CHICAGO | Grant Park 3 & 4 | (3) 790' - 73 FLOORS | (4) 900' - 83 FLOORS NEVER BUILT

[samoen313]

I showed the rendering to a few of my other friends and between us all we have at least 10 degrees in art, architecture or urban planning and generally we all thought the building was pretty cool. It's no tribune building, but again residential buildings are usually nothing special.

And i think it is terribly misguided to hope that a 50+ story residential building doesn't get built just so we can hope for a better design. The positive impact all those new residents will have would justify the ugliest building out there.

Not that these two are mutually exclusive, but sometimes i think chicago gets too wrapped up in trying to look like a great city rather than simply being a great city.

it is all truly a matter of taste. my critique of it from an architectural standpoint is that because of its material inadequacy and weird proportions, i feel like the design process consisted of a bunch of guys sitting around saying things like:

"wouldn't it look cool if we did this?"
"we should add another curve there. that would look pretty cool."
"which color should we make it? i think blue would look cool, but green could look pretty interesting too."
"it's kind of boxy right here. what shape do you think we could make it so it would look cooler?"

etc.
i have yet to see any hard evidence that the main design goal of this building was anything besides making something tall with curves so that it would tie in loosely with omp and ompw, but to use forms that hadn't yet been used on the previous two buildings. that is my assessment. if there was something more intelligent going on in design, you can make me eat my words until i die like the glutton in se7en. for a purely aesthetic standpoint, it's just very forgettable. top heavy and forgettable. but i know there are lots of folk that like it. i like museum plaza in louisville and from that i know i'm often in the minority on an opinion of a building.

also, i hope this thing gets built by all means. even with the so-so design, the only factor that would make me stand in front of a bulldozer would be if it was done by lagrange and had beige pre-cast cladding. i was more saying, if the housing market does put a damper on this thing temporarily (i doubt that even with a slowdown in the market, they would cancel this and never revive any plans, they'd probably just give the market a year or two to smooth out its feathers before going ahead) perhaps this could get a tweaked or substantially altered design for the better.

[honte]

^ Don't you think it's probably view-driven, like Aqua? The views from those crazy cantilevers are going to be pretty interesting.

Just playing devil's advocate: Obviously, if this were their motivation, they did it much less rigorously than Studio Gang. And I agree 100% that the design feels slapped-together and interested in a "wow factor" more so than overall composition.

[Tom Servo]

"wouldn't it look cool if we did this?"
"we should add another curve there. that would look pretty cool."
"which color should we make it? i think blue would look cool, but green could look pretty interesting too."
"it's kind of boxy right here. what shape do you think we could make it so it would look cooler?"


:haha: you rule.

[James2390]

This is a great building, though it's a little too "different" for my tastes. It's still a fantastic addition to the Chicago skyline, however.

[Alliance]

^ Don't you think it's probably view-driven, like Aqua? The views from those crazy cantilevers are going to be pretty interesting.

Just playing devil's advocate: Obviously, if this were their motivation, they did it much less rigorously than Studio Gang. And I agree 100% that the design feels slapped-together and interested in a "wow factor" more so than overall composition.

This was not the case. All the balconies are simply staggered horizontally, they remain in the same vertical columns, hence no variation in the views. Also, Aqua is surrounded by tall buildings. GP3 is ON the park.

:haha: you rule.

Yes. Its exactly why this building is not cohesive, lacks direction, and should be drastically redesigned.

[honte]

This was not the case. All the balconies are simply staggered horizontally, they remain in the same vertical columns, hence no variation in the views. Also, Aqua is surrounded by tall buildings. GP3 is ON the park.

No, to make a 1:1 comparison to Aqua wasn't the point. I wasn't talking about balconies or views around buildings. The idea of my post was that the cantilevers allow side-facing units to project outward, giving them unique vantages. The might be particularly useful for the high floors that have east-facing units, to give them better views of the park. It's not a great justification, but I think the designers could make that argument.

[Juan_M2118]

so are these towers going up?

[intrepidDesign]

I think GP3 looks good, until you get about 1/3 the way up and the whole thing starts to bend out. It makes the whole thing look top heavy and visually encroaches on OMPW's space. I think this space would be better suited for a revived Park Michigan or Canyon Ranch.

[Metranite]

so are these towers going up?

Hopefully not. These prime locations should be saved until the next boom when maybe something better comes along.

[Siriusly]

Hopefully not. These prime locations should be saved until the next boom when maybe something better comes along.

Generally speaking, how long is it between booms, I just became a skyscraper enthusiast in 2004... Will it take decades?

[Nowhereman1280]

Real estate seems to run on a cycle of ~10 years... We are nearing the bottom of the trough, so in a year or two we will begin to see another torrent of new proposals and the likes, but until then it will be rough. Luckily we already have lots of new buildings under construction to watch!

[Siriusly]

Real estate seems to run on a cycle of ~10 years... We are nearing the bottom of the trough, so in a year or two we will begin to see another torrent of new proposals and the likes, but until then it will be rough. Luckily we already have lots of new buildings under construction to watch!

Thanks... When I first started lurking here in '04-'05 it seemed like there was a new proposal every day, It's been slow for the last year or so...

[Juan_M2118]

Hopefully not. These prime locations should be saved until the next boom when maybe something better comes along.

Well that's sad since i really like this building,, but if it takes about 3-5 years to propose something way better,, HECKKKK,, we can surely wait,, , the next boom, like someone said above, will be in a couple years, 2-5, but like that person said, we are very intertained by ALL OF THESE buildings going up already, bbut i guess we have to wait until the NEXT BIG THING is proposed, hopefully in less than 5 years, most likely less since i heard the economy could go GREATTT in a year or two...:tup: :tup:

[GregBear24]

I hope gp3 doesn't get built- it's a miserable design. We can still hold out some hope that gp4 will be good though, and hopefully a supertall. I assume you're talking about gp3, alliance, and I agree that it's awful. I don't mind ompw though, because it complements omp fairly well.

[Alliance]

Yeah. The massing of GP4 looks encouraging, but if they use the same dam glass styles again...

GP3 is a clear mistake, a Grand Plaza for the Park.

[The Pimp]

Well...thank god you're not building these projects. I like the designs and sincerely hope they get built.

[murdoc9]

Well...thank god you're not building these projects. I like the designs and sincerely hope they get built.

I agree with the pimp (I find myself saying that a lot in daily life). Anyways, I think this project is fantastic. The buildings are definitely very Dubaiesque, and although they would not be as fitting in the financial district, I think the location they picked is perfect for that style of design. I really like how it is stretching the skyline and when you are looking at it from the Shedd Aquarium or some other place further south it looks friggin huge. As far as hoping for something better if this falls through, I think you're going to be waiting for a long time. Projects of this magnitude, in locations such as this tend to get going just as the market starts to take a dump - as they are conceived at the peak of the cycle and reflect what is later seen as overconfidence in the market. Anyone know how many of the units have been sold yet? (I apologize if this was addressed some pages back, I haven't scrolled back all the pages)

[emathias]

Real estate seems to run on a cycle of ~10 years... We are nearing the bottom of the trough, so in a year or two we will begin to see another torrent of new proposals and the likes, but until then it will be rough. Luckily we already have lots of new buildings under construction to watch!

There are a lot of real estate cycles, and they don't necessarily run in sync with each other.

Residential boom/bust cycles seem to run in something around a 10-year cycle, trough-to-peak and vice-versa. This cycle will be a little different, because of the height of the peak, so I'd expect a deeper trough, and possibly a more drawn-out trough. I also don't think we're in the nadir of things yet - we're definitely headed into the trough, but I don't think we'll bottom out for another 12, maybe even 18 months. Others are more optimistic - I am not, because the fundamentals simply don't support optimism.

Commercial cycles are more linked to the overall economy, but they seem to run in cycles that are slightly longer than residential ones, maybe 12-15 year cycles.

Prior to the boom from about 2000-2007 (it ended last year, we just haven't finished building out what got started), the last boom ended in the early 1990s with the recession brought on by Gulf War I and compounded by the Russian debt crisis.

As the dust settles on this boom - and it will - I wouldn't expect to see Big Projects really get traction again for 4-8 years while we work our way through the nadir of the cycle.

In the case of Chicago, there are a few potential counterpoints worth mentioning, however:

1) The city center is reaching a critical mass of attraction on the residential front, possibly giving it the potential to continue to build out even as the overall regional market remains soft. Balancing against this is that if the City can't attract businesses to the Loop and Michigan Avenue employment districts, one big facet of the downtown attraction will diminish as area jobs dry up.

2) If Chicago were to win the Olympics, there would be additional investment downtown, and there would be a lot of free advertising involved, bolstering interest specifically in downtown for people new to the region. That additional draw could help keep downtown's market more stable than other parts of the area. This is balanced against the fact that it's still a BIG "if," and also against the fact that we have historic records worth of unsold inventory downtown still.

3) Since both of these sites are part of a long-term planned development, they could be (will be?) planned and ready to go as soon as the market is ready to absorb them. That would mean even if they didn't get started in this boom, they could be among the first new towers to be launched as the cycle begins to gear up again.

That's my 2 cents on boom cycles in Chicago real estate ... I'm not an expert, just an observant, self-educated on the subject resident with a vested interest in downtown residential real estate. :-)

[Chicagoguy]

So I have a few questions that I am curious to have answered. First, when is groundbreaking scheduled to begin on GP3? I have heard many rumors that they might break ground by years end or possibly beginning of 2009?

Also reguarding the park and covering the tracks, that has been something I have been encouraging friends in high places to fight for as well, I think make the park feel more like a park rather than skattered areas of grass and baseball fields would bring more attention to it. I think making it more dense with trees would also help its look. Does anyone know of nay updates on the park?

And Finally...everyone is talking as if the Park Michigan project is completely dead when last I heard there just had trouble with the company they hired to market and represent them and there is some lawsuit going on, but they are still going to try to continue on with selling of units and promoting the Park Michigan by the end of this year. This is one of my favorite projects and I truly think this one needs to get built. With the GP Towers being built there is going to be a large gape in the skyline from the sears tower to the Grant Park Towers...we need something there in the middle to help bridge the gap a little, otherwise when viewed from the east side is will not look at continuous.

[Chicagoguy]

I also wanted to add that I like the design for the south border of Grant Park, I like that they plan to light up the tops of the OMP. I think that GP3 would look so much better if they accented the edges at night with lighting almost like they do with the Smurfit-Stone Building, only running the lighting all the way down the sides. I think it would go great with the modern look that the south edge of Grant Park is going for.

[ardecila]

^^ Knowing the people at Pappageorge/Haymes, I'm sure they will do some sort of dramatic lighting on each of the Grant Park towers.

I don't think the lighting systems have been installed on OMP yet... that's probably a minor checklist item compared to all the plumbing, electrical, and drywall that has to be installed inside.

[Chicagoguy]

^^ Knowing the people at Pappageorge/Haymes, I'm sure they will do some sort of dramatic lighting on each of the Grant Park towers.

I don't think the lighting systems have been installed on OMP yet... that's probably a minor checklist item compared to all the plumbing, electrical, and drywall that has to be installed inside.

Yes I agree, I think they will wait until right before they are completely finished with the building before they install their lighting system. And I sure hope they do some dramatic lighting on the new towers as well!

[Nowhereman1280]

@ Emathias

I am well aware of the multiple different cycles of real estate and that they can be out of sync. However they tend to trend together since they are all reliant on one thing, capital (ease of Credit). Therefore real estate cycles tend to be inextricably linked to changes in credit availability and money supply.

However, you are right, Real Estate is a unieque good. Each piece of real estate has its own submarket and is completely different than any other piece of real estate. There are submarkets ranging from the world, to countries, to regions, to cities, to neighborhoods, to blocks, to buildings, all the way down to individual units. So obviously each submarket is going to fluctuate differently than the others. Take the Spire as an example, it is so extraordinary of a product that it can still sell when all the other markets are down. That is because the Spire is its own submarket for its own, completely unique, kick ass product... But even with all these subdivisions of subdivisions, they all still tend to trend together.

However, I still hold to my opinion that we are nearing the bottom of this bust, things will start picking up again at the end of this year, it won't be boom levels, but people will start buying again. By the end of 2009, we will probably be back to the average unit absorption rate.

[Chicagoguy]

Does anybody have a picture of the skyline with all of the future skyscrapers to come including these ones?

[Haworthia]

Does anybody have a picture of the skyline with all of the future skyscrapers to come including these ones?

You can find a few such pictures here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=144735

The only place I've seen rendering with the four Grant Park towers is here in this thread. Similar pictures have been posted in the Chicago Spire thread, Trump Tower (Chicago) Thread, and the Chicago Waldorf=Astoria Thread.

[Chicagoguy]

You can find a few such pictures here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=144735

The only place I've seen rendering with the four Grant Park towers is here in this thread. Similar pictures have been posted in the Chicago Spire thread, Trump Tower (Chicago) Thread, and the Chicago Waldorf=Astoria Thread.

Yea I love the renderings that he does, but none of them include any of the projects in the south loop. Those will be ones that change the skyline durastically and I would love to see what the skyline might look like once OMP, OMPW, GP3, GP4, Park Michigan, and Park 1000 are added to it! Those are going to be some great additions if we can just get them all built!

[SamInTheLoop]

I didn't think this actually needed to go before Plan Commission, as I thought there were only administrative changes involved, but towers 3 and 4 are on the Preliminary agenda for the meeting in a few weeks...

[Chicagoguy]

Im excited to see these ones in the future. There are good things to come in the South Loop!

[Alliance]

*groans* I was hoping these would have been killed.

[Chicagoguy]

*groans* I was hoping these would have been killed.

Why would you want these killed? They are going to add to our skyline tremdously! If only Park Michigan could gets its act together then the skyline would look more connected!

[Alliance]

I think GP3 is a monstrosity. My reasons for this have been documented.

[murdoc9]

I think GP3 is a monstrosity. My reasons for this have been documented.

have to disagree, I love this development. Also, last time I was up there anytime I talked to anyone about the construction in the city it was Grant Park that they were excited about. Trump - meh, Spire - never heard of it, but this was something people were excited about. One of my cabbies talked the whole ride about how sweet the buildings were.

Anyways, I understand my sample size is pretty small, but I think most people like the fact that the architecture is looking more futuristic. They don't want every building looking like it came from Dubai, but in moderation they are all for it.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Trump - meh, Spire - never heard of it

Obviously you weren't in Chicago.

[Alliance]

have to disagree, I love this development. Also, last time I was up there anytime I talked to anyone about the construction in the city it was Grant Park that they were excited about. Trump - meh, Spire - never heard of it, but this was something people were excited about. One of my cabbies talked the whole ride about how sweet the buildings were.

Anyways, I understand my sample size is pretty small, but I think most people like the fact that the architecture is looking more futuristic. They don't want every building looking like it came from Dubai, but in moderation they are all for it.

The development is great. The building sucks.

Moderation is the key, and it was not demonstrated. OMP pushed the limits as is. There is no variation in the development and GP3 clearly crosses all kind of lines.

[JMO_0121]

I think we all have to learn how to respect eachothers personal likings, but i honetly don't know how people don't appreciate Grant Park 3. The buildings is so different, odd, and weird that to me it looks awesome. It's like something you would see in Dubai, but with a taste of Chicago. The color, and the fact that (if built) it would be taller than One museum Park, I think people would look at it first. I imagine that when the Sears Tower, or Big John were in site prep many people disliked it, or even hated it. Today, they are the big ones in chicago, aren't they? IMO this building would make a huge impact on our skyline, and will be the threshold for "different" modernity in the city.

[Nowhereman1280]

I hate when people try and assign architecture to being "Chicago" or "not Chicago". It is truly a terrible way to rate the quality of a building. What makes a building Chicago anyhow? Big and Boxy and Modern? NO, Chicago is about having a immense variety of different styles and buildings, not just constantly building the same thing because we have some idea that everything we build has to be "Chicago"... If we did that with every building, every building in the city would a one room cottage, stretched to skyscraper proportions since we wouldn't change our architectural style at all...

[honte]

^ That's true. On the other hand, there are certain traditions here - not that everything has to conform to these, but they are worth noting and certainly are worth upholding/updating in some of the new projects.

I think the argument against GP3 that does make a lot of sense is that it seems to have no relation to its surroundings at all - even to the earlier towers adjacent, by the same firm.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Isn't that a good thing though? Weren't we just complaining that everything in Central Station is obviously by the same firm and looks too similar?

[JMO_0121]

I hate when people try and assign architecture to being "Chicago" or "not Chicago". It is truly a terrible way to rate the quality of a building. What makes a building Chicago anyhow? Big and Boxy and Modern? NO, Chicago is about having a immense variety of different styles and buildings, not just constantly building the same thing because we have some idea that everything we build has to be "Chicago"... If we did that with every building, every building in the city would a one room cottage, stretched to skyscraper proportions since we wouldn't change our architectural style at all...

I perfectly understand what your are trying to say, and i follow up on you. I think you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that we should not complaint about this building as much as some people here do. Ofcourse we can say that we dont like or or that we do, but if this building does get constructed, then chicago would have some different, not just the tall boxy skyscrapers chicago is full of. Please let others have their opinions, and A LOT of people say that many buildings "are ment to be in chicago" or " that looks like something chicago would have". Its just the huge influence that chicago has on the world. I LOVE this building, it would be something different that would not be covered by other buildings. People should stop saying that this building should die, or i hate it. We cannot always get what we want, and we need to understand a city includes the perfect, good, bad, ugly and horrible, otherwise this forum would not exist because we would not have anything to talk about. I hope this building gets built, it would honestly would be something different.

[honte]

^^^ Isn't that a good thing though? Weren't we just complaining that everything in Central Station is obviously by the same firm and looks too similar?


Of course, different is good. Out of place and showy, not so good. The funny thing about the design of OMP3 is that it's using the same tricks as OMP, but repackaged in an even stranger, look-at-me fashion. I guess you could say they changed the wrong things, IMO.

It's a huge dilemma whenever you are designing multiple buildings next to one another. How much should they look alike or relate, how much should they stand on their own? Even though I dislike the first Museum Park towers, I would say that they work together as a whole better, yet manage to maintain individual distinction.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Well this must be where our opinions simple differ in this case, I think Chicago needs a ridiculously showy and loud building or two. The only one I can think of that has any prominence at all is the CNA building, it needs a few other odd friends to help mix things up a bit. Hell I would even be willing to accept an AdrianXSands approved Will Aslop 50 story rag heap to achieve this.

GP3 could turn out really really cool, or it could bomb, or it could be average and just become one of those odd additions to the skyline that people don't really find attractive, but love anyhow because it spices things up. I'm going to bet on a little bit of the first, and a lot of the last...

Please let others have their opinions, and A LOT of people say that many buildings "are ment to be in chicago" or " that looks like something chicago would have". Its just the huge influence that chicago has on the world.

I know what you meant, I wasn't just targeting you, but ranting about the throngs of people who say that in all threads.

I disagree about letting people have this opinion. At first, I was really just attempting to warn of the dangers of this attitude, but upon further thought, I realize that it is just one of those arguments that is outright invalid. As much as I respect the sacred opinion, there are some opinions that are simply invalid because they are based on faulty reasoning or invalid arguments. The arguement that it is not Chicago is wrong because Chicago is constantly changing, so how could it not be Chicago?

Part of the point of discussion is to make arguments and critique other arguments to see what new things you can learn, I'm merely doing my part to challenge people to think beyond simple arguments they have accepted in the name of opinion.

[honte]

^ Is this the place for "ridiculously showy and loud"? Just curious. If you're going to do that, then they should resurrect the Frank Ghery tower they wanted to have - at least he was a pioneer in that category.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yes, I think this would be a good place for it, somewhere where it can be seen, just like CNA... Which Ghery Tower are you talking about? I think he would be another architect that I don't really personally like so much that could spice up the skyline...

[honte]

^ Unless I have risen to new levels of geekdom and had a vivid dream that I was on this forum, I believe I read here that Gehry had been originally hired to do GP3 before they realized the "numbers didn't work" to hire him.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Really? Man I wish that would have happened because I'm sure it would have been much more interesting than the current GP3. Anyone else heard this?

[samoen313]

I hadn't heard this but it doesn't surprise me. You'd be alarmed at the number of potential projects Gehry is presented with. But when you're in as powerful of a position as he is, he can play auctioneer with his services, asking for a gargantuan budget, a larger cut of the total cost (architects usually get 10% of the building cost), and, most importantly, creative freedom. If a developer is willing to pay for it, they'll get him, but few are prepared or financed well enough to contract him. Yet he still has no shortage of projects.

[Eventually...Chicago]

that central station thing, that's gp3 & gp4, right?

anyone have any inkling as to when they'll start to market these? i've stopped by the sales center and no one knows anything.

[SamInTheLoop]

that central station thing, that's gp3 & gp4, right?

anyone have any inkling as to when they'll start to market these? i've stopped by the sales center and no one knows anything.


I would expect Enterprise wants to make significantly more progress on sales on OMP West as well as construction progress (and probably have OMP E fully occupied), as well as have a better read on when the market will pick up again (at least it can't get much worse than it has been thus far in '08) before launching sales for the next tower - so I would be really surprised if it happened before January...

[Alliance]

Holy Agenda!

(Please don't approve GP3 *prays*)

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Holy Agenda!

(Please don't approve GP3 *prays*)

Even if it were approved, Alliance, wouldn't they, you know, take awhile to even start construction? A lot can happen between now and whenever that may be. For the sake of the south wall, I hope something does. :( :( :(

[BVictor1]

Thought this might interest some of you...

Dear South Loop Neighbor,

The City of Chicago Plan Commission is set to review Central Station Towers 3 & 4 on Thursday, June 19.

Last fall we discussed this project and you provided your feedback and conerns. We took that feedback to the Alderman and were told a Citizens Advisory Committee would be formed to review 2nd Ward projects in the future. It appears this project has not been reviewed nor your feedback taken into consideration.

It is a basic principle of urban design and city planning to avoid shadowing public space. The developer's own master plan and Planned Development ordinance promises not to shadow public or private open space, and sets a 400-foot height limit for this area. The Near South Community Plan, adopted in 2004, included the same height limit. Chicago's zoning ordinance forbids approval of a Planned Development that does not comply with adopted plans.

If you are concerned about the 780-foot and 900-foot towers proposed for Roosevelt Road between Indiana and Michigan Avenues, please contact Alderman Fioretti TODAY.

Urge him to remove the project from the Plan Commission Agenda and seek further public input. These buildings, as proposed, will significantly shadow Grant Park, Chicago's most significant open space. Most of the area south of 11th Street will be in dark shadow most of the year.

A letter has been posted to our website for your use:
www.southloopneighbors.org

Send your signed letter via fax and/or contact the Alderman's office directly at:

2nd Ward Office: 
Phone: (312) 263-9273

Fax: (312) 786-1736
City Hall Office 
(312) 744-6836

ACT TODAY!

Thank you ? Mike Kelly for South Loop Neighbors

[BVictor1]

Personally, I think we should do what he recommends...

ACT NOW!!!

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I would, but I'm not in his ward or anywhere near it. I'll shoot him an e-mail simply pointing out that its completely incorrect to say that avoiding shadows is a planning principle, please...

Also, you should all point out that a 780 or 900 foot building casts the same shadow as a 400 foot building when its in an east-west line next to three others that are 620' and taller...

These people are complete idiots and have no spacial perception at all... Come on you morons think before you spew forth your pathetic "ideas"...

[Alliance]

Is anyone planning on going to the meeting and loobying for an improvement of GP3?

[aaron38]

Is anyone planning on going to the meeting and loobying for an improvement of GP3?

It looks like the only "improvement" that will be lobbied for (by SLN anyway) is to lop off 400 feet.

[Alliance]

I hate to say it, but it might solve some of its issues. :yuck:

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ You don't seriously think that do you? You may not like the design, but its different and many others do, but what we can all agree on here is the need to ram these two buildings down these moronic NIMBY's throats...

[BVictor1]

^^^ I would, but I'm not in his ward or anywhere near it. I'll shoot him an e-mail simply pointing out that its completely incorrect to say that avoiding shadows is a planning principle, please...

Also, you should all point out that a 780 or 900 foot building casts the same shadow as a 400 foot building when its in an east-west line next to three others that are 620' and taller...

These people are complete idiots and have no spacial perception at all... Come on you morons think before you spew forth your pathetic "ideas"...

So what!

I don't live in his ward either, and i'm never quiet about things...

[BVictor1]

Unfortunately, the rainbow sherbert approach made me want to commit sucide and I had to stop. I can't bring myself to post it.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e399/delta2094/GP3-Edit.jpg

If you want the full version PM me.


Is anyone planning on going to the meeting and loobying for an improvement of GP3?

No, but I will be showing this image to encourage them to use a different tinted color glass. There's enough blue glass in that area already.

If anyone else wants to make up reasonable samples like the one above with different colors that could enahnce the design and area, post those modifications and put your signature on the bottom.

[Eventually...Chicago]

One other thing they fail to mention is the area that the shadows are cast upon are mostly train tracks and unused land. I'll give a call supporting the buildings.

Also, I did a quick calculation, someone check me on this:

Summer solstice:
sun altitude – 71.5 degrees
Shadow distance from base of 400’ building: 133’
Shadow distance from base of 900’ building: 301’


Winter solstice:
Sun altitude – 24.7 degrees
Shadow distance from base of 400’ building: 898’
Shadow distance from base of 900’ building: 2021’

So obviously in winter, when nothing grows and no one is outside, it sort of makes a difference. Although my calc’s did not take into account sky 55

In summer, the difference is 168 feet (slightly more earlier or later in the summer) Is that really all they’re fighting about? A few hundred feet of sun? They’ve got to have something better than that.

[BVictor1]

Hope you don't mind me using this info tomorrow

[Dr. Taco]

it doesn't matter what you say about the shadows because the issue was already addressed last fall! They had satellite photos of south GP at the most shadowy times of day from a day in each season. the winter was the worst, like you said, and you could even see how far out the shadows reached. Its true the shadows just aren't going to do enough, but if they ignored the reasoning then, I don't see any reason why they won't now. And I also don't think their bitching is going to make a difference.

However, BVic, I do think its a good idea to show them alliance's variance on the color. at least see what they think and how possibly willing they are for design change. I seem to recall the GP3 design being cheered at that meeting I went to, and the designers must have felt pretty good about themselves, but now we've had this change of heart. i dunno

[aaron38]

I hate to say it, but it might solve some of its issues. :yuck:

Be careful what you wish for. Right now we've got a tower that isn't painted concrete and doesn't have a blank wall parking podium. If they shorten it up, I'm afraid we'll get something that looks a lot like Michigan Marquee.

[Eventually...Chicago]

To be honest i can live with whatever color glass they want, i just want good ground level design. Lots of trees, no blank walls to walk against. I don't know if there is a less pedestrian friendly section of building than the blank dryvit wall on the south side of roosevelt just west of michigan. Except for that big brick wall on state in the gold coast, i think.

Oh yea, bvic, you're not allow to use my sun angle calculations, i only let people who actually contribute meaningful stuff to the forum use my posts ;)

[Alliance]

No, but I will be showing this image to encourage them to use a different tinted color glass. There's enough blue glass in that area already.


Please do. Clear glass would rock.

Be careful what you wish for. Right now we've got a tower that isn't painted concrete and doesn't have a blank wall parking podium. If they shorten it up, I'm afraid we'll get something that looks a lot like Michigan Marquee.

To me, just because a building is glassy doesn't mean its good. Keep in minf this is a permenant tower that will NEVER be obscured. OMP and OMPW are already whimsical and uncohesive. Its time for a change. By trying to be too different this building is the same. I've brought up LSE many times as an example of GOOD variation in a planned development. I see none of that in OMP.

At the current design, I'd rather see only the first 400 ft of the building built.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

To me, just because a building is glassy doesn't mean its good. Keep in minf this is a permenant tower that will NEVER be obscured. OMP and OMPW are already whimsical and uncohesive. Its time for a change. By trying to be too different this building is the same. I've brought up LSE many times as an example of GOOD variation in a planned development. I see none of that in OMP.

At the current design, I'd rather see only the first 400 ft of the building built.

OMP and OMPW work better as a duo than either does alone, IMO; OMPW blocks OMP's blunt, blocky western elevation. But I digress.

The design of GP3 just doesn't make any sense. It's just arbitrary curves. And what's with the floor plans? Some balconies are a lot smaller than others for no apparent reason. The form is just so irrational. And it's still on a podium.

Ultimately, I agree with Alliance. At least something half the size might allow future high rises to peak out behind it should anything ever be planned for that area. As it is now we have a stylized question mark -- fitting, I guess, if it were actually built.

[BVictor1]

Ultimately, I agree with Alliance. At least something half the size might allow future high rises to peak out behind it should anything ever be planned for that area. As it is now we have a stylized question mark -- fitting, I guess, if it were actually built.

There's no vacant land behind the site of GP Tower 3 & 4

I think that we also must remember that we don't necessarily want all of the buildings to be cohesive. I think that's the beauty of the Chicago skyline, dfferences in architectual detail and style even if the buildings use the same materials.

The building might be built on a podium like base, but remember, this will be active space. It won't be a blank uninviting blob.

[Alliance]

Well, it will be a blob on the park. An ugly blob.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. These buildings are already too cohesive. They try too had to be different. They all have radical curfed forms, all glass, and another element tacked on. Its pseudovariaton. Its a contrivance. I want variation too, but 4 exotic glass towers in a row form their own little island of glaring similarity in the sea of Chicago's diverse buildings. The glass is al treated the same way, as are the curves, the podiums, and the balconies. Even worse GP3 has no contextualism to its surroinding area.

Lakeshore east managed to give us more buildings with incredible amounts of variation that isn't forced or contrived. Look how different 340, Tides, Aqua, and Arquitectonica are. They're all modern towers, but they don't look like they're part of a deveopment. Thats not the case with the GP towers, all of which will be seen way past our lifetimes.

[intrepidDesign]

I'll play devils advocate for a moment and say, maybe with GP4 rendered, GP3 might make more sense (I doubt it) but who knows. All we have seen of GP4 is a ghost. It might compliment GP3 well... maybe...( :sly: but I doubt it).

[Nowhereman1280]

Well, it will be a blob on the park. An ugly blob.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. These buildings are already too cohesive. They try too had to be different. They all have radical curfed forms, all glass, and another element tacked on. Its pseudovariaton. Its a contrivance. I want variation too, but 4 exotic glass towers in a row form their own little island of glaring similarity in the sea of Chicago's diverse buildings. The glass is al treated the same way, as are the curves, the podiums, and the balconies. Even worse GP3 has no contextualism to its surroinding area.


A. How do you know that the glass on all three of these towers is treated the same when you have only seen what the glass actually looks like on one of them?

B. Contextualism is for pussies, this is Chicago, build first, the contextualism will follow (i.e. Sears and Hancock and soon to be CS)...

[BVictor1]

APPROVED

I gave the rendering to the members of the plan commission as well as the lawyer for the developer.

I didn't ask when they'd start marketing.

Of course, there was someone who spoke against this tower for reasons that I posted the other day.

[Alliance]

Thanks Vic.

[honte]

As much as I dislike the design for GP3, I am glad it was approved. It's not my taste, but it's not doing any real damage... and there are many people who will appreciate it.

Who knows, Alliance, it might get VE'ed into a common box. A lot of fancy plans in Chicago that get approved without sufficient means of oversight suddenly become "too expensive," as we're seeing with 444 Lake.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/1015762,CST-FIN-central20.article

Condo confidence
NEAR SOUTH SIDE |
Despite housing slowdown, developer says buyers still interested in Roosevelt Road high-rises

June 20, 2008Recommend

BY DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

Reports of the death of the housing market in Chicago have been greatly exaggerated, the developer of the Near South Side's largest new neighborhood said Thursday.

Gerald Fogelson said he's still selling condominiums in his Central Station development and he has enough confidence to lay the groundwork for two new high-rises worth about $800 million.

By the end of the year, Fogelson said, he expects to sell more than $400 million in condos for 2008, a pace he said is down slightly from prior years.

.........The commission agreed that a building Fogelson plans for the southwest corner of Roosevelt and Indiana can be 790 feet, or 73 stories vs. the current allowance of 620 feet. He said he will start marketing the units next year and hopes to break ground in late 2009...............

[Mojava]

Seems like a very aggressive schedule to start construction next year.

[BVictor1]

Seems like a very aggressive schedule to start construction next year.

more power to him

[Nowhereman1280]

I think this and W=A just show how much the press is over-exaggerating the current situation in the economy. The people who are actually selling the units still have confidence they can sell, not at the fire-sale rates of previous years, but at a normal rate. I would ignore 90% of the media panic surrounding the ecnonomy since we have basically just returned to market rate prices and a normal sales pace from 4 years ago...

Good news all around.

[Alliance]

Yes. Waldorf, Aquitectronica, and GP3 are all major tests of the State of Chicago's economy.

[MrLakepoint]

I think this and W=A just show how much the press is over-exaggerating the current situation in the economy. The people who are actually selling the units still have confidence they can sell, not at the fire-sale rates of previous years, but at a normal rate. I would ignore 90% of the media panic surrounding the ecnonomy since we have basically just returned to market rate prices and a normal sales pace from 4 years ago...

Good news all around.


Nowhere man,

You are correct about the 90% factor. The media is driving this doom and gloom factor because they want Obama in the white house. I think that they will sell this building pretty fast and I am glad to see that they approved it yesterday (Great news).
I actually like the design, it is modern and unique and it will help define the south wall with a modern flare.

[Chicagoguy]

Nowhere man,

You are correct about the 90% factor. The media is driving this doom and gloom factor because they want Obama in the white house. I think that they will sell this building pretty fast and I am glad to see that they approved it yesterday (Great news).
I actually like the design, it is modern and unique and it will help define the south wall with a modern flare.

I agree with both of you. If you look at sales of all of the new buildings going up they are selling quite well. I think the main reason for that is because the people who are buying these units aren't people that are be greatly affected by the economy right now. Aqua is almost completely sold along with OMP. I think they will have no problem selling the luxury condos, I think their trouble lies in selling condos to the middle class American.

[MrLakepoint]

I agree with both of you. If you look at sales of all of the new buildings going up they are selling quite well. I think the main reason for that is because the people who are buying these units aren't people that are be greatly affected by the economy right now. Aqua is almost completely sold along with OMP. I think they will have no problem selling the luxury condos, I think their trouble lies in selling condos to the middle class American.

I think that most of the forumers in here do not realize that 99% of the condos are targeted towards people who make over 150 plus, not to the average person. Condos downtown are skyrocketing out of control. I will take a look to see what they offer in sq footage. :notacrook:

Back to the real reason that we are here, talking GP3 & 4............

[Chicagoguy]

I think that most of the forumers in here do not realize that 99% of the condos are targeted towards people who make over 150 plus, not to the average person. Condos downtown are skyrocketing out of control. I will take a look to see what they offer in sq footage. :notacrook:

Back to the real reason that we are here, talking GP3 & 4............

Yes I agree with you. GP3 will not be targeted to your Average Joe, I think it will sell pretty well.

[BVictor1]

What the hell does the media wanting Obama in the White House have to do with the state of the real estate markets?

If you haven't noticed, there are a hell of a lot of foreclosures occuring across the country. Chicago, historically has always been less impacted less than the coasts of this country.

[zachary78]

Grant Park Tower 3 Wins Approval For Height Increase
Let us hear your
comments!
June 20, 2008 - Even with declining Chicago condo sales in many neighborhoods, one section seems to be holding its own and maybe even gaining ground. Central Station is still attracting buyers and Chicago real estate developer Gerald Fogelson of Fogelson Companies is confident enough to move forward with the first of two new towers. Fogelson, along with Forest City Enterprises, recently received approval from the Chicago Plan Commission to increase the height of Grant Park Tower 3 to 73 stories, which is about 170 feet taller than previously allowed there. Tower 4 was also approved at a height increase of 83 stories.

Both towers will cost an estimated $800 million to construct, according to the Sun Times. Fogelson was quoted as saying his company is on track to break over $400 million in condo sales this year. And while that number is lower than previous years, he is still very optimistic. “Since Jan. 1, we’ve had 1,400 people visit our sales center, which is within 5 percent of last year and the year before that,” Fogelson pointed out.

Grant Park Tower 3 will contain 369 units, parking and over 9,000 square feet of lower level retail space. Both towers were designed by Pappageorge Haymes and will resemble a sail and have a bit of a wave to the structures. The increased height didn’t permit any additional units to be added, but follows the current trend of promoting taller, thinner high-rises over sprawling, wider buildings.

Marketing on Grant Park Tower 3 will begin early next year and the developers hope to break ground on the project in late 2009. The success of Central Station helps to cement the theory that potential buyers are always drawn to well-planned and designed Chicago Neighborhoods.:cheers:

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

What the hell does the media wanting Obama in the White House have to do with the state of the real estate markets

It's a vast left-wing conspiracy, didn't you get the memo???

[SlatsGrobnik]

Grant Park Tower 3 Wins Approval For Height Increase

Full article. No attribution.

Primed for deletion. Bvic?

[Fabb]

The increased height didn’t permit any additional units to be added, but follows the current trend of promoting taller, thinner high-rises over sprawling, wider buildings.

Interesting.
Now, let's see if those words turn into reality.

[wrab]

^ Funny, this height increase. I remember when Tower 1 wasn't even yet a hole in the ground, that someone on this board wrote to Forest City to suggest an even taller structure; FC wrote back with some pat & patronizing drivel about how buildings above a certain height just weren't economically feasible, ever! LOL

[Nowhereman1280]

Interesting.
Now, let's see if those words turn into reality.

They have been reality here in Chicago for the past 10 years or so. Most of our buildings have been super skinny residential towers that have a podium on the bottom that goes right up to the street with a super skinny tower on top. See Legacy, Park Tower, Elysian, CS, Trump, Waterview, et all...

[Chicagoguy]

They have been reality here in Chicago for the past 10 years or so. Most of our buildings have been super skinny residential towers that have a podium on the bottom that goes right up to the street with a super skinny tower on top. See Legacy, Park Tower, Elysian, CS, Trump, Waterview, et all...

I wouldnt really call Trump a skinny tower. It is relatively chunky compared to others. Even looking at Sears and Hancock it is pretty much in their same scale!

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Have you seen it from the SW or NE? Anyhow, maybe we should discuss this in the trump thread?

[photoLith]

Any new news on these towers? Its been a while.

[beachdoc06]

I walked by the central station area this past weekend and couldn't figure out how they were going to squeeze these two buildings onto Randolph based on the land left. Can someone use a google map from above and paste some rectangles on the blocks to show where the buildings will be? I love the thought of a south Grant Park streetwall...otherwise I wouldn't even ask. Thanks!

[Dr. Taco]

I walked by the central station area this past weekend and couldn't figure out how they were going to squeeze these two buildings onto Randolph based on the land left. Can someone use a google map from above and paste some rectangles on the blocks to show where the buildings will be? I love the thought of a south Grant Park streetwall...otherwise I wouldn't even ask. Thanks!

sure thing!

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=110923216275324739694.000452cd54d7d4efcec2e&ll=41.867188,-87.622485&spn=0.001674,0.005407&z=18

[BVictor1]

Any new news on these towers? Its been a while.

there isn't going to be any news for a while. they were just going for approval.

[beachdoc06]

sure thing!

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=110923216275324739694.000452cd54d7d4efcec2e&ll=41.867188,-87.622485&spn=0.001674,0.005407&z=18

That's awesome. Thanks! Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there already some low-rise buildings there? Will they be demolished?

[left of center]

That's awesome. Thanks! Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there already some low-rise buildings there? Will they be demolished?


The land there is vacant. Its former Illinois Central railway land, and the corner of Roosevelt and Michigan used to be the location of the old Illinois Central Station, which was demolished decades ago. Its a win/win with the development of these towers, as the land just sat fallow.

[Chicagoguy]

So this tower has been approved...when might we see a sales center open for Grant Park Tower 3? It will be very interesting in a few years once One Musuem Park West and this one gets built. It will be a completely different view or the skyline especially from the lake!

[BVictor1]

So this tower has been approved...when might we see a sales center open for Grant Park Tower 3? It will be very interesting in a few years once One Musuem Park West and this one gets built. It will be a completely different view or the skyline especially from the lake!

I believe that the developer stated he wanted to start marketing tower 3 sometime next year.

Other than the articles that been posted there's nothing to report.

[Chicagoguy]

I believe that the developer stated he wanted to start marketing tower 3 sometime next year.

Other than the articles that been posted there's nothing to report.

Ok thanks for that update. I had google searched it and couldnt find any answer to that! Itll be nice to see a sales center for this one...I expect the units and prices to be very similar to OMP!