…. I wanted the top to be an integral part of the design” (Kamin 2003, p. 201). The study participants appreciated the strong vertical lines, subtle details, light and dark brown granite with a blue glass curtainwall, all contributing to the iconicity of the building. They also liked the long glass channels that extend along the four sides of the building and protrude over the stepbacks. These simulate “crystal waterfalls,” springing from the building’s crown and falling over the building’s façades. The architects cite the Chrysler Building, particularly its distinctive sculpted top, as the design inspiration. The tower culminates into a seven-story pyramidal roof that displays seven radiating terraces topped with a 56 m (185 ft) spire. The spire and crescent-shaped arches are made of stainless steel. Two Prudential Plaza also resembles Helmut Jahn’s One Liberty Place in Philadelphia (1987) and his unbuilt design for the Bank of the Southwest Tower in Houston, 1982. Overall, the articulated elegant design of Two Prudential Plaza commands attention, and it is well recognized in the iconic Chicago Skyline. It contrasts and compensates for its modest neighbors, in particular the Aon Center and One Prudential Plaza (Figs. 8.39 and 8.40). The stylish, glass, and granite landmark shares a common lobby and mezzanine level with the much older One Prudential Plaza. Besides, to the northwest, a 3.3-acre (1.3-hectare) terraced plaza, with fountains and lush landscaping, connects these two buildings. Further, the two buildings have a five-level underground parking garage, and they are connected to Chicago Pedway, an underground pedestrian pathway, which provides direct access to significant transit nodes, buildings, services, and amenities (Fig. 8.41). When completed in 1990, Two Prudential became the world’s second tallest reinforced concrete building. In 2006, Bentley Forbes, a Los Angeles-based real estate investment firm, purchased Two Prudential and its earlier sister One Prudential; and in 2015, New York-based investors 601 W Companies and Berkley Properties purchased them. In recent years, the building suffered from severe leakage problems at the roof stepback/curtainwall interfaces. Nevertheless, Two Prudential Plaza was honored with multiple awards including the Best Structure Award from the Structural Engineers Association of Illinois in 1995. The plaza appeared in the 1994 film Richie Rich.

8.8.3 One Prudential Plaza Formerly known as the Prudential Building, One Prudential Plaza is a 41-story, 183 m (601 ft) commercial office building functioning currently as headquarters for Prudential’s Mid-America company. When completed in 1955, the tower was the tallest building in Chicago and was the first skyscraper built in Chicago since the Great Depression. In other words, the tower ended up a 20-year construction gap of tall buildings in the city. Upon completion, the tower featured the world’s fastest elevators and highest observation deck that attracted millions of visitors. Besides,

354

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.39 Two Prudential Plaza features sharp vertical lines and subtle details. An icon of design, it is clad in light and dark brown granite with a blue curtainwall. Among its most striking elements is a series of long glass channels, extending along the four sides and protruding over the stepbacks. They simulate “crystal waterfalls,” springing from the crown and flowing over the building’s façades. The tower’s unique design makes it an unmistakable landmark (Photograph by author)

8.8 Eclectic Edge

355

Fig. 8.40 The tower culminates in a seven-story pyramidal roof that displays cascading terraces topped with a 56 m (185 ft) spire. This outstanding crown commands attention on the skyline and strengthens sense of place (Photograph by author)

356

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.41 Connecting One Prudential and Two Prudential buildings, this plaza offers a respite from the busy Loop (Photograph by author)

8.8 Eclectic Edge

357

the building surpassed office standards of the day and won numerous awards. It was also the first to be built using air rights of the Illinois Central railroad yards. The Randolph Street terminal of the Metra Electric Line commuter railroad, which serves the south side and south suburbs, is placed underneath the building. Located immediately south of Two Prudential Plaza, One Prudential Plaza features plain facades made of vertical limestone strips and ridged aluminum. Lack of decoration and ornamentation reflected a minimalist design approach that prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s, though it omits the steel and glass curtainwall that became popular after World War II. Nevertheless, One Prudential Plaza makes a calm background/foreground to its dynamic sister Two Prudential Plaza (see Fig. 8.39). Frank Lloyd Wright’s collaborator Alfonso Iannelli sculpted Prudential’s trademark relief of the Rock of Gibraltar on the wall next to the main entrance. The building’s mast, measured over 100 m (328 ft), served as a broadcasting antenna for Chicago’s WGN-TV (O’Gorman 2003).

8.9 Individual Landmarks 8.9.1 Legacy at Millennium Park Located at 60 East Monroe, the 73-story Legacy at Millennium Park is one of Chicago’s most beautiful architectural gems. It enjoys a unique location in the Chicago Loop, where the tower is just steps from world-renowned Chicago attractions like the Art Institute, Symphony Center, Pritzker Pavilion, and Millennium Park. The tower currently has a Walk Score of 97 and a Transit Score of 100 for the location because it enjoys several bus lines placed less than a block away, walkable distances to any L line station, multiple car-sharing services, and a Divvy bike-sharing station. The tower was completed in 2010. Legacy at Millennium Park rises 249 m (818 ft) above the heart of Chicago’s Loop in the mid of relatively low-scale blocks, enabling the tower to enjoy unobstructed views of the entire city. Further, all units have maximum panoramic views of the spectacular surrounding. That is, the building’s mass follows an east-west orientation providing views of Millennium Park. Unit floorplans make a wedge-shape that tapers from a broad western to a slender eastern façade. Further, condominiums on the west side of the building extend on the south and north sides of the building, enabling tenants to enjoy maximum views. To that end, the tower is also clad in floor-to-ceiling glass. Legacy is all about offering exceptional views. The slender tower features a sleek twenty-first-century aluminum and glass curtainwall. Strong verticality is accentuated by recessed balconies, which form a thin vertical strip, rising the full height of the building. Additional recessed balconies appear on the broader north and south faces to vertically break the taut and planar exterior wall. The composition of the massing that forms a crystalline expression

358

8 The Chicago Loop

is enhanced by a blue-gray reflective glass curtainwall, which appears to dematerialize the tower with the changing sky (Fig. 8.42). The study participants noted that the contemporary appearance of the tower contrasts sharply with the surrounding historic fabric embodied in nearby landmark buildings. By the same token, while the tower features a sleek contemporary design, the building’s main entrance is a classic Chicago commercial building. The building was a finalist for the international 2010 Emporis Skyscraper Award and was named the Best New Residential Building of 2011 by Friends of Downtown (Sinkevitch and McGovern 2014). Completed in 2010, Legacy at Millennium Park was designed by Solomon Cordwell Buenz (SCB) and developed by Mesa Development, LLC, and Monroe/Wabash Development, LLC. It is the same team that designed and developed The Heritage at Millennium in 2005, described earlier. Since the building lies within the Jeweler’s Row Historic District, the SCB design team worked with the city’s Planning and Landmarks Divisions to restore the façades of three vacant six-story buildings on the site, and to incorporate them into the tower’s base, concealing a new parking garage. The preserved facades feature historic stonework and terra cotta frontages. The ground level façades of the historic SAIC building immediately south of the site were also restored. The remainder of the structures was demolished. The tower elegantly rises from the sixth floor and is set back 35 ft (11 m) from the street façades allowing it to fit in with its small-scaled neighbors. The one-million-square-foot (92,903-m2 ) building contains 356 residential units, academic space for the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, expanded athletic facilities for the University Club of Chicago, and structured parking above the ground level retail. A 13-story podium houses retail uses on the first floor, an expansion of the School of the Art Institute on the second and third floors, parking on floors four through 12, and an athletic facility on the 13th floor that includes a pool, squash courts, activity rooms, etc. The 356 condominiums occupy the floors 16 through 72. These units offer one, two, three, and four-bedroom residences ranging from 975 ft2 to 4,300 ft2 (91 m2 to 400 m2 ). Penthouses occupy floors 69–72 of the tower. These are either full floor or half-floor residences and have a minimum of 4,378 square feet (407 m2 ) and a maximum of 9,500 ft2 (883 m2 ). The Legacy at Millennium Park offers an assortment of luxury amenities, including fitness center, indoor lap pool and spa, whirlpool, steam room, party room, dry valet cleaning, bike room, and the like. Besides, it provides sundecks on the 15th, 42nd, and 60th floors (Sinkevitch and McGovern 2014). At the 13th floor, a bridge connects The Legacy with the University Club on Michigan Avenue, nurturing symbiotic relationships, where The Legacy tenants obtain access to the historic club’s amenities such as dining, catering, and guest rooms. Conversely, University Club’s tenants obtain access to amenities in the tower including a set of squash courts, exercise areas, and a swimming pool and spa on the upper floor facing the lake as well as large community rooms with large outdoor terraces. Additionally, the tower includes 41,000 ft2 (3,800 m2 ) of classroom space for the nearby School of the Art Institute of Chicago in the lower floors.

8.9 Individual Landmarks

359

Fig. 8.42 The Legacy at Millennium Park. The slender tower features a twenty-first-century aluminum and glass curtainwall with strong verticality accentuated by recessed balconies. The thin vertical strips of balconies rise the full height of the building. To break the vertical monotony of the taut and planar exterior wall, additional recessed balconies appear on the broader north and south faces (Photograph by author)

360

8 The Chicago Loop

8.9.2 Roosevelt University Academic, Student Life Residence Center (Wabash Building)4 Roosevelt University is a private university with one campus in Downtown Chicago and another in the suburb of Schaumburg, IL. Founded in 1945, the university is named in honor of both former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. The university enrolls around 7,000 students between its undergraduate and graduate programs, and students can major in more than 125 educational degrees, including about 40 master’s programs (Sinkevitch and McGovern 2014). Roosevelt University’s downtown campus is located in the Loop neighborhood and comprises six buildings within 15-min walking distance of each other: • Wabash Building (International Study Center, academic, housing, sports, student services) • Auditorium Building (library and academic) • Gage Building (academic) • Lillian and Larry Goodman Center (sports) • University Center (housing) • Roosevelt on Washington (housing) The university’s most remarkable building has been the 1889 Auditorium Building; it is the second oldest surviving high-rise building in Chicago and was named a National Historic Landmark in 1975. Also known as the Auditorium Theater, the Auditorium Building was initially built as Chicago’s opera house, with a hotel on the Michigan Avenue side and offices facing Wabash and Congress Avenues. Designed by Louis Sullivan of Adler & Sullivan architecture firm, Sullivan moved his office into the top floor of the tower. Notably, among his staff at the time was Frank Lloyd Wright, who assisted Sullivan with the Auditorium’s interior decoration. Completed in 2012, the Wabash Building is Roosevelt University’s newest academic building. It is a 32-story, 420,000 square foot (39,019 m2 ) expansion adjacent and connected to both the existing campus and the historic Auditorium Building. It is located on a small 17,000 ft2 (1,579 m2 ), 100 ft by 170 ft (9 m by 16 m) lot on Wabash Avenue. It is a mid-block site that replaced an existing dormitory, the Herman Crown Center, after determining that retrofitting it with a sprinkler system would cost more than the structure is worth (Sinkevitch and McGovern 2014). Rising to 143 m (469 ft), the Wabash Building is the tallest educational building in Chicago and the second tallest educational building in the United States after the 535 ft (163 m) University of Pittsburgh’s 42-story Cathedral of Learning. The building is also the sixth tallest academic building in the world, the tallest being Moscow State University at 787 ft (240 m). Wabash Building was created based on needs; the institution expected a 50-percent increase in enrollment from 2007 to 2017. 4 Other

names of the building include Roosevelt Tower, Wabash Building, Roosevelt University Tower, Wabash Tower.

8.9 Individual Landmarks

361

According to the study results, the most striking feature of the Wabash Building is a unique undulating glass curtainwall. Its sleek, shimmering, dark bluish appearance makes a splendid contrast with the whitish, rough-textured stonework of the Auditorium Building. That is, the building’s dynamic profile with modern exterior materials complements the original expression of the historic landmark Auditorium Building (Fig. 8.43). Given the relatively low-rise buildings surrounding the Wabash Building, it offers unobstructed, spectacular views of Lake Michigan, the lakefront, Grant Park, Buckingham Fountain, Museum Campus, and Chicago’s stunning skyline. Located within walking distance of the building, students use the Grant Park as their “quad.” Designed by Chicago-based architecture firm VOA Associates, the project raises the profile of Roosevelt University. The Wabash Expansion is called “vertical campus” because all students’ facilities and services are in one tall building in a city center setting. This contrasts with many American university campuses that spread over spacious land. In this building, however, numerous academic activities cluster vertically under one roof.

8.9.3 Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies Located across Grant Park in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District, the 10-story Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies is a contemporary masterpiece that reinvigorates Chicago’s rich architectural tradition. Spertus Institute’s mission is to foster Jewish education, tradition, and leadership. Established in 1924, it offers graduate degree programs at the Masters and Doctoral levels, as well as a wide array of public programming including films, speakers, concerts, and exhibits. The new 155,000 ft2 (14,400 m2 ) building functions as a vertical campus that contains a host of functions including Spertus College (a degree-granting college), Spertus Museum, Asher Library, 400-seat multi-use auditorium, children’s center, cabaret, bookstore, kosher café, gift shop, and administrative offices. Since 2011, the sixth-floor houses the Meadville Lombard Theological School, a Unitarian Universalist seminary, relocated from its Hyde Park location. The building was completed in 2007. According to the study results, the most stunning feature of the building is its eastern elevation facing Grant Park. It is a three-dimensional glass wall comprised of 726 individual pieces of glass in 556 various shapes. The building “resembles an exquisitely cut diamond placed into the great wall of stone that rises like a cliff across Grant Park” (Kamin 2007). The multidimensional façade reflects the mission of the Spertus Institute; to invite people of all different backgrounds to explore the multifaceted Jewish experience. The façade also mirrors its spectacular surroundings, including Grant Park, historic buildings, Lake Michigan, Chicago Skyline, as well as cloud, sun, and moon. When Spertus solicited designs for a new building to replace its previous home, constructed in 1911, architects were given one primary requirement: make it full of light. Metaphorically, the building’s contemporary design symbolizes the Hebrew

362

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.43 The undulating glass curtainwall of the Roosevelt Wabash Building is immediately striking. Its sleek, shimmering, and unique dark bluish appearance makes a splendid contrast of texture, height, and color with the whitish rough stonework of the Auditorium Building (Photograph by author)

8.9 Individual Landmarks

363

phrase “Yehi,” translated as “Let there be Light.” That is, inviting natural light into the building represents the light of learning and seeking the truth in our life, a core value in the Jewish tradition. As such, the large glass wall represents an inviting window to learn about the Jewish culture and tradition. Similarly, the Spertus Institute’s logo is a flame accompanied by the phrase “Yehi.” Simultaneously, the sculptural quality of the glass curtainwall evokes an intriguing twenty-first-century aesthetics. The theme of light is also reflected in the interior spaces. The building features a large ground floor lobby and a three-story meandering atrium that connects the varied functions, with an inviting atmosphere of transparency and openness. Sunlight pours into every interior space, including the stairwells. Natural light energizes the many programs that take place in the building. Blair Kamin (2007), a Chicago Tribune architecture critic, reflects on the building by stating: “With its faceted, folded facade of glass glinting softly in the sun, the new Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies at 618 S. Michigan Avenue is a beguiling expression of light, both actual and metaphoric. It is at once novel and neighborly, a building whose spectacularly sculptural, computeraided design is truly of our time even as it engages in a dialog across time with masterpieces that put Chicago on the architectural map.” The building’s three-dimensional 10-story glass makes a splendid contrast with the surrounding brick and stone historic buildings, many constructed in the period of architectural innovation that followed the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 (Fig. 8.44).

8.9.4 Aqua Tower Located northeast of the Aon Center and designed by Studio Gang Architects, the 81-story Aqua Tower rises to 251 m (823 ft). It embraces a mixed-use scheme that offers retail space, offices, a hotel, condominiums, and residential apartment units. Surrounded by other tall buildings, the tower’s sculpted form simulates the movement of waves, with the contours of the building’s exterior mimicking rippling water. According to the building’s architect Jeanne Gang, Aqua Tower’s form was inspired by the waves and layered topography of the Great Lakes region. Gang’s vision was materialized through the use of undulating, free-cantilevered balconies that stretch outward from 0.6 m to 3.7 m (2 ft to 12 ft). As the study participants indicated, the tower represents a dazzling new aesthetic, revealing itself differently when viewed from different angles and vantage points (Figs. 8.45 and 8.46). It “reveals an organic, sinuous view that does not exist anywhere else in the tall building world” (Wood 2012, p. 29). The tower won the prestigious Emporis Skyscraper Award, the “skyscraper of the year” in the same year of completion in 2009. The tower’s podium connects to Chicago’s Pedway, linking the tower’s residents to a wide range of services, amenities, cultural activities, and employment opportunities in the Chicago Loop. Further, developers built the tower on a former brownfield site, and 50% of the site integrates open and green spaces, exceeding the City of Chicago

364

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.44 Completed in 2007, the most notable feature of the Spertus Institute is its eastern elevation facing Grant Park. It is a three-dimensional glass wall that comprises 726 individual pieces of glass in 556 various shapes. The building “resembles an exquisitely cut diamond placed into the great wall of stone that rises like a cliff across Grant Park” (Kamin 2007) (Photograph by author)

8.9 Individual Landmarks

365

Fig. 8.45 Brilliantly imagined, the Aqua Tower stands out among Chicago’s tall buildings. Using nearby Great Lakes region water and topography as design inspiration, the sculpted contours simulate the movement of waves. The staggered balcony depths combine to give the distinct impression of rippling water. Overall, the tower’s innovative design makes it a significant landmark in the city (Photograph by author)

366

8 The Chicago Loop

Fig. 8.46 A close-up view of the Aqua Tower exterior. Aqua Tower’s vision was materialized by employing undulating, free-cantilevered balconies that stretch outward from 0.6 to 3.7 m (2 ft to 12 ft). The tower illustrates how inspired design can improve placemaking (Photograph by author)

8.9 Individual Landmarks

367

zoning standard by 25%. Furthermore, 90% of Aqua spaces enjoy natural ventilation and sunlight, exceeding the City’s minimal requirements by more than 50%.

8.10 Summary The Loop district holds its place as one of Chicago’s most prominent place. Its ideal location, vibrant density, mixed-use buildings, and a blend of historic and modern characters all combine to produce the beating heart of Chicago. From technical triumphs and innovation to inspiring international design theories, to commercial prestige, Chicago’s Loop buildings tell the story of the people and forces that have shaped this city in every way. For many people, local and global, the image of the city of Chicago is associated with the Loop. When hearing the name “Chicago,” the image of the Loop skyscrapers, clustered together, is instantly evoked. The recent additions of Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park have been a game-changer. These parks have become an integral part of the Loop’s imageability, adding a human dimension and elevating sense of place.

References Al-Kodmany K (2018) The vertical city: a sustainable development model. WIT Press, Southampton Al-Kodmany K (2017) Understanding tall buildings: a theory of placemaking. Routledge, London Al-Kodmany K (2015) Eco-Towers. WIT Press, Southampton Al-Kodmany K (2014) Green retrofitting skyscrapers: a review. Buildings 4(4):683–710. https:// doi.org/10.3390/buildings4040683. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Crown Height, The Heritage at Millennium Park, http://chrchicago.com/pages/7135324/The-Her itage-at-Millennium-Park.aspx. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Dyja TL (2014) The Third Coast: When Chicago Built the American Dream. Penguin, NYC Emporis. https://www.emporis.com/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Ehrenhalt A (2013) The great inversion and the future of the American City. Vintage, NYC Jahn H (2015) Helmut Jahn: Buildings 1975–2015. Schirmer/Mosel, Munchen, Germany Kamin B (2003) Why Architecture Matters. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Kamin B (2007) Blades of glass, Chicago Tribune, November 25. https://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/ct-xpm-2007-11-25-0711240306-story.html Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Keegan E (2008) Chicago Architecture: 1885 to Today. Rizzoli, NYC, NY Lepik A (2008) Skyscrapers. Prestel, NYC Marcus MC, Francis C (1998) People Place: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. Wiley and Sons, NYC Miller DL (1996) City of the Century: The Epic of Chicago and the Making of America. Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, NYC O’Gorman TJ (2003) Architecture in Detail Chicago. PRC publishing, NYC Pridmore J, Larson G (2005) Chicago Architecture and Design. Harry N, Abrams, NYC Saliga PA, Clarke JH (1998) The Sky’s the Limit: A Century of Skyscrapers in Chicago. Rizzoli, NYC Sinkevitch A, McGovern L (2014) AIA Guide to Chicago, 3rd edn. University of Illinois Press, Chicago, IL

368

8 The Chicago Loop

Smith CS (2006) The Plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the Remaking of the American City, the University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Sullivan L (1892) Ornament in Architecture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Wood A (ed) (2012) Best Tall Buildings 2012, CTBUH International Award Winning Projects. Routledge, London, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) Zukowsky J, Thorne M, Tigerman S (2004) Masterpieces of Chicago Architecture. Rizzoli, NYC

Chapter 9

The Chicago Skyline

Abstract This chapter examines the Chicago Skyline. Read as a unit; a skyline forms a potent urban symbol that manifests citizens’ achievements, economic status, cultural ambition, and lifestyle. An imageable skyline boosts the city’s reputation, reinforces civic life, and fosters pride. It also helps residents and visitors to better orient themselves within the city and to navigate through it. According to Kevin Lynch, a modern skyline is a “vertical edge” created by tall buildings. By analyzing Chicago Skyline, this chapter attempts to extract useful placemaking and urban design lessons.

9.1 Introduction When we look at a city, we notice the unmistakable variability of size, design, form, color, texture, and shape of buildings. Well-articulated urban design principles can help in creating a harmonious streetscape and make a city’s skyline elegant and memorable. At the macro scale, urban designers believe that buildings should follow an ordering in heights, gradually varying from the least to the greatest height; thereby creating strong focal points on the city’s skyline. In the same manner, urban designers argue that an abrupt or weak transition between building heights results in a chaotic environment (Attoe 1981). Conversely, making buildings of a similar height (as often suggested by zoning regulations) may result in an unattractively flat, monotonous skyline. As such, both uniformity and sparse height ordering of tall buildings, risk violating urban design principles related to skylines (Al-Kodmany 2017; Puspitasari and Kwon 2019). Unlike ancient cities, which typically had few distinctive vertical landmarks, the modern city is a collage of tall and supertall buildings, each competing with one another for prominence on a city skyline. Likewise, the field of vision that encompasses skyscrapers spread out for miles, allowing them to be viewed from distant vantage points, well beyond the city (Höweler 2003). From a purely aesthetic perspective, the architectural critic Montgomery Schuyler described the new urban prospect as chaotic, with “scattered or huddled towers, which have nothing to do with each other or with what is below at the ground plane” (Attoe 1981, p. 41). Schuyler © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_9

369

370

9 The Chicago Skyline

proposed pursuing a “picturesque beauty” which results from the “immense impressiveness” of the aggregation of tall buildings. Spiro Kostof (1991, p. 78), on the other hand, describes the modern skyline as “a premeditated human order” that is “indebted solely to technology and the profit-seeking designs of man,” and it represents “the first urban silhouette of modern times not to be determined by steeples and domes.” Modern photography, mass media, and recently, social media, glamorize the image of individual and clusters of skyscrapers that make up a city’s skyline. People often display them as aesthetic artifacts or potent city symbols, engendering appreciation, love, and admiration. People buy posters and postcards of city skylines to adorn desks, walls, and websites, appreciating the skyline’s artistic merits (Bell 2013; Lepik 2008). Many people use city skyline images on their art and architecture websites, blogs, and social media to engage friends and Web visitors in discussions on their beauty. Movies, films, and television programs often use the skyline image to invoke a sense of modernity, civic pride, and scientific achievement (Kunkale 2015; Lim and Heath 1994). Important questions arise. Is a skyline the outcome of a self-generating evolution determined by how each building is designed and shaped for its own site? Alternatively, are skylines deliberately generated, a composition emerging over time, driven by the intention of achieving a sweeping, elegantly ordered panorama? Moderating this conversation uncovers questions about the role of urban designers in shaping a city skyline. Through careful urban design planning at the municipal level, the city government can exercise its influence in shaping the skyline by using the approval processes of zoning/permitting (Gonçalves 2010; Short 2007). When decision-makers lack a clear planning vision, however, a city may end up having a muddled skyline with poor imageability. The prospect of a uniquely recognizable urban image could then evolve into chaotic, unpleasant, and fragmented urban scenes. For these reasons, some scholars argue that urban designers should treat the skyline as an ever-expanding, malleable site, and guide its continuous development by establishing practical guidelines for building heights, setbacks, stepbacks, shapes, aesthetics, and appearance—a significant notion that this chapter attempts to explore (Ford 1976; Nasar et al. 2002).

9.2 Skyline Views The vantage point from which a skyline is viewed can determine, in many ways, how it is perceived and understood. Urban design studies deal with three prime vantage points from which to experience an urban skyline: from a waterfront (e.g., rivers, lakes, or coastlines); from the land; or from high-altitudes (e.g., hills, mountains, tall, or supertall buildings) (Al-Kodmany and Ali 2013; Karimimoshaver and Winkemann 2018).

9.2 Skyline Views

371

9.2.1 Waterfront Views Waterfront views offer the most panoramic and romantic sight of a skyline. Withdrawing from the city, on a boat or ferry, allows an even more complete view. Most major cities boast a water feature of some sort, located near a river, lake, or sea. The horizontality of a waterfront contrasts well with a tall building’s verticality. Besides, reflections off the water can accentuate the verticality of tall buildings. The spatial arrangement of tall buildings along a waterfront often creates edges that reinforce the imageability of a skyline. Waterfront skylines at night are particularly attractive. As the study participants confirmed, Chicago exemplifies an imageable skyline along a waterfront during daytime and nighttime (Fig. 9.1).

9.2.2 Land Views Viewed from the ground, a city’s skyline may be obstructed by the height and bulk of individual buildings. For this reason, urban dwellers tend to experience only fragmented portions of the skyline at any given moment. Opportunities to take in the entire skylines generally occur on external transportation routes, such as highways that lead into a city. Views from highways and expressways can provide meaningful information to drivers about how the city is organized, what it symbolizes, how people use it, and how it relates to them. Introductory snapshots read like the prolog of a good book. They set the scene for placemaking and a more intimate close-up of the city. Therefore, examining views from major transportation routes is among the more critical design considerations for skylines. Axial routes that lead into the city core are particularly important. Major courses should be arranged along with skyscraper locations so that views from these routes capture the most desirable views and orient the observer (Al-Kodmany 2013; Kostof 1991). Major highways also play an essential role in spatially defining high-rise districts (Figs. 9.2 and 9.3).

9.2.3 High Elevation Views High-altitude views are naturally attainable from mountains or hillsides. However, tall buildings themselves also provide some of the most dramatic views of the city and its skyline. In particular, observation decks of supertalls and megatalls often offer sightseers spectacular panoramic views. A bird’s-eye view provides a greater understanding and appreciation of a city’s urban scale, landuse diversity, building locations, civic infrastructure, auto traffic, natural landscaping, and lighting systems, among other features.

372

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.1 Among the best views of the Chicago Skyline is from Lake Michigan (top). Nighttime reflections of buildings and streetlights serve to integrate the water and cityscape further, forming a mesmerizing sense of place (bottom) (Photograph by author)

9.2 Skyline Views

373

Fig. 9.2 Major roads and highways that lead into the downtown offer breathtaking views of the Chicago Skyline. These vantage points establish a vital introduction to the placeness of Chicago (Photograph by author)

374

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.3 Major highways surrounding the Chicago Loop create precise edges, strengthening the imageability of Chicago Downtown. These arteries serve to reinforce a sense of place, rather than interrupt it (Photograph by author)

9.2 Skyline Views

375

Indeed, from high vantage points, a viewer can accomplish in one glance what might take days of ground level exploration. The edges, pathways, and nodes of the entire city can be taken in and processed as a whole, in a few minutes. Capturing this image, like a living mental map, orients the viewer through future explorations, which itself is an essential element of placemaking (Al-Kodmany and Ali 2013). For example, the observation decks of the John Hancock Center provide splendid views of Chicago. In 2014, the building integrated the 360 Chicago—TILT, offering a spectacular window to the city. Located 1000 feet (305 m) above The Magnificent Mile, TILT is an enclosed, glass, and steel moveable platform that holds up to eight visitors per cycle. It tilts outward at a 30-degree angle, generating breathtaking aerial views of the city. Similarly, Willis Tower’s observation deck on the 103rd floor allows visitors to view Chicago, Lake Michigan, and, on clear days, the adjoining states. In 2009, the Willis Tower (previously Sears Tower) has added The Ledge to its observation deck, creating an even more exhilarating experience for viewers. The Ledge transforms how visitors experience Chicago. At 412 m (1,353 ft) height, The Ledge includes four glass boxes that extend out 1.3 m (4.3 ft) from the building, providing breathtaking aerial views of the city (Al-Kodmany 2018) (Figs. 9.4 and 9.5).

9.3 Urban Design Elements The relationship between tall buildings, the natural landscape, and the cityscape is critical for ensuring an imageable skyline, and promoting placemaking, as described in the following discussion.

9.3.1 Natural Landscape Tall buildings should respect natural features that form the backdrop and foreground of their cities. Unfortunately, many tall buildings have disrespected the natural beauty of their cities by masking or interrupting desirable views. For example, several tall buildings in Hong Kong have risen beyond the Victoria ridge, thereby masking the natural beauty of the surrounding mountains. Interestingly, Chicago’s natural setting near Lake Michigan is promoted and safeguarded by the sizeable green buffer of Grant Park. The importance of the buffer space can be seen in creating a transition between the vertical plane (tall buildings) and the horizontal plane (Lake Michigan). Overall, the Grant Park enhances spatial relationships and improves the visual appeal of the city (Figs. 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8). Tall buildings help to positively define the open space of the Grant Park. In the absence of the park, i.e., if the downtown were situated right on the lake (as is the case in many coastal cities), the visual impact would have been abrupt and overwhelming to the viewer. Furthermore, tall buildings along the lakeshore have largely slender profiles to avoid blocking views of Lake

376

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.4 Views of the skyline from the observation decks of John Hancock (above) and Willis Tower (bottom). Forming an instant mental map, this view orients visitors to the city layout, an essential element of placemaking (Photograph by author)

9.3 Urban Design Elements

377

Fig. 9.5 The “Ledge” of Willis Tower. This new addition offers intriguing top-down views of the city. Urban clusters, spatial nodes, and prominent pathways are readily apparent, which together evoke a unique image of the city (Photograph by author)

378

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.6 Chicago skyscrapers create legible edges and define Grant Park. The visual enclosure, appropriately scaled to the city, creates a sense of place throughout the park (Photograph by author)

9.3 Urban Design Elements

379

Fig. 9.7 Grant Park and Buckingham Fountain add beauty and a subliminal quality to the cityscape (top). Maggie Daley Park (located at the northeast corner of Grant Park) complements the city’s skyline with colorful play areas and organic topography (bottom). Named after a beloved Chicagoan, and located on Chicago’s most valuable real estate, this public commitment to equitable access and greenspace endears the city to residents and visitors alike. It is a highly successful example of a spatial and emotive placemaking (Photograph by author)

380

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.8 Mature trees in Grant Park along Lake Michigan create soft, green edges that mitigate the visual impact of skyscrapers’ hard edges. Likewise, large trees reduce the imposing effect of tall buildings. The visual interest created by varying texture, color, height, and lines brings out a sense of place (Photograph by author)

9.3 Urban Design Elements

381

Michigan. The careful consideration of height, mass, and volume at a large scale helps foster placemaking by engaging interstitial spaces as connections, rather than abrupt borderlines (Riley and Nordenson 2003).

9.3.2 Cityscape To ensure an attractive skyline, urban designers should conduct in-depth analyses of the spatial layout of tall buildings as follows.

9.3.2.1

Spacing

The imageability of a skyline is affected by the spacing of tall buildings. Narrow spacing provides visual continuity and reinforces the shape of a skyline, making it appear more complete and imageable, all essential elements of placemaking. In contrast, wide spacing creates significant spatial gaps between buildings that weaken the skyline’s imageability, rendering it accidental or chaotic looking. In other words, unplanned gaps create visual disorder, signaling that the city’s growth is haphazard and erratic. Among the reasons that make the Chicago Skyline one of the best in the United States is the careful spacing of its tall buildings, creating a vivid “vertical edge” (Figs. 9.1, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11 and 9.12).

9.3.2.2

Clustering

Grouping tall buildings into clusters intensifies the skyline by creating focal points. Clusters also help to reflect the vibrancy of a particular location. Clusters provide structure and hierarchy upon which to build an understanding of the urban form. There are two types of clustering: mono-focal and poly-focal. A mono-focal skyline occurs when tall buildings cluster in one area. Many modern cities started with a monofocal skyline, which typically reflected the urban core. As cities grew and expanded, however, they changed and developed “poly-focal” skylines. Clusters alert the viewer to dynamic activities at the ground level. The visual cue draws people in, thereby animating a sense of place. Appropriate care should be given to the development of exciting spaces and amenities at ground level, corresponding to clusters in the skyline. Supertall and megatall buildings, in particular, create strong focal points along a skyline. The skyline of Chicago has multiple powerful focal points created by the Willis Tower, Aon Tower, John Hancock Center, Legacy at Millennium Park, Vista Tower (nearing completion), (Figs. 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, and 9.20) and Tribune Tower East (soon under construction). Indeed, the 610 m (2000 ft) Chicago Spire skyscraper would have created an additional powerful focal point

382

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.9 Tall buildings along Lake Michigan create a strong vertical edge. Collectively, these “urban giants” form a clear image and a powerful sense of place. Note how the urban edge created by tall buildings reinforces the imageability of the natural edge created by Lake Michigan (Photograph by author)

9.3 Urban Design Elements

383

Fig. 9.10 A closer view of Michigan Avenue illustrates the role of tall buildings in creating a coherent edge. Note that architectural consistency among buildings promotes spatial affinity, incorporating a unifying urban design theme. A sense that the buildings “belong” together helps in developing a sense of the place as a coherent whole (Photograph by author)

384

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.11 Physical model of the City of Chicago by Chicago Architecture Center (CAC). Photographs illustrate the role of skyscrapers in creating legible edges and the design deliberations that go into placemaking (Photograph by author)

9.3 Urban Design Elements

385

Fig. 9.12 A closer view of Chicago Skyline illustrates the role of skyscrapers in providing a sense of visual enclosure. Note how the Crane Communications Building (centered with a sloped roof) ties the two edges of the Chicago Skyline along Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street. The building draws attention as a connecting node, essential to successful placemaking (Photograph by author)

386

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.13 Photographs illustrate three significant tall buildings, Willis Tower (top), John Hancock Center (center), and Legacy at Millennium Park (bottom), which create strong focal points on the Chicago Skyline. Urban placemaking relies on strong skyline visual cues as much as on street level interactions (Photograph by author)

9.3 Urban Design Elements

387

Fig. 9.14 A closer view of Willis Tower illustrates the focal point it creates on the Chicago Skyline. Drawing visitors in from across the city and the world, this landmark building is considered a placemaker in its own right (Photograph by author)

388

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.15 A closer view of John Hancock illustrates the focal point it creates on the Chicago Skyline. A triumph in the art of engineering, this landmark is a beautiful and historic placemaker (Photograph by author)

9.3 Urban Design Elements

389

Fig. 9.16 A closer view of the Legacy at Millennium Park illustrates the focal point it creates on the Chicago Skyline. The glistening skin and towering height command attention, while remaining contextually sensitive, highlighting aspects of successful placemaking (Photograph by author)

390

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.17 A modern supertall, the Aon Center (top), and a group of historic tall buildings (bottom) create compelling focal points in the Chicago Skyline, thereby making distinct visual references and promoting a sense of place (Photograph by author)

9.3 Urban Design Elements

391

Fig. 9.18 The supertall Vista Tower, nearing completion, creates a new powerful focal point. Contributing to Chicago’s image as a thriving metropolis, this building reinforces the process of placemaking, engaged over time (Photograph by author)

392

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.19 Grant Luxury Condos towers create a strong, almost arrogant focal point on the City Skyline. The towers remain somewhat out of place, display little design coherence, or attention to context. They diminish the sense of place achieved by an otherwise well-composed Chicago skyline. Filling in the gap-toothed skyline will become a necessity to reestablish order and cohesion (Photograph by author)

9.3 Urban Design Elements

393

Fig. 9.20 Completed recently, NEMA Chicago has leveraged the height allowances for South Loop development. Neither a landmark in its own right nor paying much regard to neighboring buildings, this node signals future development along the lakefront in the South Loop. Inattention to urban design principles may serve to diminish the authority of Chicago’s exceptional placemaking leadership (Photograph by author)

394

9 The Chicago Skyline

in the city skyline. Unfortunately, after working on the foundation, the developer canceled the project due to financial hardships. In a clustered setting, central towers rise significantly above their neighboring buildings forming distinct focal points. These towers become key skyline identifiers, and therefore, haphazard competition for height around them should be avoided. The City of Chicago has been conscious about protecting the centrality of its skyline landmarks formed by the Willis Tower, John Hancock Center, Aon Center, and the like. Any height competition around these buildings would create aesthetically unattractive spatial relationships (Fig. 9.13).

9.3.2.3

Ending Points

In addition to respecting centralities, the beginning and ending points of a skyline should be emphasized. Buildings at the periphery of a skyline are often characterized by shorter heights, making the skyline blend more smoothly into a natural landscape or “earthscape.” Chicago’s skyline respects this urban design principle, as buildings at the far ends are shorter. However, an unusual, exceptional situation occurs with Lake Point Tower, which protrudes off the city skyline (Fig. 9.21), also explained in Chap. 6 (Fig. 6.39). A punctuated skyline helps define the city as a self-contained unit, enhancing sense of place on a large scale.

9.3.2.4

Coherence

Architectural coherence, represented by architectural styles, geometry, and details, is vital for strengthening imageability. When architectural elements are in harmony, they have a profound effect on a skyline. An examination of Chicago’s skyline reveals that architectural consistencies are provided by rows of historic buildings (see Fig. 9.10, presented earlier). Overall, architectural coherence provides a unifying effect that strengthens imageability and placemaking. In contrast, when buildings— notably those close to one another—feature conflicting architectural styles, the visual order of the skyline will likely be disturbed. Exceptions could be made (e.g., Figs. 8.39 and 8.40) and careful urban design studies would then be required.

9.3.2.5

Color Scheme

Proposed tall buildings should observe the color schemes of both the cityscape and the natural landscape. Chicago has a large number of older, tall buildings with dark facades—influenced by Miesian architecture—though this color scheme has fallen out of favor since the introduction of lighter colors in the late 1970s. Overall, the juxtaposition of skyscrapers with darker and lighter colors should be carefully studied. Unfortunately, the red 44-story CNA Plaza somewhat tarnishes the spectacular Chicago Skyline at 333 South Wabash Avenue in the Loop Community. The

9.3 Urban Design Elements

395

Fig. 9.21 Lake Point Tower creates a “surprise” on the city skyline. The child in the bottom photograph asked the question, “Why is this tower lonely?” As an unintentional landmark, it is an example how buildings often have unique histories and illicit unusual reactions over time. The loophole allowing buildings east of Lake Shore Drive was soon closed after this tower went up (Photograph by author)

396

9 The Chicago Skyline

barn-red color is entirely out of place among a milieu of remarkable tall buildings, immediately drawing the attention of visitors as an awkward misfit in the city skyline. It was designed in the 1970s, during the declining days of Modernism, when plain box-type rectilinear designs were becoming less popular. Consequently, the developer decided to paint the building red to make its bland, monolithic appearance livelier. In so doing, the building attempts to claim a landmark quality, despite its relative unimportance. This building provides a cautionary lesson; placemaking is a subtle form of art.

9.3.2.6

Size

Urban imageability is correlated with the size (height and length) of a skyline. Overall, vast, continuous skylines are more imageable than smaller ones. For example, the skylines of the cities of Chicago and Boston are recognizable and memorable as they line up beautifully along coastal edges. Among the factors that make Chicago’s skyline more imageable than Boston’s, however, are its greater height and larger length. As such, an extensive size skyline is likely to be more impactful, positively, or negatively.

9.3.2.7

Historic Depth

A skyline usually takes time to develop. A quickly generated skyline (as is the case in “instant cities”) may lack the historic dimension of a place. For example, Dubai’s skyline started by building the 321 m (1053 ft) Burj Al Arab Hotel in 1999. Today, Dubai has one of the largest concentrations of tall (and tallest) buildings in the world. In contrast, Chicago had a relatively slower tall building development that extends over 140 years, encompassing a wide range of architectural styles and innovative engineering. It took Chicago several decades to form a “mature” skyline with historic depth. By displaying layers of history, the skyline concisely tells the city’s story. It serves as a living visual “timeline” of the evolution of various architectural styles and innovative engineering, engendering a sense of place born out of a meaningful process (Figs. 9.10, 9.12, 9.14, and 9.17).

9.3.2.8

“Layered Skyline”

A “layered skyline” results from spreading tall buildings over an area instead of over a line. For instance, placing tall buildings along a shoreline will create a single layer skyline, which may appear weak or flimsy for lacking depth. In contrast, when tall buildings cover an area, the skyline will be visually more dynamic—since looking at it from various perspectives reveals different dynamic views. The resulting depth in the skyline communicates a better sense of place. For example, the attractive Chicago Skyline results from clusters of tall buildings in the downtown. In contrast, the Gold

9.3 Urban Design Elements

397

Coast skyline in Australia spreads along the coast in an extremely linear manner, rendering it as a “shallow” skyline.

9.3.2.9

Major Landmarks

Undoubtedly, significant tall buildings help to read a skyline. They create conspicuous reference points that force the reader to pause and contemplate splendid architectural design and innovative engineering. Such a process allows people to decode the visual cues of a skyline and discover cultural meanings, symbolism, and history. With the advent of powerful tewnty-first-century technologies, skyscrapers are reaching unprecedented heights (e.g., Burj Khalif is 823 m (2700 ft) and Jeddah Tower, if completed, will be one kilometer (3280 ft) high). As such, these buildings strongly punctuate a skyline. They function as mega urban symbols that communicate a nation’s status at the global stage. Integrating a megatall building in an urban fabric (600+ m/1968+ ft) is undoubtedly a game-changer for a skyline. Due to their significant height, they form the biggest risk to a skyline. It is worth noting that Burj Khalifa has radically changed Dubai’s skyline. Therefore, planners need to study the visual repercussions of integrating megatall buildings. Although Chicago does not contain presently any megatall building, the iconic Willis Tower and John Hancock Center continue to serve as significant landmarks and urban symbols (Mak et al. 2001).

9.4 Pleasure and Interest Visual order is critical to a skyline’s imageability, as explained in the sections above. Interestingly, environmental psychology researchers have emphasized additional design dimensions that may evoke pleasure and interest in a skyline. For example, Stamps et al. (2005) examined the skyline’s visual pleasure and interest in relation to three key variables: (1) setbacks and stepbacks, (2) height, and (3) width.

9.4.1 Setback and Stepback The term “setback” refers to the distance that the base of a tall building recesses from the surrounding elements such as streets and adjacent buildings, while the term “stepback” refers to the distance that upper floors recess from the building perimeter. Therefore, buildings with stepbacks tend to have “stepped” appearances. Stepbacks encourage viewers to engage with the contours, shadows, and light play afforded by irregular and exciting geometry. Inviting this sort of engagement is fundamental for successful placemaking. According to Stamps et al. (2005), the provision of building stepbacks increases the visual interest of skylines. Stepbacks provide visual stimulus and help towers avoid looking like boxy, monolithic objects (Nasar and Terzanob

398

9 The Chicago Skyline

2010). The Willis Tower, the NBC Tower, and the Palmolive Building are famous Chicago skyscrapers that successfully use stepbacks to enhance their appearances, as demonstrated in earlier chapters.

9.4.2 Height Stamps et al. suggest that varying buildings’ heights help in breaking the monotony of a skyline. In contrast, buildings of similar heights tend to create a less impressive, flat, monotonous skyline. Buildings’ heights should be examined against the spatial arrangement of the city. Overall, taller buildings should be placed behind shorter buildings in a progressive manner so all buildings can enjoy views to open spaces, waterfronts, and parks. A transition from tallest to lowest needs to be examined while observing a reduction of visual obstruction. Besides, an abrupt, drastic change in height may convey visual disorder. At the micro-scale, a group of tall buildings could also feature varying heights to stimulate pleasure and interest. A common concern is that zoning regulations dictate a specific height range in designated areas, resulting in semi-flat zones. Finally, buildings’ height should be examined so that they ensure spatial continuity of the city skyline. Chicago exemplifies a “classical” skyline, where a building’s height reflects the prevailing real estate dynamic, i.e., height increases proportionally with land prices. As such, a central area of a great demand often features tallest buildings. Nevertheless, some caution about height order is required. Terrible examples have taken place recently in NYC where super-slender towers have created unpleasant spikes in the skyline. Due to astronomical increases in land prices, owners are constructing very tall buildings on tiny lots. Examples in NYC include the: • • • •

216-m (709-ft) 100 East 53rd Street, with a ratio of 1:16; 472-m (1548-ft); Central Park Tower, with a ratio of 1:15; 426-m (1398-ft); 423 Park Avenue, with a ratio of 1:15; and the 435-m (1427-ft) Steinway Tower, also known 11 West 57th Street (nearing completion), with a ratio of 1:24.

These super skinny skyscrapers that sprung along the south side of the Central Park have ruined the historic fabric and profile of Midtown neighborhood, Manhattan. Of course, flat skylines are likely to be dull and unattractive due to lacking changes that stimulate visual interest, as mentioned earlier in the Overview Section.

9.4 Pleasure and Interest

399

9.4.3 Width Varying building’s widths across a skyline could make it more attractive and exciting, while buildings of the same width tend to create monotony. However, many cities may not be able to apply this design principle because they are laid out in a standardized way. That is, building codes and regulations generate parcels of similar sizes, leading to building footprints of almost equal width. This problem also occurs because owners and developers are inclined to develop as much of their valuable downtown land as possible, and will, therefore, usually build to the lot limit. Pleasantly, Chicago Skyline features buildings of varying heights and widths. These concepts are illustrated in Figs. 9.22, 9.23, 9.24, 9.25, and 9.26.

9.5 Summary A skyline is an important placemaking element that gives each city a unique identity. Metaphorically speaking, a skyline is the “fingerprint” or “urban signature” that symbolizes a city’s achievement and promotes civic pride while providing a tangible measure of a city’s growth. Viewed from distant vantage points, the skyline offers an introduction to the breadth and depth of a city’s history, as well as its emerging future. Therefore, urban designers have an essential role in assessing and shaping a city’s emerging skyline. Urban design guidelines and frameworks must promote visual harmony between tall buildings and the general cityscape. Guidelines should ensure that tall buildings are designed as part of a coherent whole, informed by a deliberate vision, as opposed to ad hoc, reactive measures. Directions can be implemented through zoning codes and landuse policies that deal with height, setback, stepback, contextual sensitivity, and environmental aesthetic. The assessment should also consider future developments in the city. Theoretically, a comprehensive evaluation of the visual impact of a significant tall building should be conducted from all vantage points and from various distances. However, it is unlikely that each building can maximize the visual impact at all possible vantage points. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on the most common views, such as from popular roads, sidewalks, waterfronts, and significant open spaces.

400

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.22 Chicago skyscrapers feature varying heights and widths that make the city skyline dynamic and exciting. Offering a seemingly endless variety of views, the city engages viewers’ attention and thereby invites active placemaking (Photograph by author)

9.5 Summary

401

Fig. 9.23 Chicago skyscrapers create a dynamic and interesting story. A timeline of tall buildings, the skyline serves to reinforce Chicago’s place as a global city of innovation and progress (Photograph by author)

402

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.24 Featuring diverse architectural styles and varying heights and widths, Chicago tall buildings can be appreciated when viewed from afar or closer distances (Photograph by author)

9.5 Summary

403

Fig. 9.25 Despite their massive scale, these tall buildings create a cohesive sense of place by varying proportions, colors, and textures, while retaining their unique character on the skyline (Photograph by author)

404

9 The Chicago Skyline

Fig. 9.26 These tall buildings visually interlock, weaving a beautiful, textured urban fabric. Synonymous with world-class architecture, Chicago features diverse architectural styles, elegant design, and excellent transitions, thereby, creating an unforgettable sense of place (Photograph by author)

References

405

References Al-Kodmany K (2013) The visual integration of tall buildings: new technologies and the city skyline. J Urban Technol 20(2):25–44 Al-Kodmany K (2017) Understanding tall buildings. Routledge, London Al-Kodmany K (2018) The vertical city: a sustainable development model. WIT Press, Southampton Al-Kodmany K, Ali MM (2013) The future of the city: tall buildings and urban design. WIT Press, Southampton Attoe W (1981) Skylines: understanding and molding urban silhouettes. Wiley and Sons, NYC Bell S (2013) Elements of visual design in the landscape. Routledge, London Ford LR (1976) The urban skyline as a city classification system. J Geogr 75:154–164 Gonçalves JCS (2010) The environmental performance of tall buildings. Routledge, London Höweler E (2003) Skyscraper: designs of the recent past and for the near future. Thames & Hudson, NYC Karimimoshaver M, Winkemann P (2018) A framework for assessing tall buildings’ impact on the city skyline: aesthetic, visibility, and meaning dimensions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 73:164– 176 Kostof S (1991) The city shaped: urban patterns and meanings through history. Little, Brown and Company, NYC Kunkale P (2015) The top 10 most impactful skylines. http://www.archdaily.com/769806/the-top10-most-impactful-skylines. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Lepik A (2008) Skyscrapers. Prestel, NYC Lim B, Heath T (1994) What is a skyline: a quantitative approach. Archit Sci Rev 37:163–170 Mak A, Yip E, Lai P (2001) Developing a city skyline for Hong Kong using GIS and urban design guidelines. URISA J 17(1):33–42 Nasar JL, Terzanob K (2010) The desirability of views of city skylines after dark. J Environ Psychol 30(2):215–225 Nasar JL, Imeokparia T, Tiwari R (2002) Skyline entropy, order and preference. In: 33rd annual conference of the environmental design research association conference, Philadelphia, PA, 22–26 May Puspitasari A, Kwon J (2019) Analysis of the visual quality of riverfront skyline through the feature of height and spatial arrangement of tall building. Archit Res Q 21(4):91–98. https://doi.org/10. 5659/AIKAR.2019.21.4.91 Riley T, Nordenson G (2003) Tall buildings. Thames and Hudson, London Short M (2007) Assessing the impact of tall buildings on the built environment. Prog Plan 68(3):97– 199 Stamps A, Nasar J, Hanyu K (2005) Using pre-construction validation to regulate urban skylines. J Am Plan Assoc 71(1):73–91

Chapter 10

Chicago as a Placemaking Model

“Maybe we can show government how to operate better as a result of better architecture. I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world” (Frank Lloyd Wright 1939, cited in Nyren 2017. p. 46).

Abstract This extended chapter offers critical placemaking messages. Undoubtedly, individual landmark buildings and significant public spaces in the City of Chicago are already known. However, this study delineates spatial clusters of landmark buildings and public places, amenities, parks, and museums that collectively foster a unique sense of place. The chapter also charts urban design guidelines and initiates an urban tourism plan for Chicago. Further, it engages the reader with a critical discussion on using social media for public participation. In sum, as many cities all over the world rush to construct tall buildings, Chicago remains a quintessential model that can inform and inspire to better integrate “urban giants” into their respective urban contexts.

10.1 New Perspective Tall buildings have been damaging sense of place in many cities around the globe. In response, this book offers a new way of understanding the role of tall buildings that could play in promoting placemaking. It brings the example of Chicago, the birthplace of tall buildings, and explains how this building typology in conjunction with open spaces can improve the overall urban structure and imageability of the city. By applying Kevin Lynch’s theory of imageability, the book identifies a system of landmarks, paths, nodes, districts, and edges that collectively shape the popular image of Chicago, such that the resulting visual order is worth noting and maintaining. Spatial organization is very important to cities that embrace the skyscraper building typology. Chicago’s visual composition of skyscrapers, on the vertical plane, and public spaces on the horizontal plane is also analyzed within Lynch’s theoretical framework. Feedback from the study participants indicates that the city’s imageability is vivid. As twenty-first-century cities are increasingly gigantic, vast, and complex © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3_10

407

408

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

organisms, Chicago may inform and inspire cities for creative ways to better integrate tall buildings with public spaces. The mental and physical image of Chicago stands in great contrast to other cities. For example, the images of Vancouver, Seattle, Rio de Janeiro, or Kyoto are associated with natural settings and remarkable natural landscapes. Other cities are known for the character and beauty of their public parks, plazas, or boulevards; examples include London’s Hyde Park in London, UK, San Marco Piazza in Venice, Italy, and the Champs-Elysees in Paris, France. Other places, such as Hong Kong and Manhattan, cram in too many skyscrapers with fewer public spaces, thereby evoking the image of a “skyscraper jungle.” In contrast, Chicago’s image, as the study reveals, features an attractive configuration of skyscrapers to public spaces. Chicago promotes placemaking and inspires one to reimagine vertical cities. The Chicago experience offers meaningful lessons in how to harmonize human-made skyscrapers with human scale public spaces. Placemaking is about people first. Chicago’s public spaces play a significant role in balancing the verticality and scale of its skyscrapers with the human experiences weaving through the streets and squares around them. Using locational data from social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, along with imagery from Google Earth, fieldwork, direct observations, in-depth surveys, and combining insights from architecture and urban design literature, this study reveals that Chicago continues to be the quintessential skyscraper city. Chicago’s skyscrapers tell an epic story of transformative architectural design, innovative engineering solutions, and dynamic entrepreneurial energy. Chicago’s skyscrapers evoke strength, elegance, clarity, and history; all these qualities are deeply embedded in the city’s character. Almost every skyscraper in the city is unique for outstanding design, choice of building materials, architectural style, contextual cues, height, color contrast, remarkable shaft, base, or crown. Consequently, a good number of skyscrapers, viewed as individual objects or part of a spatial cluster, promote placemaking. Likewise, Chicago’s public spaces individually and collectively promote placemaking. They are unique in multiple regards. Notably, the public can enjoy these spaces with a free-of-charge admission, largely. Also, they are strategically located in the city, and they are intriguing and attractive to all ages. They attract a broad spectrum of people, including residents, local, and global visitors, business owners, professionals, and public officials. Their combined presence creates a vibrant downtown, engenders strong social bonds, and an enduring sense of belonging. In particular, Chicago’s landmark skyscrapers and public spaces are major attractions, and they have direct impact on the perceived imageability of the city. Overall, the city’s stimulating architecture, public art, paintings, street landscaping, restaurants, eateries, cafes, retail shops, abundant children’s entertainment and play facilities, enticing music and visual art venues, bring people together, spark spontaneous interaction, and enhance social life. Vibrant public spaces reinforce a shared sense of culture, identity, and thereby promote placemaking.

10.1 New Perspective

409

Admittedly, common planning practices often do not pay adequate attention to urban design concepts of placemaking. This study recommends embracing forwardthinking approaches to placemaking and community engagement to boost the imageability of the city, its sense of place, tourism base, and economic growth. Further, the study highlights the new role of social media in communicating the public’s image of popular places and placemaking; it may function as a bridge between places and placemaking. Social media offers a “free,” steady, and a large volume of data that can inform us about people’s views, what they value, like and dislike in the built environment. Analyzing social media data is a new way to get public input, and planners must pay attention to it.

10.2 Sustained Architectural and Engineering Legacy Since its early days, Chicago became known as the world’s capital of architecture. Fortunately, it continues to boost architectural creativity and innovation in skyscraper design. Luminaries of architecture, including William Le Baron Jenney, Louis Sullivan, William Holabird, John Wellborn Root, Daniel Burnham, Ernest R. Graham, Mies van der Rohe, Bertrand Goldberg, Harry Weese, Helmuth Jahn, Adrian Smith, Ralph Johnson, James DeStefano, James Goettsch, Dirk Lohan, and Jeanne Gang, among others, have each sculpted a portion of Chicago’s iconic skyline. Many of these architects have established world-renowned architectural and engineering firms. Examples include Holabird & Root; Graham, Anderson, Probst & White; Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Perkins & Will; Harry Weese Associates; Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture; Goettsch Partners; Lohan Architects; and Studio Gang. Further, these architects have pioneered and mastered architectural styles, including Art Deco, Beaux-Arts, International Style, Modern, Ultra-Modern, Postmodern, High-Tech, and Contemporary. Consequently, Chicago skyscrapers represent original architectural styles, and the City of Chicago is a living museum of the evolution of skyscrapers. Chicago’s skyscraper masterpieces contribute to the city’s historic character and cultural heritage. Chicago’s refined aesthetic is well represented by its skyscrapers, which elevate the city beyond a functional, profit-driven, transactional hub for commerce. As explained in previous chapters, the Monadnock Building, one of the earliest tall buildings, is a textbook example of the Chicago School of Architecture. The terra cotta-clad Wrigley Building and the neo-gothic Tribune Tower were among Chicago’s earliest icons. Generating a dominant Chicago personality, they set the tone for the dramatic Magnificent Mile streetscape that we enjoy today. Undoubtedly, the Chicago Board of Trade building, 333 North Michigan, InterContinental Chicago Magnificent Mile, and the Palmolive building are Art Deco masterpieces. These thoughtfully conceived and carefully detailed skyscrapers, designed by talented architects, contribute a dignified presence to the cityscape and promote placemaking.

410

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

Home to pioneers of the International Style (Mies Van der Rohe, and SOM in particular), Chicago features authentic modern high-rises. Mies Van der Rohe’s Chicago Federal Center Plaza exhibits an iconic modern style, comprising three buildings of varying heights that center on a spacious plaza. At approximately 30,000 ft2 (2,787 m2 ), the plaza is flanked by the 30-story Dirksen Courthouse (completed in 1964), the 42-story Kluczynski Federal Building (completed in 1975), and the singlestory Loop Station Post Office (completed in 1973). The design of the complex was a major departure from federal buildings that preceded it, and the complex is considered one of Van der Rohe’s finest works. Each of these buildings features black steel beams and glass panes, which create structural clarity and flexibility of interior space. The design of the plaza exhibits a simple, austere, elegant layout that is not overly cluttered. It has only a few seating spaces and limited greenery, mirroring the design of the minimalist style, which is not repeated in surrounding buildings. The buildings and plaza together form a commanding sense of place. Highly imageable, the complex also spatially orients visitors within the Chicago Loop (Chap. 8). In the same manner, completed in 1972, the iconic 330 North Wabash Building was the tallest and the last building that Ludwig Mies van der Rohe designed. The 52story, 212 m (695 ft) tall tower features a brawny steel structure, prismatic massing, and a sleek curtainwall, made of black anodized aluminum and bronze-tinted glass. These materials collectively provide a unifying appearance to the building. 330 North Wabash follows a rectangular geometry, which is replicated in various elements, including the fenestration, columns, and mullions, further unifying the building’s appearance. The building also integrates a typical Miesian lobby, characterized by large glass panels, high ceilings, and high-quality marble, granite, and mosaic tiles. Overall, the building’s impressive, monolithic form, commands a strong presence, making it easily distinguishable within Chicago Skyline. Significantly, Mies set the building off the river with a spacious plaza to ensure maximum visibility of the neighboring Marina City (Chap. 6). Mies Van der Rohe’s influence on modern high-rises is vividly evident in Chicago. Examples include the Richard J. Daley Center, Two Illinois Center, Three Illinois Center, Lake Point Tower, Michigan Plaza (South and North buildings), among others. The Richard J. Daley Center is a 32-story, 198 m (648 ft) tower. Designed by C.F. Murphy Associates, the building embraces the International Style of architecture associated with Miesian design. It is constructed out of Cor-Ten steel, which when rusted, strengthens the structure, rather than weakening it, and gives it a unique brownish color. The tower’s exterior is buttressed by twelve large cruciform columns that enable column-free interior spaces. The ground floor is completely enclosed in wall-to-wall glass windows, allowing passersby a glimpse into the main lobby. The Daley Center is an island of steel and glass in a sea of granite, with the plaza covering 80 percent of the entire block, not counting the space created by the setbacks. The Daley Center was the tallest building in the city when it was built in 1965. Similar to the Federal Plaza, the Daley Plaza exemplifies an austere, minimalist modernist design style. Architecture professionals and urban enthusiasts appreciate the sense of place generated in the historic Loop setting (Chap. 8).

10.2 Sustained Architectural and Engineering Legacy

411

The work of SOM has continued to iterate the International Style by producing iconic, excellent modern high-rises. Among SOM’s most influential figures were Fazlur R. Khan and Bruce Graham. Both created new architectural aesthetics as well as brilliant structural systems, which allowed for the construction of evertaller skyscrapers. The John Hancock Building and Sears Tower (Willis Tower) are described as bold, high-tech, honest, authoritative, iconic, tall, and stable with timeless form and beautiful silhouettes. They are quintessential examples of brilliantly engineered skyscrapers that add beauty through their innovative structures. They are integral pieces of Chicago Skyline and are among Chicago’s most beautiful works of architecture (Chap. 7). Both the Sears’s bundled tube and Hancock’s braced tube were innovative structural systems at the time. Developed by Fazlur R. Khan, these systems improve resistance to wind loads, reduce the amount of steel required, and allow for a column-free open floor plan. In the case of the Sears Tower, the tower’s bundled tube system and stepback profile are structurally efficient, using 22 percent less steel than the Empire State Building (ESB), which employs a traditional steel frame system. Devoid of ornamentation, or décor, these buildings’ skins adhere to the aesthetics of modern architecture. The steel frame and glass curtainwalls in these buildings feature sleek, slender, and clean design lines, making them among the best examples of modernist high-rise artistry (Chap. 7). Notably, the Sears’ tubular system has proven to be a seminal design innovation, which consequently has been used in numerous supertall buildings constructed afterward. It also inspired advancing structural systems, for example, the buttressed tube system that was used in Burj Khalifa in Dubai, UAE, completed in 2010. Earlier, SOM designs exemplified modern structural and architectural principles in the Inland Steel Building. Completed in 1958, the 19-story, 101 m (332 ft) building features clean, rectangular geometry, the basic building blocks of the International Style. It is clad in shimmering stainless steel and green glass and supported by gleaming exterior columns running the full height of the building’s 19 floors. Exterior columns are a part of the building. A separate squarish metal-clad tower, which contains vertical circulation (elevators and stairways) and services, connects to the central tower through a short spatial neck. As such, interior spaces are unencumbered by mechanical and service apparatus. The tower’s elegant form displays graceful proportions with restrained details. Since structural columns jut out slightly from the building, the openness of interior spaces is maximized and remain uninterrupted; the office floors incorporate a plan layout with enormous flexibility. The building’s foundation is secured by using steel drilled to the bedrock, 85 feet below grade. This structural engineering method was first used in the Inland Steel building, making it a symbol of design triumph that combines utilitarian functionalism and modern aesthetics (Chap. 8). In addition to modernist skyscrapers, Chicago is home to remarkable Postmodern skyscrapers. The NBC Tower is “one of the truest reproductions of the Art Deco style in any postmodern skyscraper” (Emporis). It is “The best-looking masonryclad skyscraper constructed in Chicago since the 1930s. Its crisp, shimmering, almost mesmerizing presence on the skyline is a triumph of good taste, skillful detailing,

412

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

and mature respect for architectural history that sidesteps the tiresome cosmetics of Postmodernism” (Gapp 1989, p. 67). In the case of 77 West Wacker building, an intriguing spatial dialog emerges by integrating the classicism of stone architecture with a high-tech glass curtainwall. The building’s base is sheathed in white granite; its shaft draws the eye skyward with long vertical pilasters, and its crown features arched windows and a pediment reminiscent of ancient Greek temples (Curtis 1996) (Chap. 6). Similarly, the postmodern design of 225 W. Wacker reinterprets the classical column. Its tripartite form features a two-story base, a central shaft, and a capital with four futuristic towers at the north and south ends of the building. A metal bridge recalls historic bridges that span the Chicago River and visually ties each pair of towers together. Creatively, the Boeing International Headquarters’ design synthesizes several movements of modern architecture, including Prairie School, International Style, Futurism, and High Modernism. The building blends simple Modernist glasswork, steel, gray granite, and aluminum in a modern “cathedral architectural” style, giving it a subtle decorative appearance, a hallmark of Postmodernism. Chicago’s classic skyline, the weaving of architectural styles, textures, and moments in design history, collectively contribute to a distinct sense of place among global centers (Chap. 6). Chicago continues to feature contextually sensitive skyscrapers. For example, standing at 401 North Wabash Avenue, the Trump International Hotel & Tower complements the dense urban setting and offers visual continuity by having each of its stepbacks aligned with nearby buildings. The first stepback (at level 16) meets the top of the Wrigley Building, the second (at level 29) aligns with the roof of Marina City, and the third stepback (at level 51) is at the height of 330 North Wabash (renamed as AMA Plaza and formerly the IBM Building). The OneEleven building also demonstrates a contextually sensitive design, which gives the building its architectural signature and delivers a timeless presence on the Chicago River. Among the most striking features of the building are recessed glass ribbons that ascend and wrap around the building from the base to the penthouses. They symbolically refer to the meandering of the nearby Chicago River. Careful attention to natural features and neighboring buildings is a fundamental principle of successful placemaking through design (Chap. 6). While contextually sensitive skyscrapers and postmodern skyscrapers reinforce the city’s history and tradition, creative design stresses the city’s innovative architectural and engineering spirit. For example, the Equitable Building creates a stunning contrast to the neighboring Tribune Tower. SOM architects deliberately proposed a simple, metallic “box” to contrast the ornate masonry of the Tribune, while offering maximum square footage. The building is clad in bronze-tinted aluminum with bronze-toned windows and black spandrels. The resulting 35-story Equitable Building serves as a neutral backdrop to the Tribune, while they communicate distinctly different architectural styles of important architectural eras, classical and modern (Chap. 7). Similarly, the contemporary appearance of the Roosevelt’s Wabash building contrasts sharply with the surrounding historic fabric embodied in landmark buildings

10.2 Sustained Architectural and Engineering Legacy

413

such as Adler and Sullivan’s oldest surviving design, the Auditorium Building, and other buildings by Holabird & Root. The Roosevelt’s Wabash building’s dynamic profile and modern exterior materials contrast with the surrounding historic landmarks. In the case of Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership building, the three-dimensional, 10-story glass curtainwall makes a splendid contrast to the surrounding brick and stone historic buildings; many of which were constructed in the period of architectural innovation that followed the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 (Chap. 8). In some instances, the contrast could be accidental. For example, comparing the Monadnock and Federal Center reveals striking differences. Each building is constructed using completely different materials, colors, textures, and styles. They belong to vastly different architectural schools, yet each evokes a unique beauty and structural elegance. The easily distinguishable styles enrich the city’s visual experience. In other cases, the contrast could be intentional. For example, the wellarticulated, postmodern Two Prudential Plaza is a stunning masterpiece that complements and makes up for the exceptionally dull Aon Center. Among its most striking features are long glass channels extending along the four sides of the building and protruding over the stepbacks. These channels simulate “crystal waterfalls,” springing from the building’s crown and falling over the façades. Overall, the articulated, elegant design of the Two Prudential Plaza commands attention, creating a well-recognized icon on the Chicago Skyline (Chap. 8).

10.3 The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts The idea that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts is particularly apparent with Chicago skyscrapers. While each makes a unique contribution, Chicago’s magnificent skyline is composed of a concert of iconic tall buildings. Each new building is in most cases a carful addition to this evolving city, enhancing the urban collage and contributing to the urban design experience. A collective work of art, the skyline forms an elegant record of the city’s roots in innovation and artistic development. Many of the newly constructed tall buildings offer a fresh, modern style made possible by advances in computer design and improvements in building materials. Over the past centuries, Chicago has inspired many writers, poets, architects, and city planners. It remains a Mecca of skyscrapers and the pulse of American architecture and urban design. As many cities all over the world rush to construct tall buildings, Chicago remains an essential model to help better integrate skyscrapers into their respective cities. Undoubtedly, individual landmark buildings and significant public spaces in the city of Chicago are already known. However, this study enabled the delineation of spatial clusters of landmark buildings and public places, amenities, parks, and museums, thereby offering a new read on city social life, architecture, and urban design. Groups of iconic buildings multiply their individual visual impact many folds. The identified outstanding spatial clusters are both beautiful and essential to

414

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

the sustainability of the city, and social media is fueling their significance. That is, the more people upload photographs of places, the more popular they become in the minds of people, and consequently, more people visit them. From Lynch’s theory, we can see how spatial clusters of skyscrapers form legible paths, edges, districts, and nodes. Research analysis illustrates how tall buildings do help in making the Chicago Loop a legible district, while shaping the Magnificent Mile and the Chicago River into legible paths. Other nodes and paths, both visual and social, are established by Millennium Park and the Chicago Riverwalk. These social spaces help mediate the urban scale and alleviate psychological stress created by massive skyscrapers. The progression of spaces at the human scale serves to harmonize the built and natural environment, creating a modern, accessible urban landscape, which dense cities often lack. Certainly, Michigan Avenue is a powerful example of a commercial path and a refined architectural wonder. The Chicago River path is a beautiful way to experience the city and its remarkable skyscrapers. The Loop’s skyscrapers, along with public plazas and open spaces, make it a quintessential commercial district. Within the Loop, plazas at the foot of many tall buildings become powerful social nodes for people to gather and enjoy the outdoors. Historically, cities have granted height bonuses—beyond prescribed zoning allowances—in exchange for public space amenities at the base of towers. However, merely allocating open land does not automatically impart meanings to the physical space. Implementing effective design solutions for urban plazas is a deliberate and challenging undertaking, but one that is worth the effort. The urban plaza is an essential social node for the surrounding skyscrapers, which house thousands of residents. Tens of thousands more people pass by the squares over a single day, presenting excellent opportunities to stimulate a healthy social life. Land values surrounding skyscrapers are typically the highest of any in the city. As such, the right use of every square inch of a plaza is essential. In other words, treating plazas as “leftover” spaces is a huge loss, economically, socially, culturally, and politically. Fortunately, for Chicago, the Loop does a marvelous job of integrating plazas as social nodes for tall buildings, providing residents and visitors with a valuable urban social experience, and carving a unique sense of place. Within the busy, crowded Chicago Loop, research reveals specific clusters of skyscrapers that form nodes and edges. At the western side of the Loop, near the South Branch of the Chicago River, an outstanding agglomeration of skyscrapers creates a unique space, the city’s sky signature. There one finds “Urban Giants” placed along Wacker Drive and its vicinity. Among these buildings are the Willis Tower, 311 South Wacker Drive, and Franklin Center. At the northwest corner of 311 South Wacker, an attractive one-acre plaza features the most extensive lawn in the Chicago Loop, creating a “lawn oasis.” It is a trendy place, used heavily during lunchtime in warmer months. In addition to local tenants, tourists who visit the neighboring Willis Tower also visit this plaza. Occasionally, the plaza hosts special events like farmers’ markets, musical concerts, and various art, and cultural festivals. The activities themselves are precious components of placemaking, enhanced by the stunning backdrop of tall buildings.

10.3 The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts

415

Another remarkable spatial node is located near the Loop’s center and is created by the clustering of important tall buildings, including the Richard J. Daley Center, City Hall, James R. Thompson Center, and Grant Thornton Tower. Each building represents a distinct architectural style, including classical, international, late modernism, and postmodernism. Further, all these buildings connect with the Pedway and draw massive numbers of people. In particular, the James R. Thompson Center houses a major rail station in the basement, while upper floors house numerous governmental offices. Likewise, City Hall and Daley Center offer many governmental services and cater to large crowds. Most importantly, Daley Plaza is a primary outdoor social space that attracts many of the city’s residents and visitors. Enriched by programmed social and cultural activities, Daley Plaza offers a grand public space, representing the heart and soul of the Loop. About two blocks south of Richard J. Daley Center, the research reveals another spatial cluster of buildings and plazas that feature architectural and urban design significance. This cluster comprises Chase Tower, flanked by the Inland Steel Building, One South Dearborn, and 55 West Monroe. With its spacious sunken plaza, a large fountain, clock tower, lush landscaping, colorful ceramic mural mosaic by Marc Chagall (titled “Four Seasons,”), the Chase Plaza forms the “Loop Oasis.” It is a favorite spot for workers on their lunch break. The plaza offers a wide range of seating options, including steps, ledges, and stone benches. During lunch hours, Chase Tower temporarily sets out tables and chairs along the edges of the lower levels to accommodate employees and visitors. The simple ground cover and hedges are bright and colorful, adding vibrancy to the space. Continuing south of Chase Plaza, research identifies another intriguing spatial cluster, created mainly by the Chicago Federal Center, Monadnock Building, and Marquette Building. Similar to spatial clusters discussed earlier, this node offers a splendid contrast of distinct architectural styles. The historic, massive masonry of the Monadnock building contrasts with the modernist Miesian Federal Center. The spacious plaza, which centers the complex, hosts numerous civic activities, including social, political, cultural, and entertainment. Each event draws masses of people who enliven the plaza. To achieve a human scale, the Federal Center employs a straightforward yet effective modern design, using a dynamic sculpture, strong transparency at the buildings’ base, and some green space. The plaza unifies Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s complex of three buildings and artfully integrates the Flamingo Sculpture by Alexander Calder. The Calder’s sculpture features brilliant color and looping form, which adds a perfect contrast to the sleek and modern, sober design of Miesian buildings. The flowing red lines also act as an ideal contrast to the plain orthogonal geometry of nearby older buildings. The sculpture is juxtaposed against the vertical black lines of the surrounding Federal Center buildings; it serves as a focal point for the plaza. Highly imageable, the plaza, backdrop, and iconic sculpture form a quintessentially Chicago node. Clusters of skyscrapers also create potent edges. A few skyscrapers that sit side by side along the bend of the Main Branch of the Chicago River create an evocative edge that engages an intriguing spatial dialog across time. These buildings are Trump International Hotel & Tower, 330 North Wabash, Marina City, and Wrigley Building.

416

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

Indeed, each represents an original architectural style and design philosophy. Each features a different color scheme, texture, and height; yet, they complement one another and proudly preserve the epic story of Chicago architecture. The outstanding location, spectacular architecture, and significant height of Adrian Smith’s Trump International Hotel & Tower, the city’s second tallest building, make this tower an unmistakable landmark. It serves as a visual terminus when viewed from either Wabash Avenue or the Chicago River. Likewise, the dark exterior of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s 330 North Wabash increases the tower’s prominence and establishes a pleasant contrast with the Trump Tower’s lighter colors. Bertrand Goldberg’s Marina City integrates an outstanding organic profile, providing an impressive contrast with the very Miesian 330 North Wabash. The Wrigley Building reinforces this spatial/architectural edge. Completed in the early 1920s, this historic building splendidly complements the neighboring contemporary Trump International Hotel & Tower. Collectively, the aforementioned four towers create a stunning architectural symphony of distinct architectural styles. A stretch of iconic skyscrapers along the southern bank of the river’s Main Branch also creates an outstanding edge. These skyscrapers include the LaSalle-Wacker Building, 77 West Wacker Drive, OneEleven Building, and Leo Burnett Building, among others. These skyscrapers epitomize architectural eras, styles, and design philosophies. LaSalle-Wacker is an Art Deco building, an excellent example of this style that proliferated through the 1920s. The building features a tripartite structure, sturdy vertical lines, limestone cladding, and elegant stepbacks. Overall, the tower makes a pleasant contrast with its neighboring ultra-modern, all-glass OneEleven. Simultaneously, OneEleven’s architecture complements the adjacent, postmodern 77 West Wacker Drive building. A similar distinction is apparent between 77 West Wacker and the Leo Burnett Building. One of the most spectacular clusters of skyscrapers in the city occurs at the Chicago River confluence, where the three branches of the river meet. Among these buildings are 333 West Wacker Drive, 225 West Wacker Drive, 191 North Wacker Drive, River Point, 150 North Riverside, Boeing International Headquarters, Residences at Riverbend, Merchandise Mart, and Wolf Point West. Boeing International Headquarters marks the beginning of the South Branch while Residences at the Riverbend marks the beginning of the North Branch. These buildings create a dramatic spatial node. When Wolf Point East (under construction) and the proposed Wolf Point South are completed, these towers will surely reinforce the imageability of this spatial node and redefine the skyline along the river. Likely, their collective presence will complement their individual beauty. Research analysis of the Magnificent Mile reveals two remarkable spatial clusters of skyscrapers. The first cluster shapes a striking Grand Gateway to the Magnificent Mile, which comprises landmark buildings, including the Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower, Trump International Hotel & Tower, LondonHouse Chicago, 333 North Michigan, Equitable Building, and InterContinental Hotel. Besides, the four bridge tender houses also reinforce the gateway. DuSable Bridge (Michigan Avenue Bridge) functions as a significant spatial anchor for this cluster. Together with the

10.3 The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts

417

surrounding buildings and plazas, this cluster creates a sense of place and defines one of the America’s most elegant urban spaces. The second spatial cluster along the Magnificent Mile includes a stretch punctuated by the historic Chicago Water Tower at the south end and One Magnificent Mile at the north. In between, prominent skyscrapers enhance the imageability of this area. These buildings include the Water Tower Place, John Hancock Center, 900 North Michigan, Park Tower, Palmolive Building, and One Magnificent Mile, among others. They offer upscale commercial services and supply luxury residential units. The high volume of visitors is the main ingredient of placemaking in this setting. Overall, the spatial nodes examined play an essential role in improving the imageability of the Magnificent Mile. Specific placements of skyscrapers create a sense of gateway. One of these unique places is the gateway formed by the Crain Communications building and The Heritage at Millennium Park located along Michigan Avenue. These two buildings create the “Millennium Gateway.” The vista reveals a cheerful passageway to Millennium Park as well as to the Loop. Following the 1909 Plan of Chicago by Burnham and Bennett, all buildings along Michigan Avenue align with the city’s rectangular street grid. The result is a handsome wall of buildings facing Grant Park. It is often referred to as the “Cliff” (recalling that of New York City, which faces Central Park). Further, these buildings embrace classical architectural styles that beautifully contrast with the newer buildings, including Roosevelt University Academic, Student Life Residence Center (Wabash Building), Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership, and The Legacy at Millennium Park. While the eastern edge of the Loop, formed by Michigan Avenue’s tall buildings, offers a sense of visual enclosure to the Grant Park, the southern edge on Randolph Street evokes a sense of visual enclosure to the Millennium Park and Maggy Daley Park. Similarly, while the eastern edge features architectural consistency and urban design coherence, the southern edge features buildings of varying heights and diverse architectural styles. Centered by the Aon Center, this edge displays a considerable spike; the building creates a major focal point in the skyline. Finally, skyscrapers that stretch along Michigan Avenue, Randolph Street, and Lakeshore Drive collectively form a keen vertical edge, making up the city’s iconic skyline. Featuring close spacing and gigantic in scale, the skyline is visually accessible from all viewpoints, including a beautiful panoramic view from the lake. The resulting edge gives the city a unique identity, a modern constructed edge, balanced by the potent natural edge, spreading horizontally across Lake Michigan. The expansive waterfront accentuates the backdrop of Chicago’s classic skyline. Multiple focal points create a dramatic night view with supertall and tall buildings, including the Willis Tower, the Aon Center, the John Hancock Center, and the Legacy at Millennium Park. The image of the City of Chicago is centered on these skyscrapers; this distinctive edge is often referred to as “The Face of Chicago.” Great skyscrapers, public parks, walking trails, bike paths, motorways, and public beaches all come down to the water’s edge. Joggers, pedestrians, and cyclists serve to enliven the corridor, along with a bustling rotation of seasonal social activities.

418

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

As Lynch explained, it would be difficult to think of Chicago without picturing Lake Michigan. He writes, “It would be interesting to see how many Chicagoans would begin to draw a map of their city by putting down something other than the line of the lakeshore… The contrast, the differentiation of events along the line, and the lateral breadth are all very strong” (Lynch 1960, p. 64). A smooth progression of spaces draws the eye, from the lakefront, through the green expanse of Maggie Daley Park and Grant Park, upwards to the unique backdrop of Chicago’s skyline. As Lynch put it “…the facade of Chicago on the Lake is an unforgettable sight” (Lynch 1960, p. 64). Maggie Daley Park’s soft curves and sculpted topography contrast well with the city’s flat grid, as survey participants indicated. The park balances the rigid appearance of glass, steel, and concrete skyscrapers, helping to mitigate the overwhelming verticality of these tall structures. Similarly, the cascade of sculpted spaces complements Grant Park’s more formal layout. The park humanizes the area, and the city’s skyline offers a spectacular backdrop. Both the Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park are attractive and accessible to the public. They offer unique experiences with no fees or admission required for residents and visitors alike. Unlike the expansive Grant Park, designed at the city scale, Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park were designed at human scale, with short walkable distances between amenities. The design of Millennium Park embraced Burnham’s concept of small urban rooms, where visitors enjoy interactive experiences as they move from one outdoor room to another. The Cloud Gate sculpture and Crown Fountains, among other spaces, exemplify this concept as well. Maggie Daley Park offers several playground spaces that are spatially separate but woven together through a network of paths. It is no surprise that Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park are among the most photographed places in the city. As indicated by field surveys, participants appreciated walking from the crowded, busy Loop into peaceful Grant Park, from a jungle of skyscrapers to a natural setting. Participants enjoyed the spatial relief of lush landscaping, vendors, music, and, most importantly, people. Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park are often busy with people of all ages, colors, races, incomes, and the like. Overall, the findings of this study agree with William H. Whyte’s research. He suggests that there is a mutually supportive relationship between high-rise buildings and plazas and open spaces. That is, open spaces provide a “spatial break” for people to gather, while high-rise buildings supply the required density of people to make good use of public places. People who live, work, and visit a high-rise city may feel claustrophobic, so open spaces become a place to relax, socialize, and take photographs. For the CBD’s residents, the spaciousness of public parks makes up for the often-confined high-rise apartments. In addition to identifying critical sociospatial clusters in the city, this study highlights the vital role of the Chicago riverboat tours and the Chicago Riverwalk. There are masses of photographs taken along the river, thanks to the tours and Riverwalk. In terms of spatial connectivity, the clusters are closely spaced, making them easily accessible on foot, by bike, Segway, mass transit (train and bus), and private

10.3 The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts

419

automobile. Plazas within the Loop district are just a block or two apart. Both Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park feature excellent connectivity as they are within 10-min walking distance from the Loop and the Chicago Riverwalk, 15-min from the Magnificent Mile, and 20-min from Navy Pier and Museum Campus. The Chicago Riverwalk connects Navy Pier with the Loop, while the Lakeshore walkway connects Museum Campus with the Loop. Finally, the Magnificent Mile connects the upper end of downtown with the Loop. Therefore, Chicago downtown promotes walkability, an essential element of placemaking. The Loop’s dense skyscrapers are placed on small blocks, with narrow streets but with spacious sidewalks that also support walking. Residents and visitors can easily navigate and explore the area on foot, creating opportunities to connect with the city. The significant concentration of skyscrapers in the Loop district takes up a relatively small area, about a square mile. Further, the dense arrangement of the Loop’s skyscraper is strategically perforated by public plazas, drawing pedestrians in and igniting social life in the downtown. Walkable cities are increasingly desirable. Overall, emphasis on walking prevails for numerous reasons, namely, health benefits, urban connectivity, social interaction, environmental well-being, and energy savings, to name a few. Dan Burden, an expert on walkability, makes a good point, “Walkability is a word that did not exist just 20 years ago. We made walking so unnatural that we had to invent a word to describe what we were missing … Essentially, walkability is allowing people to do what the human body was designed to do in the first place: to go places without having to get into some mechanical instrument” (Burden 2014; Elliott 2010). Walking is the simplest form of exercise; people are pedestrians by design. In his book Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America One Step at a Time, urbanist Jeff Speck (2013a, p.38) poetically explains the importance of walking by stating: “As a fish needs to swim, a bird to fly, a deer to run, we need to walk, not in order to survive, but to be happy.” A daily walking routine of 20 min can prevent heart disease, diabetes, depression, and some cancers. Walking increases endorphin production and neuron development, and it can lower blood pressure, ease back pain, strengthen arms and legs muscles, improve joint conditions, and balance and reduce the risk of glaucoma and osteoporosis. In addition to health benefits, walking can promote a city’s resilience and cultural heritage, reduce crime, foster creative thinking, enhance productivity, improve placemaking, and increase land and property values. Jeff Speck (2013a, p.45-46) argues that walkability is a critical factor in thriving cities. He insists that sustainable places should free us from dependence on the automobile, which he calls “a gas-belching, time-wasting, life-threatening prosthetic device.” He lamented that suburban sprawl is the worst urban planning model we produced, characterized by “fattened roads, emaciated sidewalks, deleted trees, fry-pit drive-thrus, and 10-acre parking lots.” Despite these problems associated with sprawl, the model has been proliferating throughout the world (Al-Kodmany 2018). Thankfully, cities are repurposing their aging infrastructure into attractive, walkable areas. For example, the City of Chicago has been transforming disused riverbanks into prime public spaces, thereby inviting pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists. One prominent example is the Chicago Riverwalk. Besides, the city is transforming

420

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

old railroad tracks into walkable trails, such as the Bloomingdale Trail also known as the 606. This new local asset threads through the neighborhoods, connecting visitors with each other and offering unique views. Public amenities like this foster a neighborly sense of place. Earlier, New York City successfully transformed an abandoned elevated railroad track into an attractive linear park, known as The High Line (Arendt 2016). Collectively, Chicago offers a remarkable skyscraper city model. At the urban scale, the city integrates tall buildings with efficient mass transit, walkable places, cycling networks, vibrant mixed-use activities, attractive plazas, well-landscaped streets, spacious parks, and engaging public art. Compact, mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented places offer significant environmental, economic, and social benefits. As Stefan Krummeck and Ben MacLeod (2016, p. 280) explain: “In the quest for sustainability we must not lose sight of the bigger picture - that urban sustainability is rooted in responsible land use planning, quality public transport, and walkability.” If planned well, vertical development can reduce carbon emissions by creating compact environments that feature efficient mobility and accessibility and offer a higher quality of life (Specks 2013b). Tall buildings fit more residential units on less land, the primary environmental benefit of high-density construction. Also, smaller homes use fewer resources to construct and maintain. Vertical developments allow cities to dedicate more room to plazas, parks, open spaces, stormwater management systems, street trees, and sustainable transport. Stefan Krummeck and Ben MacLeod (2016, p. 273) illustrate these notions by stating: “Dense, vertical development is the sustainable way forward …. Density, transit-oriented development, and limited urban extent are integral to the sustainability of any modern city.” Peter Katz (2010, p. 49) brings to our attention the economic significance of urban centers by stating: “We need to discern that denser urban centers produce the community wealth that sustains the less dense areas.”

10.4 Urban Design Approaches Overall, this work is in line with urban design research and practice. With a focus on Downtown Chicago, the study illustrates the spatial arrangement of the city’s skyscrapers on the vertical plane with open spaces, streets, and water bodies on the horizontal plane. It proposes that an absolute harmony exists between skyscrapers, public spaces, and green areas, thereby balancing nature with a human-made environment. Recognizing the benefit of these spatial arrangements will empower planners and policymakers to more accurately predict the city future and come up with actionable solutions for intervention and adaptation (Fry 2017; Wang et al. 2016). To that end, the following broad design guidelines and principles can be considered to assess the quality and feel of a planning scheme and to help achieve a desirable image. It is important to note that these guidelines are qualitative. A follow-up study is needed to enhance their validities. Nevertheless, the following discussion is meant

10.4 Urban Design Approaches

421

to stimulate thinking about spatial relationships that help in the establishment of a strong sense of place throughout the various spaces in a skyscraper city.

10.4.1 Context and Scale Planners should carefully consider building heights with their location and in concert with the surrounding progression of spaces. The issue of scale should be examined and articulated at street level as well as on the skyline and should be carefully considered at both. Many tall building projects have neglected the human experience at street level. Crowding tends to happen around the base and specifically near the entryways and lobbies of skyscrapers. These are the areas where people experience the skyscraper from a short distance, and it is where they can comprehend and appreciate a building’s aesthetic details. The building’s base should, therefore, provide a welcoming face and communicate a sense of arrival. The Sears Tower offers a good example. Its original design had focused on the tower’s impact on the skyline and neglected the street level visual experience. Due to this shortcoming, the building’s base has undergone several retrofits since the original building went up in 1973 (Chap. 8). Several tall buildings in Chicago integrate podiums that respect human scale. Among these buildings are 111 South Wacker Drive, 1 North Wacker Drive, 155 North Wacker Drive, ABN AMRO Plaza, and One South Dearborn. Their splendid podium designs disguise and mitigate the negative effect of tallness. Further, their brilliant architectural and interior designs enrich the pedestrians’ visual experience.

10.4.2 Volume and Mass Planners should engage the vertical and horizontal planes in a city to create a healthy sense of visual enclosure. Using green, open spaces to offset the harsh effects of massive buildings can provide balance to the cityscape, as well as visual and physical repose. In this regard, public parks and large open spaces play an essential role in mediating the massive urban scale and alleviating psychological stress created by skyscrapers. Parks and open spaces can harmonize the “built-up urban” with a natural setting by providing places for people to enjoy social life and nature’s beauty. Public parks and open spaces refine our sensibilities about the natural environment and remind us of the greenery that exists in the world, which our dense cities tend to lack. Good examples discussed in this book include Millennium Park, the Maggie Daley Park, and the Chicago Riverwalk. These open spaces counterbalance the verticality of skyscrapers proliferating the downtown.

422

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

10.4.3 Evolution and Adaptation Planners’ goals should be to achieve sustainable, cohesive, and functional urban districts that incorporate future tall buildings. Over time, the proliferation of singular landmarks buildings has created a more substantial scale design problem. This problem involves their ability to sustain adequate levels of activity and occupancy. An evolving tall building typology must be ready to adapt to changing density and use of city dwellers over time. To that end, planners and architects have increasingly constructed mixed-use towers, which offer spaces for multiple functions; including residential, office, hotel, retail, educational, restaurants, café, sky-parks, and skygardens. Planners argue that a mixed-use tower could be more sustainable than a single-use tower for multiple reasons, namely, to guard against economic uncertainty and fluctuating market; to create commercial synergy; be amenable to adaptive reuse; promote convenient proximate functions; and incorporate smaller plates on the upper floors. Indeed, in an unstable economy, mixed-use rental income offers a variety of revenue streams and, therefore, more excellent opportunities to secure investment in real estate development. Second, multiple uses ensure the presence of people and economic activities over longer hours—potentially around the clock—thereby providing convenience to local tenants and improving perceived safety, security, and sense of place.

10.4.4 Vertical Sprawl Planners should be cautious about unplanned or chaotic additions to the height of a city skyline. As triumphs of engineering, tall buildings are considered landmarks of achievement. However, overemphasis on a dramatic city profile or simply claiming airspace for the sake of competition could result in an unorderly skyline, with undesirable consequences at street level as well. The chaotic proliferation of this building typology will create another type of sprawl, a “vertical sprawl,” that could have worse consequences than “horizontal” sprawl. By constructing skyscrapers in isolation (i.e., without proper integration in their urban contexts), we bear the risk of exerting negative externalities. A disintegrated spatial arrangement may give way to “vertical sprawl” that promotes the inefficient use of land and results in the generation of more GHG emissions.

10.4.5 Stewardship Planners should focus on compact design for reducing carbon emissions and increasing visual cohesion. Stewardship includes upholding a creative, innovative skyscraper design tradition while maintaining a balanced social, spatial, and physical

10.4 Urban Design Approaches

423

architecture. Overall, the growing planning trend prioritizes a convenient, compact, vibrant, and connected live-work lifestyle. Dense development is needed to offset the outward expansion of cities. Massive suburban expansions have resulted in an increase in travel time and energy consumption, as well as CO2 emission as residents commute long distances throughout sprawling regions. Americans’ vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has grown three times faster than the population and almost twice as fast as vehicle registrations. Compact development reduces VMT from 20% to 40% (Al-Kodmany, 2018). Compact development also maximizes efficiencies of journeys. Lunch hour breaks and commutes to and from work can be combined with errands such as shopping, banking, and going to the library or dry cleaners all while remaining in route. A concentration of multi-story developments reduces the costs and energy involved in transportation and public services. The urban core should be arranged with the most excellent level of compactness and efficiency possible to maximize usable floor space and reduce energy consumption.

10.5 Applications to Lynch’s Imageability Model Within Lynch’s model, the following specific design guidelines could help in achieving an imageable high-rise city with a well-established sense of place.

10.5.1 Path Derived from the examination of the Chicago River and Michigan Avenue, the study identifies the following spatial qualities as having a critical impact on a path’s imageability. These are proportion, spacing, alignment, rhythm, coherence, gateway, landmark, and terminus.

10.5.1.1

Proportion

Proportion here refers to the relationship between the vertical plane formed by tall buildings and the horizontal plane, such as adjacent land, the street, parks, or a body of water. For example, the ratio of the building’s height to street width should be examined. When this ratio is too low, the street will feel uncomfortably wide, and the imageability of the street is lost. If the ratio is too high, the street will be perceived as too narrow and the path will feel claustrophobic and canyon-like (Chaps. 6 and 7). Although it is not pragmatic to pinpoint an optimum ratio, a general rule is to increase the street width, within practical limits, in relation to the average height of the flanking tall buildings. Proportions established at street level, using façade treatment, eye level architectural detail, awnings, windows, and more, may differ from proportions applied elsewhere.

424

10.5.1.2

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

Spacing

Tall buildings along a path should be arranged in a deliberate and balanced manner. A dispersed arrangement of tall buildings along a path will likely weaken its imageability and may convey chaos and disorder. A careful, sequential, cross-sectional study should examine the placement of tall buildings along the opposing edges of a path. Opposing buildings should preferably be of similar height categories. Further, since supertalls intensify the visual experience, they should be placed carefully (Chap. 6).

10.5.1.3

Alignment

In most cases, buildings setbacks should be aligned to ensure visual continuity along a path. Recessing buildings in a disorganized manner will likely weaken the imageability of a path. Recessed buildings may create spatial pockets/gaps, breaking the continuity of a path, and introducing disorder. Building podiums play an essential role in forming alignment. In contrast, building shafts may feature varying stepbacks to enrich visual interest and break monotony.

10.5.1.4

Rhythm

Changes in the heights of buildings along a path should be carefully studied. Abrupt height changes may convey a sense of disorder, while smooth transitions are likely to reinforce consistency. Uniform heights may appear monotonous. A good example of rhythm is found in the arrangement of tall buildings that line the Chicago River. Overall, the heights vary slightly, enough to ensure dynamism without breaking visual continuity along the path. A gentle interplay of ascending and descending heights creates a pleasant rhythm, mimicking the river’s undulating edge.

10.5.1.5

Coherence

Adjacent tall buildings should relate to one another to produce visual cohesion and continuity. The architectural elements of nearby buildings, design, style, and facade should be studied to prioritize this visual harmony. While unique design solutions are encouraged, the collective impression of the path should communicate a coherent, legible, and memorable image. It should be noted; however, that outstanding and innovative design may be an exception to this guideline and actually enhance the path’s imageability. For example, with its bold, dark, large-scale bracing system exhibited on the façades, the John Hancock Center punctuates the Magnificent Mile as an outlier of sorts. Although unexpected, its radical design enriches the experience of the entire path and adds a unique sense of place (Chap. 7).

10.5 Applications to Lynch’s Imageability Model

10.5.1.6

425

Gateway

Tall buildings have the potential to create gateways denoting the beginning and ending points of a path. The magnificent mile features a robust portal at the intersection of the Chicago River and Michigan Avenue. There, a group of tall buildings (although not very tall), featuring various architectural styles, flank the intersection and form a warm, welcoming gateway. Similarly, 77 West Wacker and OneEleven create a charming gateway to the Loop; and the Crane Communications building and The Heritage at Millennium create a welcoming gateway to the Millennium Park (Chap. 8). The beginning and ending points of a path are natural choices to exhibit a change in the streetscape, tall buildings signify a path and reinforce a gateway function.

10.5.1.7

Landmark

Iconic buildings add new meanings and symbolism to what could be an ordinary path. Due to their significant height, landmark tall buildings can serve as reference points on a path. People turn to them naturally to orientate and navigate a street. Importantly, an iconic tall building is likely to enrich the visual experience of the path, giving pedestrians a reason to pause and contemplate architectural design, art, talent, and innovative engineering. In addition to spatial functions, a masterpiece tall building acts as a super large, public sculpture; celebrating design and state-of-the-art technological and engineering advances.

10.5.1.8

Terminus

A visual terminus is a type of landmark building empowered by a unique location. Due to its high visibility, a tall building exerts more considerable visual influence; it can be viewed from any point on the path. The Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) building makes a successful visual terminus to LaSalle Street, a major north-south artery in Chicago downtown. At Jackson Boulevard, the CBOT building “interrupts” LaSalle Street and serves as a central focus. A true masterpiece of architecture, this outstanding Art Deco example is visible to drivers and pedestrians from far distances. Similarly, the Trump International Hotel & Tower is a powerful visual terminus for Wabash Avenue. It also serves as a visual terminus to the Main Branch of Chicago River when approaching from Lake Michigan. Similarly, the Wrigley Building and 333 North Michigan serve as visual termini due to a shift along the path (Chap. 7).

426

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

10.5.2 Edge A few spatial attributes derived from the composition of the Chicago Skyline may reinforce the imageability of edges as follows:

10.5.2.1

Alignment

Alignment is an essential element for creating an edge, which could be straight, curved, or otherwise. For example, alignment of buildings along Michigan Avenue helps in creating a distinct edge, nicknamed as “The Face of Chicago.” In a similar manner, alignment of buildings along multiple connected edges (mainly Michigan Avenue, Randolph Street, and Lakeshore Drive) creates a compound edge, the Chicago Skyline (Chap. 9).

10.5.2.2

Spacing

The close spacing of buildings helps to create a clearer edge. Significant gaps blur boundaries by making them look disjointed, interrupted, and sporadic. Too much spacing in a skyline communicates a fragmented urban core.

10.5.2.3

Height Order

If building heights change haphazardly along an edge, the imageability will likely suffer. A coherent height order is, therefore, desirable. Order here refers to a congruous visual pattern, and not to buildings being of the exact same height within a given cluster. It is important to note that supertalls increase the intensity of an edge, and as such, they should be placed carefully. As discussed in Chap. 9, a new trend of super-slender towers in NYC has hurt its skyline by creating unpleasant spikes.

10.5.2.4

Proportion

Building heights along an edge can consider the proportion of “figure to air” in relation to adjacent buildings on a skyline. Figure-air here refers to the terminal heights of adjacent and nearby buildings and the void created between widths. It is a vertical application of the figure-ground relationship, traditionally used to examine the composition of buildings and open spaces.

10.5 Applications to Lynch’s Imageability Model

10.5.2.5

427

Endings

The terminal ends of an edge are prominent locations. Ends may be used creatively to punctuate, or anchor a progression of tall buildings, or provide a smooth visual transition from built to unbuilt. Practical endings help to blend the built environment with the natural, making buildings appear to “grow organically” from the landscape. Further, a clear finish helps to define the “end of downtown,” as is the case with many major cities, including Chicago.

10.5.2.6

Landmarks

In general, landmarks along an edge may strengthen a city’s imageability by breaking up monotony; drawing attention; and providing a visual anchor. An iconic building along an edge provides a visual pause; to enjoy the richness of architectural design. Innovative designs that incorporate meaning and symbols enhance an overall sense of place. For example, the Spertus Institute imparts a unique pause to the edge along South Michigan Avenue (Chap. 8).

10.5.3 Node Among the spatial qualities that help to improve the imageability of nodes are spacing, unifying architectural themes, and landmarks. These qualities are exemplified near the DuSable Bridge, the south end of the Magnificent Mile (Chap. 7).

10.5.3.1

Spacing

As with paths and edges, buildings also need to be spaced close enough together to create imageable nodes. However, unlike spacing along a path, which follows a single directional line, a node requires that buildings are laid out around an imaginary central point. Notably, the close spacing of buildings in a circular or semicircular fashion creates a sense of visual enclosure and allows pedestrians to enjoy 360-degree panoramic views of the space.

10.5.3.2

Unifying Architectural Themes

Employing compatible architectural styles, colors, textures, and shapes should strengthen a node’s imageability, most notably at street level. While urban designers often advocate this principle, we may note that there are exceptional situations. Used wisely, architectural conflict may enrich the visual experience. For example, the Equitable Building and Tribune Tower, which sit side by side, embrace very

428

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

different designs; the International Style and Neo-Gothic styles, respectively. The sharp contrast enriches the visual experience; however, equally importantly, each building is an authentic representation of the style (minimalist versus decorative), creating a living museum of masterpieces (Chap. 7).

10.5.3.3

Landmarks

A node’s imageability may be strengthened through the integration of landmarks. Iconic tall buildings help to anchor a node spatially. A single supertall may help to establish the node. Alternatively, a group of iconic buildings may grant a unique identity to the node.

10.5.4 District Derived from the examination of the Chicago Loop, the study proposes the following spatial qualities to enhance the imageability of a district:

10.5.4.1

Varying Building Heights and Transitions

A coherent gradation in building heights from the high-density core area to fringe/low-density areas may enhance the imageability of a district. It is preferable to vary building heights carefully, as detailed in Chap. 9. Such transitions create a positive visual effect. Further, even just slight height variations among neighboring buildings could be helpful to break visual monotony.

10.5.4.2

Focal Points

In the vertical dimension, central locations may provide visual references that improve spatial orientation and navigation. Prominent skyscrapers in the Chicago Loop, such as Willis Tower and John Hancock Center, create major focal points in the downtown. Residents and visitors regularly rely on these landmarks to spatially orient themselves and guide others. Similarly, the Trump International Hotel & Tower and the recently completed Vista Tower create strong visual references that help boat riders to spatially orient themselves in the Chicago River.

10.5.4.3

Visual Relief

Juxtaposing the two crucial urban design elements of mass and void creates an intriguing interplay. Drops in elevation that result from open spaces and parks, for

10.5 Applications to Lynch’s Imageability Model

429

example, can offer visual relief to viewers. The spacious Grant Park in the Loop provides a splendid visual comfort for the entire downtown. That is, the void provided by Grant Park balances the concentrated mass of hundreds of tall buildings in the Loop.

10.5.5 Landmark Several spatial and visual attributes contribute to making tall buildings into landmarks. These include height, form, location, and spatial composition or “grouping/clustering.”

10.5.5.1

Height

Height is a significant factor in the display of physical objects. As the tallest building in Chicago, reaching a height of 527 m/1,729 ft (including antennas), the Willis Tower is an unmistakable landmark. For millennia, religious buildings such as churches and mosques have erected tall towers and minarets to increase their visibility, spatially orient residents and visitors to the city, and express the prominence of a sociocultural and religious influences. In modern times, most tall structures house secular, commercial, or economic functions. They similarly appear on the skyline and often take on the same crucial didactic role as religious architecture.

10.5.5.2

Form

Tall buildings that feature distinct, bold, and elegant forms are usually highly imageable. A tripartite design in which a building’s top, shaft, and base appear as different sections make a building more legible or imageable, as Lynch might put it. The architectural crown of a skyscraper plays an especially important role in reinforcing the skyscraper’s imageability; given that this feature is typically visible from many vantage points, and particularly from far distances. These features are demonstrated in the buildings forming the Magnificent Mile Gateway (Chap. 7).

10.5.5.3

Location

Distinct locations—such as the terminus, corner, center, waterfront, elevated space, or “outlier” site—empower objects, including tall buildings, to be perceived as visual landmarks. In fact, due to their large size, a unique location would make a tall building extra visible. An example of this quality is found in the Trump International Hotel & Tower, placed on a protruding site over the Chicago River. Lake Point Tower offers an even more notable example since it is the only building that exists east of Lakeshore Drive (Chaps. 6 and 9).

430

10.5.5.4

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

Clustering

Tall buildings may be designed as singular landmarks but they may also be grouped to create a “collective landmark.” This clustering can give tall buildings the status of landmark simply by association. Clustering adheres to the principle that the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” In other words, when individual tall buildings are grouped to form one coherent cluster, they can exert a more significant visual impact than if presented as silos.

10.6 Toward Building a Tourism Plan 10.6.1 Overview The common goal of engaging the public with urban design projects is to improve the qualitative experience of the urban environment. Local residents directly benefit from such improvements. Extending these benefits to visitors may further enhance tourism and economic conditions. By engaging tourists’ input in a variety of ways, planners can support tourism activities as complementary to local culture. As a powerful economic engine, tourism spurs the development of new businesses, amenities, and services, thereby creating jobs, increasing local growth domestic product (GDP), boosting existing businesses’ customer base, and enhancing the city’s sales tax base. Today, tourism is a globally competitive sector (UNWTO; WTTC). Cities and regions strive to attract global tourism dollars to boost economies. As such, charting tourism plans is increasingly needed to enhance the global standing of cities, including Chicago. Today, Chicago does not rank as one of the top global destinations, and much work is needed to elevate its tourism status (Marshall 2017, Vescovi 2013). Planners, public officials, and architects must capitalize on local assets to attract more visitors. The potential of the city for tourism is immense, yet it is not fully utilized. It is important to support tourism activities in order to sustain the city’s ranking, reputation, and economic viability on the global stage. The city, throughout its history, has faced economic uncertainty. It is therefore important to capitalize on tourism to sustain a steady, sizable income. Tourists contribute to the success of the city’s retails, shops, hotels, entertainments, and restaurants, which are all important to the city’s fiscal health. Active placemaking initiatives will encourage visitors to linger in the city, enjoy its landmarks and amenities. When visitors feel comfortable exploring their surroundings, they come to form a personal attachment to the city and visit more often (Banerjee et al. 2018; Godschalk & Rouse 2015; Heller et al. 2008; Southworth 2011).

10.6 Toward Building a Tourism Plan

431

10.6.2 Preliminary Steps This research can advance Chicago tourism in multiple ways. The findings of this study reinforce the significance of the most popular places in the city; and therefore, planners should capitalize future efforts on improving and sustaining these places, while having tourism in mind. It is critical to ensure that, as the number of visitors increases, associated services, such as food and transportation, are conveniently provided. “Findings indicated that there are already existing shortcomings in serving tourists. Visitors have voiced concerns about the lack of public toilets and parking. Affordability is also an issue. For example, parking services for Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park are perceived as expensive. Overall, the downtown offers abundant, exciting culinary adventures and grab-and-go eateries; it offers a selection of options that even the pickiest eater will find delicious. However, some visitors indicated a scarcity of eateries in certain public spaces, such as Maggie Daley Park, Federal Plaza, and the eastern section of Riverwalk that connects to Navy Pier” (Al-Kodmany 2019, p. 21). It is also important to gauge pedestrian flows during peak hours and devise mechanisms to avoid overcrowding. Currently, pedestrian flows between several sociospatial nodes experience mild congestion. Examples include the routes connecting Chicago Riverwalk, Michigan Avenue, the Millennium Park, Maggie Daley Park, and the Loop. However, Navy Pier occasionally experiences acute overcrowding. Feedback indicated the need to expand the pier, suggested even stretching the pier further over water. Visitors complained about long queues waiting to access several attractions, such as the Children’s Museum and the Ferris wheel. Comments also proposed building “micro” Navy Piers at the north and south sides. Although some routes feature a smooth pedestrian flow in Chicago’s CBD, other routes and specific nodes suffer from traffic congestion and automobile-pedestrian conflict. The study findings identify a few bottlenecks, for example, the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive suffers from massive traffic congestion. Sidewalks around that area are over capacity and pedestrians often spill over into the streets, hindering auto traffic. This problem is most acute during summer seasons and rush hours. Likewise, bike lanes are inadequate and disconnected. Also, according to the study findings, Divvy, Chicago’s bike-sharing system, is considered expensive by comparison to other cities. The study findings highlight walkable distances among major socio-spatial nodes, though some improvements are required. For example, the Millennium Park and Museum Campus seem to be disconnected due to the relatively long walking distance between them. Elderly visitors and individuals with physical mobility challenges are likely to find the distance unwalkable. Therefore, planners need to examine some mobility alternatives, such as integrating a “heritage streetcar” or a bicycle taxi system connecting these two socio-spatial nodes. If these transport means were integrated carefully along Lakeshore Drive, they may enliven the area, which is currently underutilized. As more local people visit neglected public spaces, a sense

432

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

of place and security will be developed, and consequently, they will also attract more tourists. Grant Park is similarly vast but underutilized. Based on the study findings, the park lacks attractions that would encourage pedestrians to visit. One of the main attractions is the Buckingham Fountain, which features a gorgeous design, spectacular water display, and colorful lighting systems. However, beyond the plaza around the fountain, the park is used mainly as a passage connecting to Lake Michigan. To address this problem, planners may consider integrating seasonal or even permanent attractions, for example, Parisian-style plazas and retractable glass, all-season gardens. Additionally, planners may consider integrating physical activities in the park, therapeutic exercises, recreational dance, musical events, public performances, and workout programs. Increasing the type and number of activities and making them easily accessible and free of charge will entice more visitors to Grant Park. Providing enhanced opportunities to enjoy splendid views of the lake and park, while promoting good health will improve the social life of Chicago’s CBD. Indeed, one of the critical qualities of successful public spaces, according to this study, is free public admission. Reducing barriers to entry, like long ticket queues and ticketed admission, will encourage the public to visit. Smooth processes facilitate easy flows of people from one space to another; transform streets into social public spaces and public spaces into pleasant pedestrian thoroughfares. Free public spaces promote inclusivity, and the mixed crowd that the Chicago public spaces attract reflects Chicago’s cultural values of equality and diversity. Among the most beautiful feelings that visitors experience is sharing space and experiences with people from all walks of life. The value of maintaining public amenities is well established in Chicago. Beginning with the 1909 Plan and until today, free public access along the entire lakefront to significant public places such as Millennium Park, Maggie Daley Park, Chicago Riverwalk, and Navy Pier is provided year-round. This quality is also observed in city-owned public plazas (e.g., Federal Plaza and Daily Plaza) and privately owned public plazas (e.g., Chase Plaza and 311 South Walker Plaza). Free admission is also provided for seasonal festivals in events such as Blues in June, Taste of Chicago in July, Jazz over Labor Day and World Music in September. Another essential quality that future tourism plans should capitalize on is offering attractions for a wide variety of visitors, regardless of their age, gender, or culture. A thriving place must invite all segments of society, with a wide range of activities to engage them. For example, Millennium Park features multiple urban rooms, each engaging people differently. The Cloud Gate sculpture gives people unique views of themselves and their surroundings, and the Crown Fountain offers a splash of social experiences. The charming Lurie Garden educates and attracts visitors to experience an indigenous prairie environment. Similarly, while Maggie Daley Park is geared to offering playgrounds for children, their parents and adults of all ages can easily find places to enjoy, relax, and be entertained. Collectively, these experiences promote a genuinely inclusive, public social life; and consequently, a multigenerational, inviting, vibrant downtown prevails. Further, efforts to restore the natural habitat around the Chicago River should be supported as a valuable component of eco-tourism. Recently, the Chicago River

10.6 Toward Building a Tourism Plan

433

has proven to be an attractive recreational and entertainment venue for residents and for visitors who appreciate Chicago’s global leadership in environmental stewardship. Drawing on Burnham’s urban room concept, the Main Branch has integrated several attractive places, including the Marina, Cove, Theater, Jetty, Water Plaza, among others. Today, the river’s south bank is bustling with people walking, jogging, sitting, entertaining, dining, drinking, and the like. Defined by a spectacular canyon of skyscrapers, the Riverwalk is a dramatic and memorable path. Although the river has experienced significant improvement, further remediation is needed. For example, the water continues to be polluted, and people are recommended to refrain from even touching it. Additional improvement concerns are related to the occasional flooding of the Riverwalk during substantial rain incidences. Such events severely interrupt social life and businesses along the river. Engineering and environmental solutions are needed to prevent the problem. As a seasonal challenge, Chicago experiences severe cold and often heavy snow in the winter, as well as substantial rain and intense sun in the summer. Unfortunately, the city, including downtown, does not offer visitors nor residents adequate protection from the elements. Visitors, in particular, are frequently underprepared for inclement weather, creating discomfort. Planners and city officials may consider charting a “weather protection plan” that integrates a network of canopies, awnings, shelters, and enclosed retractable glass walls and roofs, thereby keeping pedestrians protected from the elements. Likewise, “winter tourism” is lacking. Planners may think creatively about constructing more snow attractions and ice-related art and entertainment, seasonal food, and leisure activities. There is ample opportunity to build on ice-skating activities at Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park, Christmastime and New Year’s Eve fireworks along the Chicago Riverwalk and Navy Pier. Further, visitors were dissatisfied with the minimal nightlife in Chicago’s CBD. The problem dates back to the 60 s and 70 s when a large portion of the CBD’s inhabitants moved to the suburbs. Consequently, the downtown became a place for work, leaving it “dead” at night. However, recently, several residential complexes have been constructed in addition to associated amenities, services, and civic and cultural institutions. Such integrated improvements to the downtown will pave the way to a more active nightlife. One way to strengthen nightlife is to layer more music events throughout the city. These events can complement existing ones offered by the Jay Pritzker Pavilion and Grant Park Music Festival. New music events can also strengthen Chicago’s historic relationship to popular genres, such as blues and jazz. In addition to economic gain, an active nightlife may enhance perceived safety and security. Streets that are humming with people, vibrant activities, and cultural vigor are often seen as being safer; thereby, inviting more people to enjoy the downtown, who will, in turn, enliven it further. The study findings stress the role of public art in enriching downtown life for residents and tourists. Visitors enjoyed and appreciated both permanent and temporary public art. In particular, interactive public art pieces were most liked, and people extended their visiting time interacting with these pieces. For example, the Cloud Gate offered many ways to interact, including viewing the city panoramicly reflected

434

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

on the mirror and zooming in on specific features such as skyscrapers, landscaping elements, sky, and clouds. Visitors also enjoyed viewing themselves while making various, lighthearted gestures. The Cloud Gate sculpture brings out the fun and playful side of people. Further, many visitors took photographs of the Cloud Gate and selfies. Similarly, the Crown Fountains offered visitors an exceptional fun and exhilarating water splash experience. People, particularly children, enjoyed touching and playing with water. Others were happy to see children play, waterfalls, and changing digital faces on the fountains’ facades. These engaging public art pieces attract people even after dusk. The City of Chicago pays a considerable attention to streetscapes. It has devised special programs to landscape streets in keeping with seasonal themes. Some streets are also adorned with temporary public art installations, like the well-known cows, police dogs and horses. However, these efforts seem to be limited only to a few main streets, such as Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive. In addition to many streets, the study findings indicated that several places need visual improvements, including CTA stations and the spaces surrounding them, massive parking lots with unsightly asphalt, and parking structures with substantial blank walls. These surfaces and structures can be treated like large-scale public canvases for creative painting and murals. These otherwise unremarkable and unsightly structures can instead become distinguished, memorable, and appealing. The assessment above and feedback offers a practical starting point for shaping a Chicago tourism plan. However, it is essential to note that Chicago is known for charting “bold” plans, a planning attitude fostered earlier by Daniel Burnham. Burnham stated, “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency” (Burnham & Bennett, 1909, p. 4). As such, significant planning and innovative ideas are needed to launch Chicago into the stratosphere of global tourism. Examples of bold ideas that were gathered from the surveys include building a sizeable underwater aquarium and an island hotel right on Lake Michigan; constructing aerial tramway along the Chicago River; and redesigning the Chicago Skyline as viewed at night (Kozlarz 2018). Although Chicago’s existing skyline is classically attractive, it can be enhanced with digital art and leveraged as a nighttime canvas. Advanced computerized lighting technology offers significant possible improvements for city skylines (Al-Kodmany 2013). For example, new LED systems project spectacular, colorful light shows that can add interest to the city night skyline image. The Hong Kong skyline provides one unique model. “It features a Symphony of Lights Laser Show, every night at 8 PM, that lasts for 14 min. The show engages 44 participating buildings on both sides of the Victoria Harbor accompanied by symphonic music. The HSBC Hong Kong headquarters building participates in the show. The building incorporates 716 intelligent lighting units, including 450 Martin Professional Cyclo 03 color changing fluorescent fixtures in the glass stairwells; Martin Professional Exterior 600 s and

10.6 Toward Building a Tourism Plan

435

Exterior 200 fixtures on five levels; eight searchlights, and over one kilometer of LED lighting around the top” (Al-Kodmany 2019, p. 22). This is not to say that Chicago should imitate the examples of other cities without regard for its own unique tourism character, cultural flavor, and distinct spirit. Even though London, Paris, Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore, or Les Vegas rank higher than Chicago in global tourism and attract greater numbers of tourists, the Chicago tourism experience should remain “Chicagoan.” That is, for Chicago, the logical next project is to strengthen its local tourism base. It should add year-round tourist attractions to ensure a sustained economy. It should also figure out ways to attract “repeat visitors” by periodically introducing new exciting tourism features. Visitors should be invited to deepen their connection to the city through more fine-grain explorations of neighborhood features. A tourism plan should, therefore, leverage existing attractive features and placemaking elements of Chicago. Overall, the city scores high based on Lynch’s theory of imageability. The downtown enjoys a refined structural aesthetic, beautiful spatial patterns, co-created by tall buildings and open spaces. The city has distinct paths, nodes, landmarks, edges, and districts. Further, many of the city’s skyscrapers function as distinct urban symbols; examples may include the Willis Tower, John Hancock, Tribune Tower, and Wrigley Building. Urban symbols are also provided by beautiful public art, e.g., the Cloud Gate and the Crown Fountains. Planners should pay attention to the role social media plays in promoting tourism and placemaking. Overall, if Chicago dedicates resources to planning for tourism, it will enhance placemaking and offer useful transferable lessons to emerging skyscraper cities.

10.7 Notes on Methods 10.7.1 Opportunities Overall, the use of social media for research purposes is promising. First, the process of engaging with social media is spontaneous and “democratic.” People pick the platforms they like, choose the time to use them, read, upload, and share with the world or “private” friends at their own discretion. These processes are nearly free of charge, and technologies involved are increasingly easy to use and affordable, thereby enabling masses of people (regardless of their income, race, color, gender, education, and among other distinguishing factors) to participate. The primary users of social media started with teens and young adults; however, today, people of almost all ages use it. Indeed, “While most of the approaches of public participation in the pre-digital era dealt with small groups of participants and face-to-face workshops, the use of digital tools adds opportunities to involve large numbers of participants easily as well as to overcome restrictions of joining the same locality” (Munster et al. 2017, p. 2420).

436

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

Second, social media can empower brainstorming, promote creative thinking, and disseminate information promptly. “Social media tools proved to be most useful in the early exploration and ideation, which were inspiring and meaningful activities for the users as well” (Friedrich 2013, p. 3). Increasingly friendly GUIs (digital user interfaces) of communication technologies allow more people to get engaged. For example, the simplicity of using the “Like,” “Share,” and “Comment” features has made them popular. The advanced text-based analysis capabilities (e.g., collocations) are useful to researchers, while integrated visual components allow people to share photos, videos, and images in an engaging manner. As the volume of accumulated data is growing exponentially, creating larger samples, researchers can have greater confidence in the findings. Consequently, engaging more enormous masses of people is likely to build greater confidence in revealed preferences, differences, and consensus (Burgess 2014). Third, mobile devices are offering several advantages (e.g., portability and convenience) (Jiang and Thill 2015). Certainly, “What used to sit on our desks now conveniently fits in the palm of our hands, allowing us to effortlessly utilize functionality once reserved for multiple devices wherever we go.” Mobile devices are also empowered with photo and video-sharing applications (e.g., Snapchat and Instagram). The latter application has collected an astounding “20 billion images since the app’s initial inception in October 2010, [which] exist almost entirely on mobile” (Shah 2016). Further, mobile technology expands the ways we perceive and experience the urban environment (Frizzera 2015, p. 32). The future is going mobile; some new features do not work but with mobile devices. For example, “Facebook Stories” tool works only on mobile devices. Further, increasingly, mobile devices offer sensing capabilities and data-gathering tools (Brown and Kyttä 2014; Linders 2012). Fourth, social media allows harnessing of user-generated data. Harnessing Big Data is progressively important to researchers since data is produced and accumulated daily, providing a real-time snapshot of users’ experiences in a city (Lindsey et al. 2015). Gradually, more people are using electronic tools and platforms, including social media, to communicate with the world, thus generating more substantial volumes of data. As such, Big Data along with new digital tools are being utilized for examining the public use of urban spaces (Jachna 2004). In particular, using geo-referenced information and imageries have great potential for informing about urban planning trends and location-based issues (Johnson and Sieber 2013). This is considered to be a particular type of VGI (voluntary geographic information), which originates from sources such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Referred to as ambient geospatial information (AGI), this type of data is crucial because it “reflects a connection and a shared experience with one’s surroundings” (Stefanidis et al. 2013, p. 69). A variation of VGI is the concept of facilitated VGI (f-VGI), which helps to get public input on a predefined topic (Goodchild 2007; Guerrero et al. 2016). Notably, a dynamic relationship is created between social media and urban places, where the former illustrates people’s opinions and experiences of the latter. As more people visit a popular destination, the place is likely to garner more comments and uploaded photographs on social media, providing information and updates

10.7 Notes on Methods

437 After visiting public spaces, people share photographs on social media.

Public Spaces

Social Media

Take Photographs

Upload Photographs

Shared photographs on social media invite people to visit public spaces.

Fig. 10.1 Social media and public places: a feedback loop system. As people visit public places and upload photographs on social media websites, they indirectly invite more people to visit these places, making them more popular. Planners can tap into this source of information to learn about people’s experiences and assess the popularity and rising or decreasing demands on public places. (Diagram by author)

about social life as well as physical design aspects of public spaces. This feedback loop system satisfies McHarg’s call for establishing sustained evaluation systems that provide continuous updates on urban changes and challenges (Xiang 2018) (Fig. 10.1).

10.7.2 Limitations For engaging the public in a planning process, digital technologies suffer from some limitations. While virtual communications could be useful and informative in the early stages of a project (as described above), they are ineffective in latter stages that involve making serious decisions and proceeding to actions. Virtual communications lack the personal touch and human interaction. Getting feedback in person through meetings and charrettes is more trustworthy (Ertiöa and Bhagwatwar 2017; Kleinhans et al. 2015). For participants to move forward, they need to see the “real” planners, public officials, community members, and build trust. Therefore, online communications should be paired with offline meetings and engagements (Evan-Cowley 2010; Broschart and Zeile 2015). Second, the “authoritative” power of technology could be misleading or misused. People tend to take for granted the output of technologies, e.g., electronic visualizations. Also, public officials and planners can manipulate visualization tools

438

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

to support a biased view. Likewise, a technology-savvy group or individuals can manipulate digital communication media and skew results in a “secretive” manner. Occasionally, it would be difficult even to the “expert eyes” to detect manipulation in electronic visualizations (e.g., maps, graphics, charts, and 3d models). Therefore, planners should observe ethical considerations, and the community members should question the validity of outputs of digital technologies (Sheltona et al. 2015). Third, in some parts of the world, the issue of the digital divide persists. Currently, about half of the world population has no access to the Internet and social media. Therefore, planners should examine their audience’s ability to access technology so that they are aware of the voices that cannot be heard through digital communication technologies. Similarly, technology literacy needs to be addressed. Some community members may have access to digital communication tools but do not know how to use them. Overall, the demographics of social media is uneven, suggesting a sampling bias. For example, in their research on Twitter, Mislove et al. (2011) found that “the Twitter population is a highly non-uniform sample of the [overall] population.” Fourth, some local governments and citizens do not believe in the e-participation altogether. They view it as fluff and unproductive (particularly with social media). Others fear that the engaging nature of digital tools may open up more criticism. Further, technology occasionally does not work or it could be hacked. Finally, technologies (e.g., websites, software, platforms, and databases) need continuous updates and maintenance. If databases and websites do not get continuously updated, they may “die” quickly (Burgess 2014). Overall, for simple endeavors, such as counting votes, rating features, tabulating multiple-choice responses, social media allows for obtaining instant results. Researchers and participants can quickly create posts and invite others to voice their views. The online systems give immediate feedback with numerical counts, highlighting trends, and dominant views and making social media a handy tool for planners (Broschart and Zeile 2015). However, for examining and learning about complex issues, such as urban systems and placemaking, researchers will likely need to engage other methods and data sources to develop reliable results and robust conclusions (Stefanidis et al. 2013). Combining methods (digital and traditional) is likely to assist in generating meaningful findings (Ertiöa and Bhagwatwar 2017).

10.8 Limitations and Future Research The work presented in this book is incomplete. Most challenging, the placemaking topic is a form of art, not an exact science. Much of the studies that engage placemaking (this study is no exception) rely on artistic and sometimes subjective judgments. Unlike other studies of tall buildings that embrace a hard “scientific” path (e.g., seismic analysis, structural systems, wind impact, maintenance costs, elevator design, and thermal performance) placemaking research relies on visual insight and artistic assessment. There is a little role in mathematical equations and algorithms to guide placemaking. The qualitative nature of this topic makes research results less

10.8 Limitations and Future Research

439

conclusive and generalizable. Consequently, the findings of this study on Chicago placemaking are likely to be informative and inspirational but not directly applicable to other cities. Each city has a unique context, identity, and urban fabric, and placemaking process. Therefore, planners need to modify or “tweak” the recommendations of this research to fit a particular context. Further, while this research attempts to harness user-generated data, it barely scratches the surface of the ever-expanding social media world. That is, data from Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram were useful, but future research may tap into the data of other social media platforms, such as WhatsApp, Flickr, QQ, Tumblr, WeChat, QZone, Pinterest, Weibo, and Google + . Further, rapid development in social media technologies, Web tools, and digital techniques are transforming the way social media works. Additionally, future advances in the iPhone translation applications (e.g., iTranslate, Microsoft Translator, SayHi Translate, and Google Translate) may further ease language hurdles during face-to-face interviews. The same applies to apps that help in obtaining locational information of photographs, such as Exif Metadata, Exif Viewer, and Koredoko. Finally, future research may engage in conducting comprehensive surveys and detailed statistical analysis.

References Al-Kodmany K (2018) Skyscrapers in the Twenty-First Century City: A Global Snapshot. Buildings 8(12):1–45 Al-Kodmany K (2013) The visual integration of tall buildings: new technologies and the city skyline. Journal of Urban Technology 20(2):25–44 Arendt R (2016) Flipping the strip, Planning, the Magazine of the American Planning Association, April, pp. 32–35 Banerjee T, Hack G, Southworth M (Guest Editors) (2018) Introduction to the Special Issue, Journal of the American Planning Association, 84:3–4, 214–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018. 1526102 Brown G, Kyttä M (2014) Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): a synthesis based on empirical research. Appl Geogr 46:122–136 Broschart D, Zeile P (2015) Architecture: Augmented Reality in Architecture and Urban Planning, in: E. Buhmann (Ed.) Peer reviewed proceedings of digital landscape architecture 2015 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Wichmann, Berlin, pp. 111–118 Burden D (2014) The power of walkability, Blue Zones, November 18, URL: https://www.bluezo nes.com/2014/11/power-walkability/. Accessed 5 Dec 2019 Burgess J (2014) From ‘Broadcast yourself’ to ‘Follow your interests’: Making over social media. International Journal of Cultural Studies. Volume: 18 issue: 3, page(s): 281–285 Burnham D, Bennett E, Moore C (1909) Plan of Chicago. The Commercial Club, Chicago, IL Curtis W (1996) Modern Architecture since 1900. Phaidon Press, London Elliott D (2010) A useful tool with room for improvement, Planning, the Magazine of the American Planning Association, December, pp. 38–43 Emporis, NBC Tower. URL: https://www.emporis.com/buildings/117624/nbc-tower-chicagoil-usa. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Ertiöa T and Bhagwatwar A (2017) Citizens as planners: Harnessing information and values from the bottom-up. International Journal of Information Management, Volume 37, Issue 3, June 2017, Pages 111–113

440

10 Chicago as a Placemaking Model

Evans-Cowley J, Hollander J (2010) The New Generation of Public Participation: Internet-based Participation Tools. Planning Practice and Research 25(3):397–408 Friedrich P (2013) Web-based co-design Social media tools to enhance user-centered design and innovation processes. Doctoral dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology, School of Science for public examination and debate in Auditorium T2, at the Aalto University School of Science (Espoo, Finland) Frizzera L (2015) Mobile Media as New Forms of Spatialization. Interdisc Sci Rev 40(1):29–43 Fry T (2017) Remaking Cities: An Introduction to Metro-fitting. Bloomsbury, NYC Gapp P (1989) NBC’s 40-Story Peacock, Chicago Tribune, April 23.URL: https://www.chicagotr ibune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-04-23-8904060535-story.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Godschalk DR and Rouse DC Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans, PAS Report 578 (2015), https:// www.planning.org/publications/report/9026901/ Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69(4):211–221 Guerrero P, Møller MS, Olafsson AS (2016) Snizek B (2016) Revealing Cultural Ecosystem Services through Instagram Images: The Potential of Social Media Volunteered Geographic Information for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning and Governance. Urban Planning 1(2):1–17 Heller J, Manus C, Nikitas C (2008) San Francisco: Promoting tall buildings through sustainable incentives. In Proceedings of the 8th CTBUH World Congress on Tall and Green: Typology for a Sustainable Urban Future, Dubai, UAE, 3–5 March; pp. 373–379 Jachna T (2004) “Cyburban Semiotics.” First published at COSIGN 2004.URL: https://www.aca demia.edu/947003/Cyburban_Semiotics. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Jiang B, Thill JC (2015) Volunteered geographic information: Towards the establishment of a new paradigm. Comput Environ Urban Syst 53:1–3 Johnson PA, and Sieber, RE (2013) Situating the adoption of VGI by government. In Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge (pp. 65–81). Springer Netherlands Katz P (2010) Sarasota’s smart growth dividend. Planning, the Magazine of the American Planning Association, December, pp. 47–55 Kleinhans R, Ham MV, Evans-Cowley J (2015) Using Social Media and Mobile Technologies to Foster Engagement and Self-Organization in Participatory Urban Planning and Neighborhood Governance. Planning Practice & Research 30(3):237–247 Kozlarz J (2018) Hotelier keeps pushing for aerial tramway to Navy Pier. Curbed Chicago, March 22 Krummeck S and MacLeod B (2016) Density our strength, The linear city in practice, CTBUH Research Paper, pp. 272–280 Linders D (2012) From e-government to we government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly 29(4):446–454 Lindsey G, Petesch M, and Hankey S (2015) The Minnesota Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting Initiative: Implementation Study, Publishers: Minnesota Department of Transportation. MnDOT201534.pdf (3.782 Mb application/pdf) Lynch K (1960) The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Marshall A (2017) The resilient city: New York is a city that survives, thrives – and plans, Planning, the Magazine of the American Planning Association, January, pp. 2–10 McHarg I (1969) Design with Nature. Republished by Wiley and Sons in 1992, NYC Mislove A, Lehmann S, Ahn Y, Onnela J, and Rosenquist J (2011) Understanding the Demographics of Twitter Users. Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media Munster S, Georgia C, Heijne K, Klamert K, Noeing J, Pump M, Stelzle B, Meer H (2017) How to Involve inhabitants in urban design planning by using digital tools? An overview on a state of the art, key challenges and promising approaches. Procedia Computer Science 112:2391–2405 Nyren A (2017) 10 Great Quotes That Say Everything About Chicago PureWow, Sep. 27.URL: https://www.purewow.com/entertainment/chicago-quotes Accessed 15 Dec 2019

References

441

Saliga PA, Clarke JH (1998) The Sky’s the Limit: A Century of Skyscrapers in Chicago. Rizzoli, NYC Shah S (2016) The history of social networking. Digital Trends. May 14. https://www.digitaltrends. com/features/the-history-of-social-networking/. Accessed 15 Dec 2019 Sheltona T, Poorthuisb A and Zookb M (2015) Social media and the city: Rethinking urban sociospatial inequality using user-generated geographic information. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 142, October 2015, Pages 198–211 Southworth M (2011) Beyond placelessness: place identity and the global city. In: Banerjee T, Loukaitou-Sideris A (eds) Companion to Urban Design. Routledge, New York City, NY, pp 495–509 Stefanidis A, Crooks A, Radzikowski J (2013) Harvesting ambient geospatial information from social media feeds. GeoJournal 78(2):319–338 Speck J (2013a) Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America One Step at a Time, North Point Press, NYC Speck J (2013b) ‘The Walkable City’, TEDx Ideas worth spreading, October, URL https://www. ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_the_walkable_city. Accessed 5 Dec 2019 Vescovi F (2013) Designing the Urban Renaissance. Springer, London United Nations World Tourism Organization, https://www.unwto.org/ (Accessed 15 Dec 2019) Wang X, Palazzo D, Carper M (2016) Ecological Wisdom as an Emerging Field of Scholarly Inquiry in Urban Planning and Design”. Landscape and Urban Planning 55:100–107 World Travel & Tourism Council; https://www.wttc.org/ (Accessed 15 Dec 2019) Xiang W (2017) Pasteur’s quadrant: An appealing ecophronetic alternative to the prevalent Bohr’s quadrant in ecosystem services research. Landscape Ecology, 32(12), 2241–2247. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10980-017-0583-y.url: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10980-0170583-y.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2019

Appendix A

Definitions

Tall buildings Overall, there is no universally accepted definition of a “tall building.” Governments around the world differ in how they define “tall buildings.” For example, German regulations define a “tall building” as a building higher than 22 m (72 ft) with room for the permanent accommodation of people. City officials derived this limit from the length of ladders used by the firefighters. Leicester City Council in the UK defines a tall building as any structure over 20 m/66 ft in height, and/or a building of any height that is substantially higher than the predominant height of the buildings in the surrounding area, and/or a building that would make a significant impact on the city’s skyline. In Ireland, Cork City defines tall buildings as buildings of 10 stories and higher. The ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Airconditioning Engineers) Technical Committee for Tall Buildings defines them as buildings higher than 91 m/ 300 ft. Interestingly, the CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat) seeks to resolve the confusion by providing a framework for the definition. It sets three attributes required to qualify a building to become “tall”: 1. Height relative to context, 2. Proportion, and 3. Building technologies. Per the first criterion, the building should significantly exceed the general building heights of its surroundings. This criterion is crucial because it contextualizes the perception of tallness. That is, whereas we may not consider a 10-story building tall in the urban cores of U.S. cities or high-rise cities such as Hong Kong, in a predominantly low-rise suburb, a 10-story building is distinctly taller than the norm. The second criterion for tallness implies verticality and states that the building should be slender enough to give it the appearance of a tall building. Numerous large-footprint buildings are tall, but their spatial composition of size/footprint/height prevents from classifying them as tall buildings. This means that tall buildings are higher than neighboring buildings but they tend to have a much larger footprint and bulkier appearance. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3

443

444

Appendix A: Definitions

The third and relatively weakest criterion—height-related building technologies— suggests that a building may be considered tall if it contains technologies attributed to tallness (e.g., structural systems, building materials). Importantly, the CTBUH makes a distinction between two tall building categories: 1. A “supertall” is a 300+ m (984+ ft) building; and 2. A “megatall” is a 600+ m (1,967+ ft) building. High-rise buildings As is the case with tall buildings, there is no universal agreement as to when we can call a building a high-rise. Often, the public considers a building consisting of many floors as a high-rise. In the U.S., with some exceptions, cities define high-rise buildings as structures with occupied floors that measure 23 m (75 ft) or more above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. The Emporis (a global database for building information) defines a “high-rise” building as a multi-story structure between 35 and 100 m tall. Skyscrapers Similarly, there is no a universally accepted definition of a “skyscraper.” The Oxford Dictionary defines it as a tall building with many stories. The CTBUH does not set a height threshold for a tall building to be called a skyscraper, while Emporis defines a skyscraper as being a 100 m+ (328 ft+) building. Working definitions This research embraces the following definitions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

A tall building, a high-rise, or a tower is a 50 m+ (164 ft+) building. A skyscraper is a 150+ m (328+ ft) building. A supertall or ultra-tall is a 300+ m (984+ ft) building. A megatall is a 600+ m (1,967+ ft) building.

Skyscraper Size Often, research cites skyscraper statistics by height and by floor area. While popular interest focuses on extreme height in the competition for the world’s tallest building, however, researchers give little attention to the size of big buildings based on floor area. Over the twentieth century, building dimensions of height and area have increased with each major real estate cycle. Based on an analysis of historical surveys of new commercial construction compiled since the late 1890s by the Real Estate Board of New York, the Skyscraper Museum has proposed the categories and terminology of Jumbos and Super Jumbos to describe extra-large buildings. Jumbos are twice the area of an average high-rise of the period, and Super Jumbos are twice that size.

Appendix A: Definitions

445

Jumbos 1890–1899 1900–1920 1920–1949 1950–Present

> 250,000 ft2 (23,226 m2 ) > 500,000 ft2 (46,452 m2 ) > 1,000,000 ft2 (92,903 m2 ) > 2,000,000 ft2 (185,806 m2 ).

Super Jumbos 1900–1920 > 1,000,000 ft2 (92,903 m2 ) 1920–1949 > 2,000,000 ft2 (185,806 m2 ) 1950–Present > 4,000,000 ft2 (371,612 m2 ). Building’s Status The CTBUH gives the following definitions to delineate the status of a building: Under construction Once construction workers complete clearing the site and finish the foundation, the building earns the “under construction” title. Structurally topped out Once the highest primary structural element of a building under construction is in place, the building earns the “structurally topped out” title. Architecturally topped out When a building under construction reaches its full height both structurally and architecturally (e.g., including its spire and parapets), it earns the “architecturally topped out” title. On hold When construction work is suspended indefinitely, the building will be called “on hold,” if the intention to complete construction to its original design is unchanged. Never completed When construction work is suspended, and there is an intention to complete the project with different plans than original ones, the research calls this building “never completed.” Proposed When a building fulfills all the following criteria, it earns the “proposed” title as follows: 1. The project has a specific site, an owner, and a developer who are seriously interested in executing the project. 2. The professional design and planning team have passed the conceptual design stage of the project and are progressing toward completing construction drawings.

446

Appendix A: Definitions

3. The project has obtained construction permission or in the process to do so. 4. The announcement of the “proposed” building comes from a credible source. Visionary A building project earns this title when it meets one of the following three criteria: 1. A project idea that does not fulfill the “proposed” criteria mentioned above (the four conditions of a “proposed” project). 2. A “proposed” project that developers could not advance to the construction stage, or 3. A project idea whom architects conceived to be an inspirational proposition. Demolished When a building is destroyed by a natural disaster (e.g., earthquake, hurricane, etc.) or by humans (e.g., terrorist attack, war, etc.) or by an authority at the end of its life cycle, it earns the “demolished” title. Reference Al-Kodmany K (2018) The Vertical City: A Sustainable Development Model; WIT Press: Southampton, UK

Appendix B

Chicago History—Key Dates

Date

Event

1670s • The Chicago area functioned as a trade hub and seasonal hunting grounds for several Native American tribes 1770s • In 1779, Jean Baptiste Point du Sable (black French trader) built the first permanent, non-indigenous settlement near the mouth of the Chicago River on the shore of Lake Michigan 1800s • The U.S. Army built Fort Dearborn on the Chicago River in 1803 1820s • In 1825, the Erie Canal was completed, connecting the Great Lakes with New York City via the Hudson River at Albany 1830s • Chicago rose from a stretch of marshy land to a large, prosperous city • In 1833, with a population of less than 200 inhabitants, Chicago was incorporated 1840s • In 1848, the Illinois-Michigan Canal was completed, connecting the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico via Lake Michigan, the Chicago River, the Illinois River, and the Mississippi River • In 1848, the population grew to nearly 30,000 1850s • Chicago’s growth was unprecedented • The city witnessed an extensive railroad development. Notably, in 1852, two separate lines connected Chicago with the East Coast • In 1855, the city passed an ordinance to lift buildings to lay sewer pipes 1860s • In the late 1860s, the city became the nation’s railroad hub and a major agricultural and manufacturing center 1870s • In 1871, the Great Fire (lasting for 36 hours) destroyed a great part of the city, virtually the entire business district, destroying 18,000 structures, leaving one-third of the population (about 100,000) homeless and killing about 300 people 1880s • Chicago was soon rebuilt and the population reached 503,000 • In 1885, the 10-story Home Insurance Company building was completed; largely considered to be the first modern tall building in the world • In 1889, construction of the Sanitary and Ship Canal began. Notably, it aimed to reverse the flow of the Chicago River • In 1889, Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr established the Hull House on the Near West Side to address poor living conditions in the city (continued) © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3

447

448

Appendix B: Chicago History—Key Dates

(continued) Date

Event

1890s • The World’s Columbian Exhibition was held in 1893 1900s • The population was almost 1.7 million, the fifth largest city in the world • Chicago featured a notably thriving CBD • The Sanitary and Ship Canal project to reverse the flow of the Chicago River was completed in 1900 • Daniel Burnham and Edward H. Bennett created the 1909 Plan of Chicago and was approved by the city in the same year 1910s • The city’s population had risen to over two million • The Great Migration of African Americans from the rural South to the industrial North began in 1916 1920s • • • •

Chicago downtown boomed and Art Deco skyscrapers proliferated the city The Michigan Avenue Bridge was completed in 1922 Zoning law was created in 1923 The Union Station was completed, unifying haphazard railroad network

1930s • Great Depression • Alder Planetarium and Shedd Aquarium were opened in 1930. Also, Merchandise Mart was completed in the same year • The Century of Progress World’s Fair was held between 1933 and 1934 • In 1937, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) was established • In 1939, the Chicago Plan Commission was reorganized and absorbed into city government 1940s • Chicago experienced stagnation • In 1943, Master Plan of Residential Land Use of Chicago is published by the Chicago Plan Commission, outlining issues in housing • In 1945, Chicago Transit Authority was established 1950

• Downtown large new office buildings were built for the first time since the Great Depression • In 1955, Mayor Richard J. Daley was elected for the first of five terms • In 1959, Chicago’s new Department of City Planning prepared the Development Plan for the Central Area of Chicago

1960s • The post-war building boom continued • The O’Hare Airport was opened in 1963 • The Comprehensive Plan of Chicago was published in 1966 1970s • Population and jobs continued to flow out of Chicago • In 1973, another city plan is published, Chicago 21, which addressed the deterioration of the central city 1980s • Construction in the loop and North Michigan Avenue continued • In 1983, Harold Washington was elected. He was the city’s first African American mayor. • In 1989, Richard M. Daley became elected mayor. After serving Chicago in office for 22 years (till 2011), he became the longest mayor in the city’s history. 1990s • Chicago witnessed a slow construction pace • Navy Pier was opened in 1995 as a recreational facility offering restaurants, entertainment, shops, and other attractions • In 1989, construction of the Millennium Park began • The population was about 2.7 million (continued)

Appendix B: Chicago History—Key Dates

449

(continued) Date

Event

2000s • • • •

Millennium Park was opened in 2004 The Cloud Gate sculpture was installed in the Millennium Park in 2006 Spertus Museum was opened in 2007 Trump International Hotel and Tower was completed in 2009

2010s • 606 linear park was opened in 2015 • The population of Chicago is about 2.7 million

References Condit C (1973) Chicago, 1910–29: Building, Planning and Urban Technology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Condit C (1974) Chicago, 1930–70: Building, Planning and Urban Technology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Smith C (2006) The Plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the Remaking of the American City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL The Encyclopedia of Chicago (2009). Chicago Historical Society and The Newberry Library, http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/

Appendix C

World’s Tallest Buildings

This appendix complements the information presented in Chap. 2. The provided tables1 list the ten tallest buildings of major cities in the world in 2020. They are organized based on the world’s continents, including: 1. Asia. Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Tianjin, Nanjing, Chongqing, Zhengzhou, Nanchang, Changsha, Jinan, Wuxi, Xiamen, Dalian, Taichung, Chengdu, Fuzhou, Kunming, Hong Kong, Macau, Taipei, and Bangkok. 2. Europe. London, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Moscow, and Istanbul. 3. North America. New York City, Chicago, Miami Philadelphia, San Francisco, Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary. 4. Oceania. Sydney, Melbourne, Gold Coast, Perth, and Brisbane. 5. Middle East. Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha, Jeddah, Mecca, Riyadh, Kuwait, Tel Aviv, and Beirut. 6. South America. Santiago, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, and Balneário Camboriú. 7. Central America. Panama City and Mexico City. 8. Africa. Nairobi.

Asia See Tables C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, C.6, C.7, C.8, C.9, C.10, C.11, C.12, C.13, C.14, C.15, C.16, C.17, C.18, C.19, C.20, C.21, C.22, C.23 and C.24.

1 It

is possible that the statuses of some of the listed buildings have changed. For example, the construction of Jeddah Tower is currently on hold. Further, for the reader’s convenience, some data in this appendix are repeated in Chapter 2. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 K. Al-Kodmany, Tall Buildings and the City, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6029-3

451

452

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.1 Asia’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

City

Height (m/ft)

1

Shanghai Tower

Shanghai (CN)

632

2,073 128

2015

2

Ping An Finance Center

Shanghai (CN)

599.1 1,965 115

2017

3

Lotte World Tower

Seoul (KR)

554.5 1,819 123

2017

4

Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre

Guangzhou (CN)

530

1,739 111

2016

5

Tianjin CTF Finance Centre

Tianjin (CN)

530

1,739 97

2019

6

CITIC Tower

Beijing (CN)

527.7 1,731 109

2018

7

TAIPEI 101

Taipei (CN)

508

1,667 101

2004

8

Shanghai World Financial Shanghai (CN) Center

492

1,614 101

2008

9

International Commerce Centre

484

1,588 108

2010

10 Vincom Landmark 81

Hong Kong (CN)

Floors Completion

Ho Chi Minh City (VN) 461.2 1,513 81

2018

Table C.2 Shanghai’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Shanghai Tower

632

2,073

128

2015

2

Shanghai World Financial Center

492

1,614

101

2008

3

Jin Mao Tower

420.5

1,380

88

1999

4

Shimao International Plaza

333.3

1,094

60

2006

5

Zhenru Center

330

1,083

NA

NA

6

Sinar Mas Center 1

319.6

1,048

66

2017

7

Plaza 66

288.2

945

66

2001

8

Tomorrow Square

284.6

934

60

2003

9

Hong Kong New World Tower

278.3

913

59

2004

10

Shanghai Wheelock Square

270.5

887

55

2010

Table C.3 Beijing’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

China Zun Tower

528

1,732

108

2018

2

China World Tower

330

1,083

74

2010

3

China World Trade Center Phase 3B

288

945

58

2017

4

Fortune Financial Center

267

876

60

2014

5

Samsung China Headquarters

260

853

57

2018 (continued)

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

453

Table C.3 (continued) #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

6

Beijing Greenland Center

260

853

55

2016

7

Beijing Yintai Centre−Park Tower

249.9

820

63

2008

8

Sunshine Insurance Headquarters

243

797

48

2019

9

Beijing Television Center

239

784

42

2006

10

Z14 Plot Tower 1

238

781

48

2018

Table C.4 Shenzhen’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Ping an Finance Center

599

1,965

115

2017

2

KK100

441.8

1,449

100

2011

3

China Resources Headquarters

392.5

1,288

67

2018

4

Shum Yip Upperhills Tower 1

388

1,273

80

2019

5

Shun Hing Square

384

1,260

69

1996

6

Shenzhen Center

375.5

1,232

80

2018

7

Hanking Center Tower

350

1,148

73

2018

8

One Shenzhen Bay Tower 7

341.4

1,120

71

2018

9

Shimao Qianhai Project Tower 1

330

1,083

70

2020

10

Hon Kwok City Center

329.4

1,081

80

2017

Table C.5 Guangzhou’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

1

Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre

530

1,739

111

2016

2

Guangzhou International Finance Center

438.6

1,439

103

2010

3

CITIC Plaza

390.2

1,280

80

1996

4

The Pinnacle

350.3

1,149

60

2012

5

Huijin Center 1

320

1,050

69

2019

6

Global City Square

318.9

1,046

67

2016

7

Global City Square

318.9

1,046

67

2016

8

Fortune Center

309.4

1,015

68

2015

9

Poly Pazhou C2

309.4

1,015

61

2017

10

Guangfa Securities Headquarters

308

1,010

62

2017

Europe See Tables C.25, C.26, C.27, C.28, C.29 and C.30.

Floors

Completion

454

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.6 Wuhan’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Wuhan Greenland Center

636

2,087

125

2018

2

Wuhan Center Tower

438

1,437

88

2017

3

Riverview Plaza A1

436

1,430

73

2019

4

Heartland 66 Office Tower

339

1,112

60

2020

5

Minsheng Bank Building

331

1,086

68

2008

6

Wuhan Yangtze River Shipping Center

330

1,083

65

2019

6

Yuexiu Fortune Center Tower 1

330

1,083

65

2017

8

Wuhan Tiandi Park Place Office Tower 1

283

928

NA

NA

9

Tianyue Xinchen Tower 1

275.3

903

43

2018

10

Wuhan World Trade Tower

273

896

60

1998

Table C.7 Tianjin’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Goldin Finance 117

596.5

1,957

128

2018

2

Tianjin CTF Finance Centre

530

1,739

97

2018

3

Sino Steel International Plaza T2

358

1,175

83

NA

4

Tianjin Modern City Office Tower

338

1,109

65

2016

5

Tianjin World Financial Center

336.9

1,105

75

2011

6

Jin Wan Plaza 1

299.8

984

66

2017

7

Yujiapu Yinglan International Finance Center

298

978

60

2018

8

Powerlong Center Tower 1

289.9

951

59

2017

9

Bohai Bank Tower

270

886

55

2015

10

Financial Street Heping Center

263

863

47

2016

Table C.8 Nanjing’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft) Floors Completion

1

Zifeng Tower

450

1,476 66

2010

2

Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower A

368

1,208 76

2019

3

Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower B

328

1,076 68

2019

4

Deji Plaza

324

1,063 62

2013

5

Nanjing World Trade Center Tower 1

318

1,043 68

2019

6

Nanjing International Youth Cultural Centre Tower 1 314.5 1,032 68

2015

7

Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower C

300

984

60

2019

8

Nanjing International Finance Center

290

951

59

2018

9

New Century Plaza Tower 1

255.2 837

48

2006

61

2015

10 Nanjing International Youth Cultural Centre Tower 2 255

837

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

455

Table C.9 Chongqing’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Corporate Avenue 1

468

1,535

99

2019

2

Raffles City Chongqing T3N

354.5

1,163

79

2019

2

Raffles City Chongqing T4N

354.5

1,163

79

2019

4

Chongqing World Financial Center

338.9

1,112

72

2015

5

Chongqing IFS T1

316.3

1,038

63

2016

6

International Commerce Financial Centre T1

301.2

988

65

2019

7

Concord International Centre

290

951

64

2017

8

Yingli International Finance Centre

288

945

58

2012

9

United International Mansion

287

942

67

2013

10

HNA&POLY International Centre

286.8

941

61

2013

Table C.10 Zhengzhou’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Greenland Zhengzhou Central Plaza North Tower

283.9

931

63

2017

2

Greenland Zhengzhou Central Plaza South Tower

283.9

931

63

2017

3

Zhengzhou Greenland Plaza

280

919

56

2014

4

EPH Headquarters

235.3

772

32

2012

5

Greenland Center Tower 4

203

666

47

–

6

Jinshui Wanda Center Office Tower

200

656

43

2016

7

Zhengzhou Resources Center

200

656

40

2014

8

Yuda World Trade Center

199.7

655

45

1997

9

Zhengzhou Greenland New Metropolis Tower 9

180

591

38

2017

Jinshui Wanda Center Residential Tower 1

160

525

–

2016

10

North America See Tables C.31, C.32, C.33, C.34, C.35, C.36, C.37, C.38 and C.39. Table C.11 Nanchang’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors Completion

1

Jiangxi Nanchang Greenland Central Plaza, Parcel A 303

994

59

2015

1

Jiangxi Nanchang Greenland Central Plaza, Parcel B

303

994

59

2015

3

Central Financial Street Tower

272

892

58

2018 (continued)

456

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.11 (continued) #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

4

Jiangxi Nanchang Greenland Zifeng Tower

268

879

56

5

International Finance Center

239

784

48

2011

6

SunnyWorld Center Main Tower

236

774

53

2014

7

Ligao International

231.5 760

42

2014

8

Yunzhong Tower 1

225

738

51

2016

8

Yunzhong Tower 2

225

738

51

2016

222

728

45

2016

10 Kerry Center

Floors Completion 2015

Table C.12 Changsha’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Changsha IFS Tower T1

452.1

94

2017

2

Shimao Hunan Center

347

1,138

–

2018

3

Changsha A9 Financial District

330

1,083

65

2019

4

Xinchu Qingtian Plaza Tower 1

319

1,047

–

2019

5

Changsha IFS Tower T2

315

1,033

63

2017

6

Xinchu Qingtian Plaza Tower 2

310

1,017

–

2019

7

Huachuang International Plaza Tower 1

300

984

66

2017

8

Huayuan Center Tower 7

269.7

885

54

2016

9

Binjiang IFC Tower 2

258

846

–

2020

10

Yunda Central Plaza—St. Regis Hotel

248.8

816

63

2016

1,483

Table C.13 Jinan’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Greenland Puli Center

303

994

61

2014

2

Gold Times Square Block A

216

709

–

–

3

Jinan Center Financial City A3-5

202

663

44

2016

4

Provincial Cultural Center Building 2

200.1

657

48

2014

5

Hong Plaza Tower 2

192.4

631

39

2017

5

Hong Plaza Tower 3

192.4

631

39

2017

7

Pearl International Business Center

188

617

49

2004

8

Sofitel Jinan Silver Plaza

186

610

53

1999

9

Shandong Agricultural Bank

170

558

42

1999

10

International Financial Building

165

541

39

1997

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

457

Table C.14 Wuxi’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Wuxi International Finance Square

339

68

2014

2

Wuxi Suning Plaza 1

328

1,076

67

2014

3

Wuxi Maoye City—Marriott Hotel

303.8

997

68

2014

4

Center 66 Office 1

250

820

44

2014

5

Yunfu Tower

249

817

53

2015

6

RunHua International Building

248

814

55

2009

7

Hongdou International Plaza

248

814

45

2009

8

Moresky 360

209

686

48

2005

9

Kempinski Hotel

206

676

50

2007

10

Wuxi World Trade Center

200

656

50

2017

1,112

Table C.15 Xiamen’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Xiamen Cross-Strait Financial Centre

343.9

1,128

68

2017

2

Xiamen Shimao Straits Tower B

295.3

969

67

2015

3

Xinglin Bay Business Tower

261.9

859

54

2016

4

Dijing Park Tower 1

258

846

62

2018

4

Dijing Park Tower 2

258

846

62

2018

4

Dijing Park Tower 3

258

846

62

2018

4

Dijing Park Tower 4

258

846

62

2018

4

Dijing Park Tower 5

258

846

62

2018

9

Xiamen Shimao Straits Tower A

249.9

820

59

2015

10

Strait Pearl Plaza

234.6

770

50

2017

Table C.16 Dalian’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Dalian Greenland Center

518

88

2019

2

Eton Place Dalian Tower 1

383.1

1,257

80

2016

3

Dalian International Trade Center

370.1

1,214

86

2017

4

Eton Place Dalian Tower 2

279.5

917

62

2015

5

Hengli Towers 1

267

876

68

2017

6

Hengli Towers 2

267

876

63

2017

7

Dalian Futures Square 1

242.8

797

53

2010

7

Dalian Futures Square 2

242.8

797

53

2010

9

Dalian World Trade Center

242

794

50

2000

10

Dalian Dingsen Center North Tower

228

748

52

2016

1,699

458

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.17 Taichung’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Shr-Hwa International Tower

192.3

47

2004

2

Golden Plaza

178

584

22

1999

3

City Center Plaza

168

551

38

2010

4

Taichung Condominium Tower

163

535

41

2018

5

Long-Ban World Trade Building 1

160

525

37

1993

5

Long-Ban World Trade Building 2

160

525

37

1993

5

Treasure Garden

160

525

37

2017

8

Ding Sheng BHW Taiwan Central Plaza

158.9

521

36

2015

9

Da International Building 1

158

518

42

1993

9

Da International Building 2

158

518

42

1993

631

Table C.18 Chengdu’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Chengdu Greenland Tower

468

1,535

101

2019

2

Mandarin Oriental Hotel Tower A

333.1

1,093

73

–

3

International Commerce Center Tower 1

280

919

–

2018

3

International Commerce Center Tower 2

280

919

–

2018

5

Chengdu International Finance Square Tower 1

247

810

50

2014

5

Chengdu International Finance Square Tower 2

247

810

50

2014

7

Western International Finance Center Conrad Hotel

241

791

56

2015

8

Mandarin Oriental Hotel Tower B

223.5

733

69

–

9

Art Residence by Armani/Casa Tower 1

222

728

65

2017

9

Art Residence by Armani/Casa Tower 2

222

728

65

2017

Table C.19 Fuzhou’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Shenglong Global Center

300

984

57

2018

2

Shimao International Center Office Tower

273

896

56

2013

3 4

Yuyang Tower

260

853

56

2014

Fusheng Qianlong Plaza

250

820

50

2016

5

Sandy Federal Tower

240

787

55

2017

6

Fuzhou IFC

220

722

48

2015 (continued)

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

459

Table C.19 (continued) #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

7

Fuzhou Shenglong Financial Centre

206.6

678

47

2014

8

Vanke Jinyu Central Tower 1

202.9

666

64

2015

9

Mincheng Center Hotel

200

656

45

2016

10

Fujian Power Dispatching and Communication Building

195.6

642

40

2006

Table C.20 Kunming’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Spring City 66

349

1,145

61

2019

2

Fanya International Finance Building North

317.8

1,043

67

2016

3

Fanya International Finance Building South

317.8

1,043

66

2016

4

Kunming Rainbow Yunnan First City Tower 1

286

938

56

2019

5

Tongde Kunming Plaza

269

883

54

2015

6

Landmark Plaza Tower A

260

853

54

-

7

Yowe Center

239

784

47

2018

8

Kunming Iron and Steel Building

219.3

719

50

2014

9

Yonghe Plaza Tower A

218.9

718

48

2019

9

Yonghe Plaza Tower B

218.9

718

48

2019

Table C.21 Hong Kong’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

International Commerce Centre

484

1,588

108

2010

2

Two International Finance Centre

412

1,352

88

2003

3

Central Plaza

373.9

1,227

78

1992

4

Bank of China Tower

367.4

1,205

72

1990

5

The Center

346

1,135

73

1998

6

Nina Tower

320.4

1,051

80

2006

7

One Island East

298.1

978

68

2008

8

Cheung Kong Centre

282.8

928

63

1999

9

The Cullinan I

269.9

886

68

2008

10

The Cullinan II

269.9

886

68

2008

460

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.22 Macau’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Grand Lisboa

258

846

48

2008

2

L’Arc New World Hotel

217

712

56

2009

3

Encore at Wynn Macau

206

676

–

2010

4

Baia de Praia Grande

190

623

54

2009

5

The Praia Block 1

185

607

56

2008

5

The Praia Block 2

185

607

56

2008

5

The Praia Block 3

185

607

56

2008

5

The Praia Block 4

185

607

56

2008

9

Pak Keng Van Tower 1

170

558

52

–

9

Pak Keng Van Tower 2

170

558

52

–

Table C.23 Taipei’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Taipei 101

508

1,667

101

2004

2

Nan Shan Plaza

273.6

898

45

2017

3

Shin Kong Life Tower

244.8

803

51

1993

4

Cathay Landmark

212

696

46

2014

5

Farglory Financial Center

208.3

683

32

2013

6

Far Eastern Plaza 2

165

541

43

1994

7

Far Eastern Plaza 1

165

541

41

1994

8

Yihwa International Residential Tower A

160

525

45

2014

9

Yihwa International Residential Tower B

160

525

45

2014

10

Hua Nan Bank Headquarters

154.5

507

27

2014

Table C.24 Bangkok’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Magnolias Waterfront Residences Tower 1

315

1,033

70

2018

2

MahaNakhon

314.2

1,031

75

2016

3

Baiyoke Tower II

304

997

85

1997

4

Capella Residences

299.5

983

73

2018

5

Magnolias Waterfront Residences Tower 2

280

919

52

2018

6

The River South Tower

258

846

74

2012

7

Canapaya Residences I

253

830

57

2018

8

State Tower

247.2

811

68

2001

9

Waldorf Astoria + Magnolias Ratchaprasong

242

794

60

2016

10

Menam Residence

239.3

785

59

2017

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

461

Oceania See Tables C.40, C.41, C.42, C.43, C.44 and C.45. Table C.25 Europe’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Lakhta Center

St. Petersburg (RU)

462

1,516

86

2018

2

Multifunctional High-rise Complex—Akhmat Tower

Groznyj (RU)

435

1,427

102

2020

3

Federation Towers—Vostok Tower

Moscow (RU)

374

1,227

95

2016

4

OKO—Residential Tower

Moscow (RU)

354

1,160

90

2015

5

Mercury City Tower

Moscow (RU)

339

1,112

75

2013

6

NEVA TOWERS 2

Moscow (RU)

338

1,109

77

2020

7

Varso Tower

Warsaw (PL)

310

1,017

53

2020

8

Stalnaya Vershina

Moscow (RU)

309

1,013

72

2015

9

The Shard

London (GB)

306

1,004

73

2013

10

Capital City Moscow Tower

Moscow (RU)

302

990

76

2010

Table C.26 London’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

The Shard

306

1,004

73

2013

2

22 Bishopsgate

278

912

62

2019

3

One Canada Square

236

774

50

1991

4

Landmark Pinnacle

233.2

765

77

2020

5

110 Bishopsgate

230

755

46

2011

6

The Leadenhall Building

224

735

52

2014

7

Newfoundland

219.8

721

58

2018

8

25 Canada Square

201

659

42

2002

9

8 Canada Square

199.5

655

42

2002

10

City Tower

199.4

654

58

2018

Table C.27 Frankfurt’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Commerzbank Tower

259

850

56

1997

2

MesseTurm

256.5

842

64

1990

3

Westendstrasse 1

208

682

53

1993 (continued)

462

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.27 (continued) #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

4

Main Tower

200

656

55

1999

5

Tower 185

200

656

50

2011

6

Trianon

186

610

45

1993

7

OMNITURM

185.4

608

45

2018

8

ECB—European Central Bank

183.7

603

43

2014

9

Grand Tower

172

564

47

2019

10

Taunus Turm

170

558

40

2013

Floors

Completion

Table C.28 Warsaw’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

1

Varso Tower

310

1,017

53

2020

2

Palace of Culture and Science

230.7

757

42

1955

3

Warsaw Spire

220

722

49

2016

4

Skyliner

195

640

53

2018

5

Złota 44

192

630

54

2016

6

Warsaw Trade Tower

187.1

614

43

1999

7

Cosmopolitan Twarda 2/4

165.4

543

45

2014

8

InterContinental Warszawa

163.5

536

45

2003

9

Rondo 1

159.1

522

40

2006

10

Q22 Tower

155

509

39

2016

Table C.29 Moscow’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Federation Towers—Vostok Tower

373.7

1,226

95

2016

2

OKO—Residential Tower

353.6

1,160

90

2015

3

Mercury City Tower

338.8

1,112

75

2013

4

NEVA TOWERS 2

338

1,109

77

2020

5

Stalnaya Vershina

308.9

1,013

72

2015

6

Capital City Moscow Tower

301.8

990

76

2010

7

NEVA TOWERS 1

290

951

63

2020

8

Grand Tower

283

928

50

–

9

Naberezhnaya Tower Block C

268.4

881

61

2007

10

Triumph Palace

264.1

866

61

2005

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

463

Table C.30 Istanbul’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Skyland Office Tower

284

932

65

2017

2

Skyland Residential Tower

284

932

64

2017

3

Metropol Tower Istanbul

280

919

58

2017

4

Sapphire Tower

261

856

55

2010

5

Nurol Life

220

722

60

2017

6

Faco Tower

220

722

58

2018

7

Maslak Spine Tower

202

663

47

2014

8

Anthill Residence 1

194.5

638

54

2010

8

Anthill Residence 2

194.5

638

54

2011

10

Varyap Meridian A Block

188.4

618

52

2012

Middle East See Tables C.46, C.47, C.48, C.49, C.50, C.51, C.52, C.53, C.54 and C.55. Table C.31 North America’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

City

Height (m/ft) Floors

Completion

1

One World Trade Center

New York City (US)

541

1,776

94

2014

2

Central Park Tower

New York City (US)

472

1,550

95

2019

3

111 West 57th Street

New York City (US)

438

1,438

80

2018

4

432 Park Avenue

New York City (US)

426

1,396

85

2015

5

30 Hudson Yards

New York City (US)

387

1,268

73

2019

6

Vista Tower

Chicago (US)

362

1,186

98

2020

7

Comcast Technology Center

Philadelphia (US)

342

1,121

59

2018

8

Wilshire Grand Center

Los Angeles (US)

335

1,099

73

2017

9

3 World Trade Center

New York City (US)

329

1,079

69

2018

10

Salesforce Tower

San Francisco (US)

326

1,070

61

2018

Table C.32 New York City’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

One World Trade Center

541.3

1,776

94

2014

2

Central Park Tower

472.4

1,550

95

2020

3

111 West 57th Street

435.3

1,428

82

2018 (continued)

464

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.32 (continued) #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

4

432 Park Avenue

425.5

85

2015

5

30 Hudson Yards

386.6

1,268

73

2019

6

Empire State Building

381

1,250

102

1931

7

Bank of America Tower

365.8

1,200

55

2009

8

3 World Trade Center

328.9

1,079

69

2018

9

9 DeKalb Avenue

324.9

1,066

73

2020

10

53 West 53rd

320

1,050

77

2018

1,396

Table C.33 Chicago’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Willis Tower

442.1

1,451

108

1974

2

Trump International Hotel and Tower

423.2

1,389

98

2009

3

Vista Tower

361.6

1,186

98

2020

4

Aon Center

346.3

1,136

83

1973

5

John Hancock Center

343.7

1,128

100

1969

6

The Franklin—North Tower

306.9

1,007

60

1989

7

Two Prudential Plaza

303.3

995

64

1990

8

311 South Wacker Drive

292.9

961

65

1990

9

One Grant Park

270.4

887

76

2019

10

900 North Michigan Avenue

265

869

66

1989

Table C.34 Miami’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Panorama Tower

252.4

828

81

2017

2

Four Seasons Hotel and Tower

240.4

789

64

2003

3

Southeast Financial Center

232.8

764

55

1983

4

Brickell Flatiron

223.7

734

64

2019

5

One Thousand Museum

213.1

699

61

2018

6

Paramount Miami Worldcenter

213.1

699

55

2018

7

Marquis

207

679

63

2009

8

Wells Fargo Tower

199.5

655

47

2010

9

900 Biscayne Bay

198

650

63

2008

10

Elysee

197.8

649

57

2019

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

465

Table C.35 Philadelphia’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Comcast Technology Center

341.7

1,121

59

2018

2

Comcast Center

296.7

974

57

2008

3

One Liberty Place

288

945

61

1987

4

Two Liberty Place

258.5

848

58

1990

5

Mellon Bank Center

241.4

792

54

1990

6

Three Logan

225.3

739

55

1991

7

FMC Tower at Cira Centre South

222.5

730

49

2017

8

G. Fred DiBona Jr. Building

190.5

625

45

1990

9

The W Philadelphia and Element Philadelphia

188

617

51

2018

10

Commerce Square #1

174.4

572

41

1987

Table C.36 San Francisco’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

1 2

Completion

Salesforce Tower

326.1

1,070

61

2018

Transamerica Pyramid

260

853

48

1972

3

181 Fremont

244.4

802

54

2017

4

555 California Street

237.4

779

52

1969

5

345 California Center

211.8

695

48

1986

6

Millennium Tower

196.6

645

58

2009

7

Park Tower at Transbay

184.5

605

43

2018

8

One Rincon Hill South Tower

184.4

605

54

2008

9

01 California Street

183

600

48

1982

10

50 Fremont Center

183

600

43

1985

Table C.37 Toronto’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

First Canadian Place

298.1

978

72

1975

2

Trump International Hotel & Tower Toronto

276.9

908

63

2012

3

Scotia Tower

275

902

68

1988

4

Aura at College Park

271.9

892

78

2014

5

Brookfield Place

260.9

856

53

1990

6

One Bloor Street East

257.3

844

75

2017

7

Commerce Court West

239

784

57

1973

8

ÏCE Condominiums at York Centre 2

234.1

768

67

2015

9

Harbour Plaza Residences East

233

764

66

2017

10

Eau de Soleil Sky Tower

228.2

749

66

2018

466

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.38 Vancouver’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Shangri-La Vancouver

200.9

659

59

2009

2

Trump International Hotel and Tower Vancouver

187.8

616

63

2016

3

TELUS Garden Residential Tower

167

548

47

2016

4

Hotel Georgia

158.4

520

50

2012

5

Vancouver House

150.3

493

49

2018

6

One Wall Centre

149.8

491

48

2001

7

Shaw Tower

149

489

41

2004

8

Harbour Centre

147

482

28

1977

9

MNP Tower

143.1

469

35

2015

10

The Melville

141.4

464

41

2007

Table C.39 Calgary’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Brookfield Place Tower One

247

810

56

2017

2

The Bow

237.4

779

57

2012

3

Telus Sky

222.3

729

59

2018

4

Suncor Energy Centre I

215.2

706

53

1984

5

Eighth Avenue Place East Tower

212.3

696

49

2011

6

Bankers Hall East Tower

197

646

52

1989

7

Bankers Hall West Tower

197

646

52

2000

8

Centennial Place I

182.6

599

40

2010

9

Canterra Tower

177

581

45

1988

10

TransCanada Tower

177

581

38

2001

South America See Tables C.56, C.57, C.58, C.59 and C.60 Table C.40 Oceania’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Australia 108

Melbourne (AU)

317

1,039

100

2020

2

Crown Sydney Hotel and Resort

Sydney (AU)

271

890

75

2019

3

Brisbane Skytower

Brisbane (AU)

270

887

89

2018

4

Aurora Melbourne Central Melbourne (AU)

269

881

88

2019 (continued)

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

467

Table C.40 (continued) #

Building Name

5

300 George Street Tower 1 Brisbane (AU)

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

262

81

2018

6

1 William Street

Brisbane (AU)

260

852

46

2017

7

Prima Pearl Apartments

Melbourne (AU)

254

833

72

2014

8

Infinity

Brisbane (AU)

249

817

81

2014

9

Victoria One

Melbourne (AU)

246

806

75

2018

10

Soleil

Brisbane (AU)

243

797

79

2012

860

Table 41 Sydney’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Crown Sydney Hotel and Resort

271.3

75

2019

2

Chifley Tower

244

801

50

1992

3

Citigroup Centre

243

797

50

2000

4

Deutsche Bank Place

240

787

39

2005

5

Sydney Greenland Centre

236.5

776

68

2019

6

World Tower

230

755

73

2004

7

MLC Centre

228

748

60

1977

8

Governor Phillip Tower

227

745

54

1993

9

Ernst and Young Tower at Latitude

222

728

45

2004

10

Aurora Place

218.9

718

41

2000

890

Table C.42 Melbourne’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Australia 108

316.7

1,039

100

2020

2

Eureka Tower

297.3

975

91

2006

3

Aurora Melbourne Central

268.5

881

84

2019

4

120 Collins Street

264.9

869

52

1991

5

101 Collins Street

260

853

50

1991

6

Prima Pearl Apartments

254

833

72

2014

7

Rialto Towers

251.1

824

63

1986

8

Premier Tower

249

817

78

2020

9

Victoria One

245.7

806

75

2018

10

Swanston Central

236.7

777

71

2019

468

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.43 Gold Coast’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Q1 Tower

322.5

1,058

78

2005

2

Spirit

298.3

979

89

2019

3

Soul

242.6

796

76

2012

4

Circle on Cavill North Tower

219.5

720

70

2007

5

Hilton Surfers Hotel and Residences Orchid Tower

187.9

616

58

2011

6

Sundale Apartments

179.6

589

55

2016

7

Wanda Ridong Hotel

170

558

48

2018

8

The Oracle Beach Tower

165.2

542

50

2011

9

Circle on Cavill South Tower

158

518

50

2006

9

Skyline North Tower

158

518

50

2004

Table C.44 Perth’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Central Park Tower

249

817

52

1992

2

Brookfield Place

234.4

769

45

2012

3

BankWest Tower

214

702

52

1988

4

QV1 Tower

162.6

533

38

1991

5

Kings Square VI Tower A

162

531

49

2018

6

Capital Square Tower II

155

509

45

2018

7

David Malcolm Justice Centre

149

489

35

2015

8

Exchange Plaza

146

479

40

1992

9

Kings Square VI Tower B

144

472

43

2018

10

St. Martins Tower

140

459

33

1977

Table C.45 Brisbane’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

1

Brisbane Skytower

270.3

2

The One

263.5

865

82

2018

3

1 William Street

259.8

852

46

2016

4

Infinity

249

817

81

2014

5

Soleil

243

797

79

2012

6

Aurora

207

679

69

2006

7

Riparian Plaza

200

656

53

2005

8

One Eagle Street

194.7

639

48

2012

9

300 George Street

182.2

598

41

2018

10

Central Plaza One

174

571

44

1988

887

Floors

Completion

89

2018

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

469

Central America See Tables C.61, C.62 and C.63. Table C.46 Middle East’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

1

Jeddah

Towera

Jeddah (SA)

1,000

3,281

167

2020

2

Burj Khalifa

Dubai (AE)

828

2,717

163

2010

3

Makkah Royal Clock Tower

Mecca (SA)

601

1,972

120

2012

4

Entisar Tower

Dubai (AE)

520

1,706

111

2020

5

Marina 106

Dubai (AE)

445

1,460

104

2019

6

Diamond Tower

Jeddah (SA)

432

1,417

93

2019

7

Marina 101

Dubai (AE)

427

1,399

101

2017

8

Princess Tower

Dubai (AE)

413

1,356

101

2012

9

Al Hamra Tower

Kuwait City (KW)

413

1,354

80

2011

10

23 Marina

Dubai (AE)

392

1,287

88

2012

a Construction

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

is on hold

Table C.47 Dubai’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Burj Khalifa

828

2,717

163

2010

2

Marina 101

425

1,394

101

2017

3

Princess Tower

413.4

1,356

101

2012

4

23 Marina

392.4

1,287

88

2012

5

Elite Residence

380.5

1,248

87

2012

6

Address Boulevard

368

1,207

72

2017

7

Almas Tower

360

1,181

68

2008

8

S Residence by Immo

356

1,168

80

2020

9

JW Marriott Marquis Hotel Dubai Tower 1

355.4

1,166

82

2012

9

JW Marriott Marquis Hotel Dubai Tower 2

355.4

1,166

82

2013

Table C.48 Abu Dhabi’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Burj Mohammed Bin Rashid

381.2

1,251

88

2014

2

ADNOC Headquarters

342

1,122

65

2015

3

The Landmark

324

1,063

72

2013 (continued)

470

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.48 (continued) #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

4

Etihad Towers T2

305.3

80

2011

5

Sky Tower

292.2

74

2010

6

City of Lights C1 Tower

282.1

926

62

2015

7

Etihad Towers T1

277.6

911

69

2011

8

World Trade Center Abu Dhabi—The Offices

276.6

907

60

2014

9

Nation Towers Residential Lofts

268

879

64

2012

10

Etihad Towers T3

260.3

854

60

2011

1,002 959

Table C.49 Doha’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Aspire Tower

300

984

36

2007

2

Kempinski Residences and Suites

253.3

831

64

2009

3

Palm Tower 1

244.4

802

58

2011

3

Palm Tower 2

244.4

802

58

2011

5

World Trade Center Doha

241.1

791

51

2013

6

Doha Tower

238.1

781

46

2012

7

Hilton Double Tree Sinyar Tower

230

755

53

2016

8

Al Faisal Tower

227

745

54

2011

9

Al Asmakh Tower

227

745

34

2017

10

Qatar Petroleum District Tower 7

222.8

731

47

2016

Table C.50 Jeddah’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors Completion

1

Jeddah Tower

1000 3,281 167

2020

2

Diamond Tower

432

1,417 93

2019

3

Lamar Tower 1

322

1,056 70

2018

4

Lamar Tower 2

293

961

62

2018

5

Kempinski Hotel

260

853

69

–

6

Aqua Tower

251

823

59

2018

7

Sail Tower

240

787

64

2018

8

The Headquarters Business Park

235.9 774

55

2015

9

Golden Tower

219

719

48

2018

10 Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry Expansion 190

623

38

2017

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

471

Table C.51 Mecca’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Makkah Royal Clock Tower

601

1,972

120

2012

2

Abraj Al Bait ZamZam Tower

279

915

58

2012

3

Abraj Al Bait Hajar Tower

276

906

54

2012

4

Abraj Al Bait Maqam Tower

232.4

762

61

2012

5

Abraj Al Bait Qibla Tower

232.4

762

61

2012

6

Abraj Al Bait Marwah Tower

232

761

46

2008

7

Abraj Al Bait Safa Tower

232

761

46

2007

8

Abraj Kudai T6A and T6B

230

755

45

–

9

Jabal Omar Hotel Tower 1

212.7

698

50

2018

9

Jabal Omar Hotel Tower 2

212.7

698

50

2018

Table C.52 Riyadh’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Capital Market Authority Tower

385

1,263

76

2018

2

Burj Rafal

307.9

1,010

68

2014

3

KAFD World Trade Center

304

997

67

2017

4

Kingdom Centre

302.3

992

41

2002

5

Al Faisaliah Center

266.9

876

30

2000

6

GCC Bank Headquarters

264

866

53

2017

7

Tamkeen Tower

258.2

847

58

2012

8

Al Majdoul Tower

232

761

54

2017

9

Samba Bank HQ Tower

231.1

758

39

2017

10

Rafal Living Tower

213

699

62

2019

Table C.53 Kuwait’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Al Hamra Tower

412.6

1,354

80

2011

2

Arraya Tower

300

984

60

2009

3

NBK Tower

300

984

59

2018

4

Kipco Tower

240

787

60

2011

5

Crystal Tower

240

787

52

2014

6

Central Bank of Kuwait

240

787

42

2016

7

Kuwait Investment Authority Headquarters

220

722

50

2017

8

Al Tijaria Tower

218.2

716

41

2009

9

Burj Alshaya

205

673

45

2017

10

Abdul Aziz Al Babtain Cultural WAQF

188.8

619

42

2010

472

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.54 Tel Aviv’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Azrieli Sarona

238

53

2017

2

Midtown Office Tower

196

643

50

2017

3

Midtown Residential Tower

196

643

50

2017

4

Azrieli Center Circular Tower

187

614

49

1999

5

Azrieli Center Triangular Tower

169

554

46

1999

6

Electra Tower

168.9

554

45

2011

7

Alon Tower A

161.6

530

42

2017

7

Alon Tower B

161.6

530

42

2017

9

Sitonai Market Tower II

160

525

48

2018

10

Sitonai Market Tower I

160

525

45

2018

781

Table C.55 Beirut’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Sama Beirut

195.2

640

52

2017

2

Sky Gate

180.4

592

42

2016

3

Marina Tower

149

489

29

2006

4

Quasar Saifi 450

138.4

454

38

–

5

Habtoor Grand Hotel Convention Center and Spa

130

427

30

2005

6

Bay Tower

125

410

30

2011

7

Platinum Tower

120

394

34

2009

8

Four Seasons Hotel

120

394

26

2009

9

Beirut Terraces

119.6

392

27

2017

10

Hosn 440

113

371

27

2010

Africa See Tables C.64 and C.65. Table C.56 South America’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Torre Costanera

Santiago (CL)

300

984

62

2014

2

Yachthouse Residence Balneario Club by Pininfarina Camboriu (BR) Tower 1

270

886

75

2018

3

Yachthouse Residence Balneario Club by Pininfarina Camboriu (BR) Tower 2

270

886

75

2018

(continued)

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

473

Table C.56 (continued) #

Building Name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

4

One Tower

Balneario Camboriu (BR)

263

863

77

2022

5

BD Bacata Torre 1

Bogota (CO)

260

853

67

2017

6

La Isla Multiespacio Torre Officinas

Valencia (VE)

244

800

55

2017

7

Infinity Coast Tower

Balneario Camboriu (BR)

237

778

66

2017

8

Alvear Tower Puerto Madero

Buenos Aires (AR)

235

771

54

2017

9

Parque Central Torre Officinas I

Caracas (VE)

225

738

56

1979

10

Parque Central Torre Officinas II

Caracas (VE)

225

738

56

1983

Table C.57 Santiago’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Torre Costanera

300

984

62

2014

2

Titanium La Portada

195

640

55

2010

3

Torre Telefónica Chile

143

469

34

1996

4

Boulevard Kennedy and Santiago Marriott

129.9

426

40

1999

5

El Bosque 500

120

394

24

2002

6

Isidora 3000

118

387

31

2008

7

Costanera Hotel

112.7

370

28

2012

8

Torre Centenario

112

367

31

2000

9

Edificio de la Industria

110

361

32

1994

10

Edificio Millenium

110

361

31

2000

Table C.58 Buenos Aires’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Alvear Tower Puerto Madero

235

771

54

2017

2

Harbour Tower

180

591

50

2018

3

Torre Cavia

172.8

567

44

2009

4

Torre Renoir 2

171.8

564

51

2012

5

Torre El Faro I

170.1

558

46

2003

6

Torre El Faro II

170.1

558

46

2005 (continued)

474

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.58 (continued) #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

7

Mulieris Torre Norte

161.4

530

45

2009

7

Mulieris Torre Sur

161.4

530

45

2009

9

Torre Repsol YPF

160

525

36

2008

10

Torre Le Parc

157.9

518

51

1996

Table C.59 São Paulo’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Palácio W. Zarzur

170

2

Edificio Italia

165

558

51

1967

541

46

3

Altino Arantes

1965

161

528

36

1947

4 5

Torre Norte

158

518

38

1999

Begonias

157.9

518

41

2008

5

Ipes

157.9

518

41

2009

5

Jabuticabeiras

157.9

518

41

2008

5

Limantos

157.9

518

41

2011

5

Magnolias

157.9

518

41

2008

5

Reseda

157.9

518

41

2008

Table C.60 Balneario Camboriu’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft) Floors

Completion

1

Yachthouse Residence Club by Pininfarina Tower 1

271.4

890

81

2019

2

Yachthouse Residence Club by Pininfarina Tower 2

271.4

890

81

2019

3

Infinity Coast Tower

237

778

66

2018

4

Epic Tower

209

686

55

2018

5

Millennium Palace

177.3

582

46

2014

6

Edifício Pharos

177

581

48

2020

7

Splendido

176

577

50

2018

8

Splendia Tower

175

574

43

–

9

Alameda Jardins Residence

174

571

45

2015

10

Serendipity Village

169

554

50

–

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

475

Table C.61 Central America’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower

Panama City (PA)

284

932

70

2011

2

Torre Vitri

Panama City (PA)

281

921

75

2012

3

Torre Koi

Monterrey (MX)

279

916

67

2017

4

Torre Mitikah

Mexico City (MX)

267

877

62

–

5

Bicsa Financial Center

Panama City (PA)

267

876

66

2013

6

The Point

Panama City (PA)

266

873

67

2011

7

YooPanama Inspired by Starck Panama City (PA)

247

810

78

2013

8

Torre Reforma

Mexico City (MX)

246

807

56

2016

9

Ocean Two

Panama City (PA)

246

806

73

2010

10

Pearl Tower

Panama City (PA)

242

794

70

2011

Table C.62 Panama City’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft) Floors

Completion

1

Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower

284

932

70

2011

2

Torre Vitri

280.7

921

75

2012

3

Bicsa Financial Center

267

876

66

2013

4

The Point

266

873

67

2011

5

YooPanama Inspired by Starck

246.8

810

78

2013

6

Ocean Two

245.7

806

73

2010

7

Pearl Tower

242.1

794

70

2011

8

Rivage

233.2

765

70

2012

9

F&F Tower

232.7

763

53

2011

10

Torre Waters

232

761

69

2011

Table C.63 Mexico City’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Torre Mitikah

267.3

62

–

2

Torre Reforma

246

807

56

2016

3

Chapultepec Uno

241

791

59

2018

877

(continued)

476

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

Table C.63 (continued) #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

4

Torre BBVA Bancomer

234.9

771

50

2015

5

Torre Paradox

234

768

62

2017

6

Torre Mayor

225

738

55

2003

7

Torre Ejecutiva Pemex

211.3

693

51

1984

8

Torre Altus

195

640

44

1999

9

Torre Reforma Latino

185

607

46

2016

10

Torre Latinoamerica

182

597

45

1956

Table C.64 Africa’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

City

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Carlton Centre

Johannesburg (ZA)

223

730

50

1973

2

Britam Tower

Nairobi (KE)

3

Commercial Bank of Ethiopia

Addis Ababa (ET)

200

656

33

2017

198

650

46

2018

4

The Leonardo

Sandton (ZA)

188

617

48

2018

5

Ponte Tower

Johannesburg (ZA)

173

567

54

1975

6

JW Marriott Hotel

Casablanca (MA)

167

548

42

2017

7

UAP Old Mutual Tower

Nairobi (KE)

163

535

33

2016

8

NECOM House

Lagos (NG)

160

526

32

1979

9

Abuja World Trade Center Hotel Tower

Abuja (NG)

158

518

37

–

10

PSPF Commercial Tower A Dar es Salaam (TZ)

153

501

35

2014

Table C.65 Nairobi’s ten tallest buildings in 2020 #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

1

Britam Tower

200

656

31

2017

2

UAP Old Mutual Tower

163

535

33

2016

3

Times Tower

140

459

38

2000

4

Prism Tower

133

436

34

2018

5

Teleposta Towers

120

394

27

1999 (continued)

Appendix C: World’s Tallest Buildings

477

Table C.65 (continued) #

Building Name

Height (m/ft)

Floors

Completion

6

Kenya Commercial Bank Plaza

109

358

24

2015

7

Kenyatta International Conference Centre

105

345

32

1974

8

Social Security House

102

337

28

1973

9

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

10

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.