New projects in Monroe North

[GR_Urbanist]

Through a dirty lens, I managed to snag a photo of the control car as they were driving it by Leonard and Monroe.

 

[MJLO]

This is pretty cool.  I hope the crane at Warner tower goes up soon, It'll be nice to have 3 going.

[GVSUChris]

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. 

 

 

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

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

[crinzema]

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 September 27, 2017 by crinzema

[The ATX]

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?

[GRDadof3]

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.

 

[GRDadof3]

13 hours ago, crinzema said:

These are great by the way. Go TEAM UP-GR!!

[MJLO]

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.

[GRDadof3]

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). 

[WMrapids]

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...

[Quercus]

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!

[elcelc]

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.

[torgo]

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

[elcelc]

Gettin' close...

[WMrapids]

1 hour ago, elcelc said:

Gettin' close...

Looked to be done as I just drove by.

[GRDadof3]

3 hours ago, elcelc said:

Gettin' close...

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

 

 

 

 

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:

[WMrapids]

[WMrapids]

On 10/4/2017 at 1:48 PM, WMrapids said:

[TheSutterKing]

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 October 19, 2017 by TheSutterKing

[joeDowntown]

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

[mpchicago]

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?

[joeDowntown]

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

[GRDadof3]

The Embassy Suites hotel is almost up to the top floor, I noticed today. 1 maybe 2 floors to go? Not the whole thing, just the South end. 

[elcelc]

Embassy Suites front and back...   And starting to pour the parking ramp on Icon II

[WMrapids]

On 10/4/2017 at 1:48 PM, WMrapids said:

 

On 10/18/2017 at 8:43 PM, WMrapids said: