GRDadof3

New projects in Monroe North

Recommended Posts

I got similar pics from just 30 minutes or so ago. Even got out my "real" camera this time, which I haven't done in a while.

36630116174_ab874532b1_b.jpg

 

23488089288_fcdbea4548_b.jpg

 

23488090398_7b71b62597_b.jpg

 

23488091778_c84598a95e_b.jpg

 

23488094348_41c934489e_b.jpg

 

36630120014_a7636e86fb_b.jpg

 

 

23488102228_e64b50c98d_b.jpg

 

 

23488103668_6e3393f462_b.jpg

 

In this picture you can make out the nice scratch my daughter put in my 18-55mm lens. :P

36670042063_8f56e764f6_b.jpg

 

23488106788_b6a9251a6c_b.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If 601 Bond turns out to be 272' feet tall like this drawing shows, that will put it at the same height as Bridgewater Place. They will very likely be adding more crane sections as they go. 

22414112784_5f304e0017_b.jpg&key=2c785b9

 

 

Icon I is only 108' tall, so this would be 2.5x taller. Conservatively...

59cad1bfc55da_601bondwire.thumb.jpg.62f98353201ac41a24baf3f3a8d38f66.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

If 601 Bond turns out to be 272' feet tall like this drawing shows, that will put it at the same height as Bridgewater Place. They will very likely be adding more crane sections as they go. 

22414112784_5f304e0017_b.jpg&key=2c785b9

 

 

Icon I is only 108' tall, so this would be 2.5x taller. Conservatively...

59cad1bfc55da_601bondwire.thumb.jpg.62f98353201ac41a24baf3f3a8d38f66.jpg

So I'm confused - is it 272 or 172? In the drawing it starts at 100' at ground level - weird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be 172 ft. I also think that representation of the height of the building show with red lines is dramatically incorrect. It's more accurate to say the height will be as tall as where that dark green crane's joint, for a lack of a better term, is. To prove my point, they don't make cranes shorter than the buildings they construct. 

Edited by crinzema
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GVSUChris said:

So I'm confused - is it 272 or 172? In the drawing it starts at 100' at ground level - weird. 

Most elevations that I've looked at seem to start at 100'.  I don't know the reason though.

1 hour ago, crinzema said:

It's going to be 172 ft. I also think that representation of the height of the building show with red lines is dramatically incorrect. It's more accurate to say the height will be as tall as where that dark green crane's joint, for a lack of a better term, is. To prove my point, they don't make cranes shorter than the buildings they construct. 

But tower cranes are raised as buildings go up of course.  Maybe they are planning on a jump later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, crinzema said:

It's going to be 172 ft. I also think that representation of the height of the building show with red lines is dramatically incorrect. It's more accurate to say the height will be as tall as where that dark green crane's joint, for a lack of a better term, is. To prove my point, they don't make cranes shorter than the buildings they construct. 

Actually they do crinzema, they did with River House. It started around 150' feet and then the crane then added onto itself. There isn't a boom crane tall enough to build a 400 foot tall tower crane. :)

But everyone is correct, I missed that the base starts at 100' (above sea level?), so my red wire drawing is way off.  Actually it's not way off, 601 Bond will come in just under the tower crane cab where it sits now. Correcting! But you are correct crinzema, it hits right about at the joint of the green crane.

I was actually thinking that a big brown brick apartment building as tall as Bridgewater would look a bit strange. :) New York 1970's borough-esque.

59cb94bdddf0a_601Bondwiredrawing2.thumb.jpg.bdf61f8777cf14f57d305a1673984e10.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was out enjoying the air last night and noticed how prominent these were from a couple of angles.  North Monroe looks like crane city from the pedestrian bridge by the Ford Museum.

37094503980_a9b6d1169b_z.jpg

37094503780_b6b88ee108_z.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that you can see the new crane when you're driving into downtown on I-196 Westbound. Way out by Fuller, that's how tall it reaches (over the trees). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I was actually thinking that a big brown brick apartment building as tall as Bridgewater would look a bit strange. :) New York 1970's borough-esque.

As soon as you said that I thought of the old Watermark Place renderings. I can’t find them anymore though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The ATX said:

Most elevations that I've looked at seem to start at 100'.  I don't know the reason though.

I've never received a great explanation for this, just something along the lines of "no one likes to see negative elevation numbers" or "it's so the subterranean floor and footings aren't less than zero."

Maybe early drafting programs struggled with negative integers or something? Starting at 100' has probably generated a lot of excitement for projects over the years!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Quercus said:

I've never received a great explanation for this, just something along the lines of "no one likes to see negative elevation numbers" or "it's so the subterranean floor and footings aren't less than zero."

Maybe early drafting programs struggled with negative integers or something? Starting at 100' has probably generated a lot of excitement for projects over the years!

Naw.  Even with hand drafting, 100' was often the base elevation.  0'-0" sometimes and even in rare cases it was USGS - 674.81' instead of 100'-0".  It's just easier to figure heights and elevations when all your numbers are positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, elcelc said:

Gettin' close...

59cd41db48134_20170928_131158(Large).thumb.jpg.f26e2ef936c38e04b2401649004601ed.jpg59cd41e04e33b_20170928_131301(Large).thumb.jpg.a12064c53f52fd2ed4244530ae6d425e.jpg59cd41e82b9b2_20170928_131521(Large).thumb.jpg.ecc1393097404a200e377ad8ac3e4cbd.jpg59cd41ee663a6_20170928_131740(Large).thumb.jpg.a9286957007b79ef5cc857f4067d2c4f.jpg

You and me elcelc, I'm surprised we haven't run into each other. 

37122560070_28a3284013_h.jpg

 

37122559610_443d020e64_h.jpg

 

37122556990_b9ef92335c_h.jpg

 

 

4 hours ago, torgo said:

That green crane they are using to build the tower crane is friggin' yuge.

Massive! Even when it's folded up:

37122558860_ee8160d44e_o.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm liking what I'm seeing for Monroe North, but if I was in charge of the city planning I would try to connect Belknap Lookout with Monroe North by road by extending Fairbanks street to Division and doing a similar connection like the California incline in Santa Monica. Just redo the stairs to Division to go around the road and take out some trees to make it happen. It could go down to Newberry St and connect with that road and have an intersection there. 

Just an idea, if there's anyone in charge of these things that's listening .

Edited by TheSutterKing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheSutterKing said:

I'm liking what I'm seeing for Monroe North, but if I was in charge of the city planning I would try to connect Belknap Lookout with Monroe North by road by extending Fairbanks street to Division and doing a similar connection like the California incline in Santa Monica. Just redo the stairs to Division to go around the road and take out some trees to make it happen. It could go down to Newberry St and connect with that road and have an intersection there. 

Just an idea, if there's anyone in charge of these things that's listening .

I think part of that land is earmarked for an off ramp (northbound to Division / Plainfield) as part of the 196 construction going on. Or did I make that up. :)

Joe

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a similar subject, I remember the area master plan called for rebuilding one set of stairs, but then I also recall some sort of ramp/stair being built near Hastings and Coit?   Did I make that up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mpchicago said:

On a similar subject, I remember the area master plan called for rebuilding one set of stairs, but then I also recall some sort of ramp/stair being built near Hastings and Coit?   Did I make that up?

I don't think you're making it up. :) . There is a little "bump out" on Hastings (right above the Belknap mural) that is supposedly the start of the ramp/stairs/walkway. They might be waiting to do everything at once?

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.