PDA

View Full Version : EVANSTON | 708 Church St. (Fountain Square Tower) | 409 FT| 35 FLOORS


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Steely Dan
Apr 26, 2007, 9:14 PM
here's the current rendering. 385'/35 floors

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7809/708church.jpg (http://imageshack.us)








outdated images of older versions of this tower and of the now defunct Horner/HSA proposal for the same block.



here's the previous design when the tower was planned to be 421'/38 floors

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2243/comm202ma6.jpg




Klutznik/Focus - original proposal - 523'/49 floors

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8711/3686046117092917yw9.jpg

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/5306/fountainsquaretowermo6.jpg http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8505/fountainsquaretower2ld6.jpg http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9956/fountainsquaretower3ck9.jpg


http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/2900/evanstonfountainsquarejy9.jpg



Horner/HSA - 421'/37 floors - now a dead proposal

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7663/fountainsquaretoweriipw5.jpg





photoshopped together:

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2945/fountainsquarecombinedxp3.jpg

Marcu
Apr 26, 2007, 9:20 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if this gets knocked down to the 30-435 story range

Kngkyle
Apr 26, 2007, 9:24 PM
The design is nothing spectacular, but being in Evanston it is quite significant.

Steely Dan
Apr 26, 2007, 9:25 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if this gets knocked down to the 30-435 story range
i wouldn't be surprised if it gets nixed altogether, afterall evanston's official city motto is "progress without change". ;)



The design is nothing spectacular, but being in Evanston it is quite significant.
design-wise, it's light-years beyond the previous roczak proposal for the site. after seeing this, i'm overjoyed that one died on the vine.

Nowhereman1280
Apr 26, 2007, 9:29 PM
Legacy anyone?

Looks just like it from this angle, probably doesn't have the sweet setback pattern on the backside though. Its supposed to have th wedge shape like Legacy as well...

Steely Dan
Apr 26, 2007, 9:32 PM
Legacy anyone?


indeed, there is some similarity. and with booth hansen at the helm, i'd expect this to have a high quality facade treatment. perhaps it's nothing earth-shattering in the form department, but i think this one would turn out pretty damn nice. let's all hope evanston isn't stupid and demand that the project be dumbed down.

one question though. in the rendering, the existing 8 story fountain square building appears to be out of the picture for an expanded public square, yet there's no mention of its demo in the article. we don't have all the facts here.

Marcu
Apr 26, 2007, 9:34 PM
i wouldn't be surprised if it gets nixed altogether, afterall evanston's official city motto is "progress without change". ;)
.

Evanston is just too damn liberal when it comes to allowing others to be part of the governing process. They have to appease and satisfy the demands of every little interest group in town, whether it be northwestern, transit users, car users, affordable housing advocates, preservationists, or whoever. So good projects become crappy projects or get scrapped all together because some small minority is in opposition.

VivaLFuego
Apr 26, 2007, 9:40 PM
Evanston is just too damn liberal when it comes to allowing others to be part of the governing process. They have to appease and satisfy the demands of every little interest group in town, whether it be northwestern, transit users, car users, affordable housing advocates, preservationists, or whoever. So good projects become crappy projects or get scrapped all together because some small minority is in opposition.

As frustrating as Evanstonian NIMBYs are, you surely aren't giving adequate "respect" where it's due in Oak Park and Hyde Park. Evanston is practically Dubai compared to those places.

This could actually happen in a form similar to what is proposed, the word seems to be that "if there's gonna be a skyscraper in Evanston, it would be right here"

Marcu
Apr 26, 2007, 9:47 PM
As frustrating as Evanstonian NIMBYs are, you surely aren't giving adequate "respect" where it's due in Oak Park and Hyde Park. Evanston is practically Dubai compared to those places.

This could actually happen in a form similar to what is proposed, the word seems to be that "if there's gonna be a skyscraper in Evanston, it would be right here"

I think those place are better examples of "capture" by a particular interest group (also see west loop gate). My view of Evanston is slightly more positive. Evanston government is well intentioned just misguided.

pip
Apr 26, 2007, 9:57 PM
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6373/29351494dq5.jpg

What!?! Didn't see that one coming nor would I have ever guessed in my wildest dreams that a building like that would go up in Evanston.

I think that building looks fantastic especially in that location.

honte
Apr 26, 2007, 10:00 PM
indeed, there is some similarity. and with booth hansen at the helm, i'd expect this to have a high quality facade treatment. perhaps it's nothing earth-shattering in the form department, but i think this one would turn out pretty damn nice. let's all hope evanston isn't stupid and demand that the project be dumbed down.

one question though. in the rendering, the existing 8 story fountain square building appears to be out of the picture for an expanded public square, yet there's no mention of its demo in the article. we don't have all the facts here.

Good, the cat's out of the bag. This is the project I mentioned a while back.

Concerning the corner building, it absolutely would be coming down.

You are correct - with Booth-Hansen involved, it's going to be a very pleasant and well-detailed tower.

If they're going to allow all of this stuff to be demolished, I sincerely hope it doesn't get scaled down into a bland version of itself at present.

Steely Dan
Apr 26, 2007, 10:05 PM
Concerning the corner building, it absolutely would be coming down.


thanks for clearing that up. at least in this scheme it appears as though the hahn building will remain intact and "un-facedomized", and that's wonderful news as the hahn building is by far the nicest of the 3 exisiting buildings on the block.

Alliance
Apr 26, 2007, 10:07 PM
Actually, I think that tower is pretty good.

Hard to tell from the little render though.

Steely Dan
Apr 26, 2007, 10:39 PM
just for reference, here's an image of the now defunct 38-story Roszak proposal for the fountain sqaure block:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6686/fountainsquaretowerwu8.jpg


i have to say that this new scheme is a significant improvement upon the old plan.

Maldive
Apr 26, 2007, 10:53 PM
Nice one Steely... sorta like "X" condo. Both cities have obvious references.

Arch City
Apr 26, 2007, 11:36 PM
There's hope for Clayton (Evanston's peer city) after all. If Evanston can go this tall, then so can Clayton.

Great looking project!!

Busy Bee
Apr 26, 2007, 11:42 PM
Is it just me or does anyone else, aside from height, like that Roszak version better?

Steely Dan
Apr 26, 2007, 11:50 PM
Is it just me or does anyone else, aside from height, like that Roszak version better?

it's just you. the roszak plan was far worse from a preservation aspect, facedomizing the hahn building into the incredibly cheezy-looking white metal panel retail podium structure. what's even worse is the the ground level retail of the hahn building would have been obliterated for parking, meaning that the facade of the hahn building would have masked a parking gararge, even at the ground level! that would have been truly awful form an urban design standpoint. as for the towers, the only thing superior about the roszak scheme is that it would have mixed in a hotel with the condo uses, as opposed to the straight condo tower in the new scheme. being the absolute heart of downtown evanston, i would have liked to have seen more mixing of uses, but what can you do, i'll gladly settle for a nicely detailed 500' condo tower with ground floor retail and full preservation for the landmarked hahn building.

plus, if you're familair with the works of booth hansen and roszak ADC, there should be absolutely no surprise as to why i have FAR more confidence in the former to design an execute a new building befitting the title of "evanston's tallest".

sentinel
Apr 27, 2007, 12:06 AM
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6373/29351494dq5.jpg
Perhaps it's just the watercolor rendering, but I really like it, I think it's very attractive and a definite centerpiece for downtown Evanston.

Chicago2020
Apr 27, 2007, 12:37 AM
Now there's going to be a skyscraper compition between the Chicagoland suburbs :shrug:

http://www.equityoffice.com/images/OAKBROO2_251.jpg

Nowhereman1280
Apr 27, 2007, 12:40 AM
Now there's going to be a skyscraper compition between the Chicagoland suburbs :shrug:

http://www.equityoffice.com/images/OAKBROO2_251.jpg

Sorry if I am being ignorant here, but what building is that?

Steely Dan
Apr 27, 2007, 12:41 AM
That's the helmut jahn designed, 415 ft. oak brook terrace tower, which currently holds the title of suburban chicago's tallest building. if you've ever ridden down the tri-state, you've passed this building. it's right around the area where the ike interchanges with the tri-state, just north of oakbrook mall. and because it sticks out like such a sore thumb, it's impossible to miss.

Nowhereman1280
Apr 27, 2007, 12:43 AM
That's the helmut jahn deisgned, 415 ft. oak brook terrace tower, which currently holds the title of suburban chicago's tallest building.

Ah! Thanks, I guess I was being a bit ignorant! Such a quick response!

Via Chicago
Apr 27, 2007, 1:37 AM
wow, this looks great for a suburban skyscraper. but ill believe it when i see it.

Steely Dan
Apr 27, 2007, 1:47 AM
evanstonnow.com has now posted an article about this development that explains some of the TIF ramifications of this proposal in relation to getting funding to rebuild the fountain square plaza, which is currently in a state of unsightly disrepair. click the link below to read about it:

http://www.evanstonnow.com/node/2270

sentinel
Apr 27, 2007, 1:48 AM
Sorry if I am being ignorant here, but what building is that?
http://www.equityoffice.com/images/OAKBROO2_251.jpg
Interesting minor side note about this building: you can't really tell from pictures or just by looking at it, but a St. Engineer I know, echoed by a few others in the industry have told me that either due to poor structural engineering, unstable soils, whatever, the building is actually LEANING on one end. I'm not sure if anything has been done to correct it, or if anything is planned for the future, and to be honest I'm not sure if it's just an urban myth (sub-urban myth?) but knowing Murphy/Jahn's reputation for (at times) shoddy coordination with consultants, I wouldn't doubt it.

Marcu
Apr 27, 2007, 1:48 AM
wow, this looks great for a suburban skyscraper. but ill believe it when i see it.

I wouldn't really consider Evanston "suburban". It may be a suburb, but it doesn't neatly fit into the traditional city/suburb divide. It's certainly more dense than an average American city and is probably as dense as areas like Hyde Park. Especially if we exclude the couple of blocks on the Evanston/Wilmette border.

Via Chicago
Apr 27, 2007, 5:50 AM
I wouldn't really consider Evanston "suburban". It may be a suburb, but it doesn't neatly fit into the traditional city/suburb divide. It's certainly more dense than an average American city and is probably as dense as areas like Hyde Park. Especially if we exclude the couple of blocks on the Evanston/Wilmette border.

well, yea. its obviously not naperville or hoffman estates. but its still cool to see something this tall planned that far north.

Via Chicago
Apr 27, 2007, 5:52 AM
http://www.equityoffice.com/images/OAKBROO2_251.jpg
Interesting minor side note about this building: you can't really tell from pictures or just by looking at it, but a St. Engineer I know, echoed by a few others in the industry have told me that either due to poor structural engineering, unstable soils, whatever, the building is actually LEANING on one end. I'm not sure if anything has been done to correct it, or if anything is planned for the future, and to be honest I'm not sure if it's just an urban myth (sub-urban myth?) but knowing Murphy/Jahn's reputation for (at times) shoddy coordination with consultants, I wouldn't doubt it.

ive always liked that building, if for nothing else, being such a unique feature on the landscape.

BVictor1
Apr 27, 2007, 10:28 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070426evanstower-story,1,4493562.story?coll=chi-news-hed

ARCHITECTURE

523-foot tower in Evanston?
Proposed 49-story condo building would nearly double the height of the town's current tallest

By Blair Kamin and Deborah Horan
Tribune staff reporters
Published April 26, 2007, 7:32 PM CDT


Forget the twisting 2,000-foot-high Chicago Spire that could rise along the city's lakefront.

Developers went public Thursday with a plan for another race to the sky, this one in downtown Evanston: a condominium tower that would crack the 500-foot barrier and become the tallest building in Chicago's suburbs.

Sure to incite heated debate in a suburb already in the throes of a high-rise building boom, the plan calls for tearing down a two-story retail building on a triangular block bounded by Church Street, Orrington Avenue and Sherman Avenue and replacing it with a sliver-thin 49-story condominium tower sheathed in glass and metal.

At 523 feet, the height pegged in a filing with Evanston officials by developers James Klutznick and Tim Anderson, the skyscraper would soar nearly twice as high as two neighboring towers that form the peaks of the Evanston skyline.

"It's the suburban Spire," quipped the project's architect, Laurence Booth of the Chicago firm Booth Hansen, referring to the plan by Dublin-based developer Garrett Kelleher to erect a 150-story tower designed by Zurich-based architect Santiago Calatrava on Chicago's lakefront.

Filed more than a week ago and shopped in closed sessions to city officials, the Evanston proposal underscores how developers around the country are shattering the once-distinct line between cities and suburbs. The trend is especially strong in landlocked suburbs that have nowhere to grow but up if they want to increase their tax base and hold down residential property tax bills.

Yet the shift has sparked passionate debates over traffic, the displacement of local retailers by national chains and the loss of what opponents call their shady-street lifestyle. As city leaders reacted to the skyscraper plan, that tension was palpable.

"I don't know where we can go in Evanston but up because we don't have any land," said Ald. Delores Holmes. "But it is pretty tall."

If built, the Evanston skyscraper would easily top the 418-foot Oakbrook Terrace Tower, currently the titleholder in Chicago's suburbs, and could lay claim to being the tallest building between Chicago and Milwaukee. That esoteric distinction is now held by Evanston's tallest building, the 277-foot Chase Building, a modernist high-rise finished in 1969.

Klutznick, a partner at Klutznick Fisher Development Co., and Anderson, president of Focus Development Inc., are now completing the nearby Sherman Plaza condo tower, which is just a foot shorter at 276 feet.

But the block in question has a height limit of 125 feet, so the developers, who say they have a contract to purchase the two-story retail building, will need a zoning change.

As in other large-scale residential real estate developments, they also will need to generate enough pre-sales of condominiums to get bank financing. Most daunting of all, they will have to persuade Evanstonians to reshape their skyline—and, with it, the town's identity.

Evanston officials previously forced developer and architect David Hovey to downsize a proposed 36-story tower at the north end of downtown and instead build a blocklong 16-story building that some have likened to an enormous wall.

Anticipating such a debate, Klutznick said in an interview: "This is absolutely the center of town. People recognize that if there's going to be height, this is where to do it."

He added: "This is an icon that says this is the downtown of the north lakefront," referring to how downtown Evanston already draws people from nearby suburbs such as Wilmette and from the Far North Side of Chicago.

Michael Lembeck, the owner of a shoe store in the targeted two-story building on Church, sees the proposal in a far less positive light.

Saying that his business, Williams Shoes—the Walking Spirit, has been at 708 Church St. for 54 years, he lamented that he had bought the space next door last year and turned it into a women's boutique at a cost of $120,000.

"Now 10 months later, they're talking about tearing the whole building down," he said Thursday. "That would be kind of a waste to be shut down before we recoup our investment."

He also expressed concern that downtown Evanston already has too many vacant storefronts and that it won't be able to absorb the commercial space envisioned in the project.

As designed by Booth Hansen, whose projects include the conversion of the landmark Palmolive Building on North Michigan Avenue to condominiums and new high-rise dormitories for the School of the Art Institute at Randolph and State Streets, the skyscraper would have a roughly triangular, or flatiron, shape formed by the surrounding streets.

It would rise on a five-story podium that would contain two levels of shops and, above them, a three-level parking garage with 230 spaces. The glassy condominium tower, set back from the street, would contain anywhere from two to seven units on each of its floors. Prices would be $350 to $400 per square foot, the developers said.

The plan also envisions tearing down a 1940s mid-rise office building at the block's south end and replacing it with a low-rise restaurant building whose footprint would be half as large. The developers still have to purchase that property.

A classically decorated landmark building in the middle of the block, the three-story Hahn Building, would be left untouched.

The developers say that the added real estate taxes created by the project would allow the city to renovate the decrepit Fountain Square Plaza at the block's south end. The plaza's war memorial, which now consists of three brick pylons recognizing Evanston soldiers, would be shifted to another plaza just south of Davis Street.

The developers want to begin construction next year and complete their project by late 2010.

City zoning officials are reviewing the plan, a process expected to take at least two weeks. The next steps would be a hearing by the Evanston Plan Commission and a vote by the City Council. The developers said they anticipate public meetings on the tower in June.

Asked if she thought Evanston residents would fight the tower, Ald. Cheryl Wollin, in whose ward the project would be built said: "Nothing in Evanston is non-controversial. I expect it to be thoroughly debated."

Wollin declined to say whether the tower is too tall, saying: "I can't make that judgment now. If there's any place for height in the city, that's the block where it would be most compatible. Is it too tall? That will have to be determined by lots of discussion."

If built in downtown Chicago, the tower would fade into the woodwork. It would be the same height as a classic 1920s skyscraper along Wacker Drive—the eclectic, dome-topped 35 E. Wacker Dr. (the former Jewelers Building).

Asked if Evanston planners would follow a national trend in urban planning that gives preference to tall and thin towers on the grounds that they create the density that makes cities hum while letting natural light reach streets below, Klutznick replied: "I would never say that Evanston is influenced by anybody other than Evanston."

bkamin@tribune.com

dhoran@tribune.com


http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29351494.jpg

This is an artist's rendering of the proposed 49-story Fountain Square condo tower in Evanston. If the 523-foot tower is built it would be the tallest building in Chicago's suburbs.
Apr 25, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29355128.jpg

This is how Fountain Square in Evanston currently looks.
(Tribune photo by Chris Walker)
Apr 26, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29356815.jpg

Mike Lembeck (left) and Richard Iverson stand outside Williams Shoes at 708 Church St. in Evanston, where Lembeck is owner of the store and Iverson is his assistant. Lambeck's thumb-down gesture is to express his lack of approval for the new building plan. The shoe store would be razed if the condo tower is approved.
(Tribune photo by Chris Walker)
Apr 26, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29356820.jpg

Optima Towers in Evanston.
(Tribune photo by Chris Walker)
Apr 26, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29355129.jpg

Oak Brook Terrace Tower, at 31 floors, is currently the tallest skyscraper in the Chicago suburbs. This photo was taken in 1988.
Apr 26, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29355133.jpg

Optima Towers in Evanston
(Tribune photo by Chris Walker)
Apr 26, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29355130.jpg

Alliance
Apr 27, 2007, 12:20 PM
Yup...that is my "local" skyscraper...even though its significantyly NW of me.

trvlr70
Apr 27, 2007, 1:58 PM
I'm not a huge fan of skyscrapers outside of the urban core. However, I support this proposal. Evanston has always represented Chicago in small scale to me, with its urban downtown, public transportation, lakefront, original Marshall Fields and even its own slum. Evanston is the only lakefront suburb north of Chicago which could or should have skyscrapers.

....and I don't consider Waukegan a suburb!

VivaLFuego
Apr 27, 2007, 2:20 PM
I'm not a huge fan of skyscrapers outside of the urban core. However, I support this proposal. Evanston has always represented Chicago in small scale to me, with its urban downtown, public transportation, lakefront, original Marshall Fields and even its own slum. Evanston is the only lakefront suburb north of Chicago which could or should have skyscrapers.

....and I don't consider Waukegan a suburb!

I'd rather the office districts of Northbrook, Deerfield, Buffalo Grove etc in the I-94/294 corridors actually had highrises in something somewhat resembling a 'core' (thinking like Clayton, for example) as opposed to sprawlariffic office parks.

trvlr70
Apr 27, 2007, 2:31 PM
I'd rather the office districts of Northbrook, Deerfield, Buffalo Grove etc in the I-94/294 corridors actually had highrises in something somewhat resembling a 'core' (thinking like Clayton, for example) as opposed to sprawlariffic office parks.

But they don't have an original downtown core to begin with and that's why they developed in that manner. Evanston, Oak Park, Joliet, Elgin have downtownsn so I can see skyscrapers and TODs.

Steely Dan
Apr 27, 2007, 2:52 PM
I'd rather the office districts of Northbrook, Deerfield, Buffalo Grove etc in the I-94/294 corridors actually had highrises in something somewhat resembling a 'core' (thinking like Clayton, for example) as opposed to sprawlariffic office parks.

the problem with a place like clayton is that, while it has a nice skyline, it competes directly with downtown st. louis because it does offer a somewhat urban major commercial office district outside of the city, something that none of the major suburban office centers in chicagoland offer. the reason i'm totally cool with evanston's skyline expansion is that it is in no way, shape, or form a threat to the continued vitality of downtown chicago's office market.

aaron38
Apr 27, 2007, 3:16 PM
This does seem like a pretty good proposal. I wouldn't be surprised if that building on the south stays however, since it has nothing to do with the tower.

And I don't like the thought of established retail being squashed, so I hope the shoestore can be moved. Didn't the article say there's a bit of vacant commercial space available? They should be able to move the store then.
I know in Palatine when Block 31 was redeveloped, the city financially helped a bar and restaurant relocate to other downtown sites, and I think they used TIF funds for it.

But this tower looks good. After Chicago, Evanston is my favorite place to go for walks. The extra streetlife will be nice.

trvlr70
Apr 27, 2007, 3:34 PM
the problem with a place like clayton is that, while it has a nice skyline, it competes directly with downtown st. louis because it does offer a somewhat urban major commercial office district outside of the city, something that none of the major suburban office centers in chicagoland offer. the reason i'm totally cool with evanston's skyline expansion is that it is in no way, shape, or form a threat to the continued vitality of downtown chicago's office market.

This is true. I've actually heard locals describe Clayton as St. Louis' "white downtown" as terrible as that is. It directly competes with downtown St. Louis and as far as corporate presence is concerned, well, it's winning.

Evanston's highrises proposed are residential so there is no real competition.

Steely Dan
Apr 27, 2007, 3:36 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if that building on the south stays however, since it has nothing to do with the tower.

that's not true. please read the evanstonnow.com article. this tower proposal is being "sold" to the city along with the plan to demolish the exisitng fountain square building as an opportunity for the city to FINALLY get the ball rolling on rebuilding the long-dilapitated fountain sqaure plaza. that part of the project is not directly related to the tower propsal, but they're being packaged together by the developer to sweeten the pot. as Tim Anderson of Focus Development said himself, "This (the tower proposal) can be the financial engine to support acquisition of the Fountain Square building to expand the plaza and make an outdoor living room for downtown Evanston".

OhioGuy
Apr 27, 2007, 3:41 PM
Is that shoe store guy giving the tower a thumbs down as the caption says? From the way his hand is oriented, it looks more like he's giving the tower a sidways thumb, lol. Maybe he's not entirely against the tower if he can still maintain his business in a good downtown location?

I would love to see this tower come to fruition. The height would be incredible for downtown Evanston.

forumly_chgoman
Apr 27, 2007, 3:44 PM
the problem with a place like clayton is that, while it has a nice skyline, it competes directly with downtown st. louis because it does offer a somewhat urban major commercial office district outside of the city, something that none of the major suburban office centers in chicagoland offer. the reason i'm totally cool with evanston's skyline expansion is that it is in no way, shape, or form a threat to the continued vitality of downtown chicago's office market.
SD not sure if I completely agree with this assesment. Two prominent examples come to mind....the Sears move in the early nineties out to Hoffman Estates, and the recent move by Sara Lee to I believe Downers Grove. Additionally, there are several other large corps whose HQ's or main metro places of business are out in the burbs....McD's , Kraft, Abbot, Lucent, Motorola just to name a few.

I would prefer if these companies would move these operations DT...simply because it would bring more 'prestige' to the DT are...whatever corp prestige means.....and perhaps would help spur the further development of a couple or a few major towers.....
.....instead they are stuck out in office parks that in some sense do directly comepete for corporate investment with the Loop etc

Steely Dan
Apr 27, 2007, 3:50 PM
SD not sure if I completely agree with this assesment. Two prominent examples come to mind....the Sears move in the early nineties out to Hoffman Estates, and the recent move by Sara Lee to I believe Downers Grove. Additionally, there are several other large corps whose HQ's or main metro places of business are out in the burbs....McD's , Kraft, Abbot, Lucent, Motorola just to name a few.

I would prefer if these companies would move these operations DT...simply because it would bring more 'prestige' to the DT are...whatever corp prestige means.....and perhaps would help spur the further development of a couple or a few major towers.....
.....instead they are stuck out in office parks that in some sense do directly comepete for corporate investment with the Loop etc


uhhhh, yeah, i don't disagree with any of that,. i would love it if every major chicagoland corporation moved their operations downtown as well. what i was saying is that i'm kinda glad chicagoland never built a clayton for itself - an urban major commercial office district to rival the main downtown office district. in chicagoland, all the major susburban office districts are horrendously sprawly, ugly, unimaginative and downright depressing. this helps give downtown chicago an advantage in that it can offer businesses a real environment, a place that actually matters, which is something they ain't gonna find in any of suburban chicago's major office markets.

but we're veering off-topic now, let's get back to this tower proposal and what it may mean for evanston.

Nowhereman1280
Apr 27, 2007, 3:59 PM
If this thing gets through as proposed, I'll faint.

If that does happen it will hopefully create a precedent for building some more buildings in the 300-500' range directly around it. In which case Evanston would have a better skyline than most secondary Major US cities... That would be sweet.

I walked out on the peer at Loyola Beach earlier and was just trying to imagine what it would look like to see a 520' building in Evanston. I realized that it would almost appear just to be an extension of the scraper wall along LSD and Sheridan. It would be nice to be able to drive from Evanston to downtown along a solid canyon of Skyscrapers. Unfortunately there are a lot of thin spots in Rodgers Park...

forumly_chgoman
Apr 27, 2007, 4:01 PM
^^^^Ok......my only apparent disappointment with this thread is that I beleive the earlier proposal had a restaurant up top.

I was really looking forward to that. I am in Evanston alot and often eat there, this would have been cool....Imagine sitting at 530 ft or whatever and being the tallest thing for miles and looking south towards the burgeoning shoulders of Chicago :cool:

Steely Dan
Apr 27, 2007, 4:21 PM
^ you're right, i forgot all about the plan for a restaurant at the top of the old scheme. perhaps that's something that could b ressurected in this one. given that it would be such a unique location with such a unique view of the lake, city, and north shore, i have to imagine that a high end restauraunt would make money hand over fist floating 500' above downtown evanston. bummer it ain't a part of the new plan.

Alliance
Apr 27, 2007, 6:00 PM
SD not sure if I completely agree with this assesment. Two prominent examples come to mind....the Sears move in the early nineties out to Hoffman Estates, and the recent move by Sara Lee to I believe Downers Grove. Additionally, there are several other large corps whose HQ's or main metro places of business are out in the burbs....McD's , Kraft, Abbot, Lucent, Motorola just to name a few.

I would prefer if these companies would move these operations DT...simply because it would bring more 'prestige' to the DT are...whatever corp prestige means.....and perhaps would help spur the further development of a couple or a few major towers.....
.....instead they are stuck out in office parks that in some sense do directly comepete for corporate investment with the Loop etc
I somewhat agree. McD's could certainly afford do build a snazzy HQ downtown. However, areas like Rosemont, Oakbrook, Woodfield serve as economic powerhouses in their own right. Of course it would boost the status of Chicago proper, but the benefits of those companies are still apparent in the burbs.

-GR2NY-
Apr 27, 2007, 6:10 PM
Whats supposed to be in the distance of the first rendering? Chains of islands? I dont get it.

Steely Dan
Apr 27, 2007, 7:27 PM
for people who don;t regularly browse the chicago boom rundown, here's a little synopsis of the other highrise activity going on in evanston for reference:


Evanston mini-boom:

name use struct. ht. roof ht. floors year
recently completed:

Optima Views (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102383) residential 265 ft ... .. 28 2003
Church Street Station (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101063) residential 179 ft ... .. 17 2002
Optima Horizons (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=176597) residential 162 ft ... .. 16 2005
Optima Towers (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101062) residential 136 ft ... .. 13 2002





under construction:

Sherman Plaza (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102381) - TO residential 276 ft ... .. 25 2007


Howard Street Station (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=203009) residential ___ ft ... .. 17 2007

“TO” indicates that the building has been topped out
italics indicate that the building began construction in 2007





proposed:

Fountain Square Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=298165) residential 523 ft ... .. 49 2010
Carroll Place (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=262808) residential 210 ft ... .. 18 ____
Winthrop Club (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=245500) residential 155 ft ... .. 15 2008 website (http://winthropclub.com/)


1890 Maple Avenue (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=285757) residential ___ ft ... .. 14 ____





- here are renderings for some of the under construction and proposed projects:


Under Construction


Sherman Plaza
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8527/shermanplaza6js.jpg
(][/url)





Howard Street Station
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/5677/413421howard3sk.jpg
(http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=203009)







[u]Proposed


Fountain Square Tower
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6373/29351494dq5.jpg
(http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=298165)





Carroll Place
http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/6316/evcp01qz6.jpg
(http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=262808)





Winthrop Club
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/7038/onboardwinthropclublarge1de.jpg
(http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=245500)





1890 Maple Avenue
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2702/1890maplehx1.jpg
(http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=285757)

forumly_chgoman
Apr 27, 2007, 8:38 PM
^^^^Ok this is a little off topic...sorry SD.... but it does deal with Evanston....

....the howard apt building it to be 17 stories currently there is a tower crane on sight that appears to be a little more than twice the heighht of the 6 floor building across the street that used to hold privot point.....so at 17 stories this new building should be about 3times taller.....maybe a bit less


does anyone know the height figure? Additionally, I am trying to gauge the ultimate height via the current height of the tower crane.....will it be taller than the current height of the tower crane, the same, less.

The tower crane appears to be the height of roughly a 12 story building....so I am hoping the apt building will be taller than the crane.

any ideas anyone?

Chicago103
Apr 27, 2007, 9:12 PM
[QUOTE=Steely Dan;2799388]uhhhh, yeah, i don't disagree with any of that,. i would love it if every major chicagoland corporation moved their operations downtown as well. what i was saying is that i'm kinda glad chicagoland never built a clayton for itself - an urban major commercial office district to rival the main downtown office district. in chicagoland, all the major susburban office districts are horrendously sprawly, ugly, unimaginative and downright depressing. this helps give downtown chicago an advantage in that it can offer businesses a real environment, a place that actually matters, which is something they ain't gonna find in any of suburban chicago's major office markets. [QUOTE]

Actually I would say that downtown Evanston is the only suburban office that is urban in nature, but it still isnt anywhere near big enough to compete with downtown Chicago. Downtown Evanston is the only place in Chicagoland besides downtown Chicago where you have office towers and residential highrises within easy walking distance and this highrise would only make it more so. All suburban office districts should follow the Evantson model in an ideal world but many are not built in historic cores like Evanston but rather proximity to expressways.

Speaking of the the Oakbrook Terrace Tower:http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29355133.jpg
From this ariel and from what I have seen and heard about that area it is surrounded by parking lots and is in a very auto-centric environment. So its a nice tall building but its still nothing but a vertical office park.

spyguy
Apr 27, 2007, 9:24 PM
^How's that different from pretty much every suburban office park?

Anyway, it's a cool project and I hope it isn't shortened significantly, if at all.

Alliance
Apr 27, 2007, 9:53 PM
^How's that different from pretty much every suburban office park?

Anyway, it's a cool project and I hope it isn't shortened significantly, if at all.

That was in the 80's, more developments in the 10-15 story range are much more prevalent in Oak Brook today. And its 418 ft tall. Thats not a suburban office park.

spyguy
Apr 27, 2007, 10:42 PM
That was in the 80's, more developments in the 10-15 story range are much more prevalent in Oak Brook today. And its 418 ft tall. Thats not a suburban office park.

I was referring to this part

"parking lots and is in a very auto-centric environment"

Aleks
Apr 28, 2007, 1:16 AM
its a nice building i like it and its location is perfect for the building

NYC2ATX
Apr 28, 2007, 5:33 AM
I love to see a smaller city reach for new heights (It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside). For Evanston, I think the design is right on target....the simpler the better. A radical design wouldn't sit as well with stubborn NIMBY types.

I give it an EXCELLENT!!!!!!!

BVictor1
Apr 29, 2007, 12:39 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0704270846apr29,1,3943355.story?coll=chi-entertainment-utl

ARCHITECTURE

High hopes, and a call for a smart debate

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published April 29, 2007


A lot of people in Evanston, I suspect, are going to be horrified by the proposal for a 523-foot-tall condominium tower that would be the tallest building in Chicago's suburbs. But here's some friendly advice: Cool your jets. This is a promising plan by a skilled architect, and -- while it is far from perfect -- it should not be shouted down by a band of NIMBYs.

The plan, made public Thursday by developers James Klutznick and Tim Anderson, articulates a clear choice for Evanston and other suburbs around the country that have nowhere to grow but up. They can grow with high-rises that are tall and thin or they can grow with high-rises that are short and squat.

There's no pat answer for every suburb -- or every city. Still, this sliver-thin tower, as shaped by Laurence Booth and George Halik of the Chicago firm Booth Hansen, looks well-suited to its site, a triangular block bounded by Church Street, Sherman Avenue and Orrington Avenue. The block, with the crumbling Fountain Square Plaza at its southern end, sits in the heart of downtown Evanston.

If you're going to build tall, this block -- specifically its north end -- is the place. As a rendering shows, the plan turns the tier-topped but hulking Sherman Plaza tower to the west and the coolly modern Chase Building to the east into bookends that would frame its skyward leap. It would give the awkward Evanston skyline a clear focus -- a top, as it were, to the urban wedding cake.

Opponents who would fight a proposed zoning change -- the block has a height limit of 125 feet -- risk repeating the mistake Evanston made when it forced architect-developer David Holey to trim 20 stories from a proposed 36-story residential tower at the north end of downtown. The result: a massive, city-deadening wall.

Booth, whose projects include the new 30 West Oak condos, offers a better way: Not the old modernist model of the tower sitting on a barren plaza, but a more enlightened modernism that seeks to deftly insert towers into the fabric of the city -- and preserve the integrity of what is already there.

Significantly, this plan saves all of the Hahn Building, a three-story, classically decorated landmark in the middle of the block. That's far preferable to performing a stage-set "facade-ectomy" that would clip the Hahn Building's facade onto a large new structure, as another developer eyeing the block suggested last year.

There are good strokes, too, for the south end of the block, now dominated by a brooding midrise office building. Under the developers' plan, that old building would be replaced by a restaurant building in tune with the Hahn Building's street-friendly scale. Evanston would use the added tax dollars the project generates to enliven the moribund plaza with umbrella-topped tables and a new modern fountain.

But the plan remains a long way from realizing such promise, which means city officials and civic activists have every right to press the developers to ensure the highest quality.

Problem one is the lack of visual integration between the tower and the five-story parking garage and retail podium on which it would sit. This is "plop architecture." Booth needs to do better, making it appear that the tower and the podium are not two separate things.

Problem two is the prospect of what I call "generic urbanism" -- visually bland buildings whose retail spaces are so expensive that they wind up being filled by the same national chains you see everywhere. Sherman Plaza, done by the same developers, commits this sin. A much better model: Downtown Evanston's handsomely renovated Marshall Field & Co. building, a 1929 art deco/beaux-arts gem.

Problem three is really a caveat: This tower would have a mostly glass skin, which will, ideally, emphasize its lightness. But a cheap skin can look like a cheap suit. Exhibit A: the distorted reflections emanating from some exterior glass on the still-under-construction Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago. If you want to build tall, you had better build well.

So let the debate begin on this promising plan. But let it proceed intelligently, not emotionally.

-----------

bkamin@tribune.com



Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

honte
Apr 29, 2007, 3:50 PM
There are good strokes, too, for the south end of the block, now dominated by a brooding midrise office building. Under the developers' plan, that old building would be replaced by a restaurant building in tune with the Hahn Building's street-friendly scale.

Hmm, this is a new twist. Last I heard, that was just going to be an extension of the plaza.

I don't agree that the existing building is "brooding," of course. I think it's quite nice. But in any case, if you're going to remove it, I don't see the point in just putting in a smaller building. Either extend the plaza or leave it alone, I think.

Marcu
Apr 29, 2007, 6:06 PM
Editorial from the Daily Northwestern



Issue date: 4/27/07 Section: Forum

When does big become too big?

Evanston is growing up. Literally, taller and taller. Even before all the shops in Sherman Plaza have opened their doors, the building's developers have proposed a giant 49-story condominium tower that would be built across the street.

Although still early in planning stages, the building threatens Evanston's identity as a college town. The proposed tower would lie on the same block as several important retailers, such as Ben and Jerry's, 1634 Orrington Ave.; Dr. Wax, 1615 Sherman Ave.; Radio Shack, 716 Church St.; and Cafe Ambrosia, 1620 Orrington Ave. What would become of these stores if the skyscraper moved in next door?

As a suburb, Evanston has its own character, separate from its larger neighbor to the south. Evanston should not try to imitate a big city downtown. It does not need to be Chicago Lite.

There is nothing categorically wrong with more development in Evanston, but the proposed mammoth - nearly twice as tall as Sherman Plaza - is too big. Evening shadows already overtake Sherman Avenue long before sundown, and the new building will only shorten downtown daylight even more. But do not fear eternal nighttime because the developers have begun to discuss illuminating the top of the all-glass structure, with a new Evanston lighthouse.

This city is popular, and it shouldn't be hard to fill the new condos if they are built. At Sherman Plaza, construction on some units has not yet been completed, but nearly all condos have been sold. But Evanston should not forfeit its local charm for high-rise flashiness.

BVictor1
Apr 29, 2007, 6:38 PM
http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2007/04/27/City/Towering.Over.Evanston-2885555.shtml

Towering Over Evanston
49-story building would change city's landscape
Peter Jackson
Issue date: 4/27/07 Section: City

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper853/stills/m6cnxyl0.jpg

By Peter Jackson
The Daily Northwestern

If city officials and developers have their way, Evanston's skyline and downtown will be transformed by a 49-story skyscraper that would be almost double the height of the city's tallest building.

The project faces several hurdles before construction can begin on the proposed condominium and retail building at 708 Church St., including issues of preservation, funding, rezoning and approval by the Evanston City Council. But the developers' aggressive timetable - completion is scheduled for 2010 - and the absence of the city's usual skyscraper skepticism makes this project stand out.

The developers, Jim and Marc Klutznick of Klutznick-Fisher Development Company and Tim Anderson of Focus Development, also planned the 25-story Sherman Plaza complex, which opened on the neighboring block in September. Sherman Plaza, which is home to 253 condominium units, and retail tenants, such as Barnes and Noble Booksellers and Pier One Imports, is just shorter than Evanston's tallest building, the 277-foot Chase Building on Davis Street and Orrington Avenue.

The developers have worked for months in concert with city officials to design a tower with "wow factor," they said at a Thursday news conference.

"(The city) said, 'Don't come back with an ordinary building,'" architect Lawrence Booth said.

The tower's glass wrap would rise above the highest floor, and the developers have talked about placing lights on the roof of the building, creating a subtle glow through the glass. The existing building at the site includes Radio Shack, 716 Church St., and sporting goods store, Uncle Dan's, 700 Church St.

The coordination between the city and the developers underscores a mutually beneficial outcome if the tower comes to fruition. The project could help fund the expansion of Fountain Square Plaza on the south part of the block. The plaza has languished on the city's agenda for five years, according to Assistant City Manager Judith Aiello.

Though the plans submitted to the city include only the block's northernmost property, the developers have designed a plan for the entire block, which stretches down Sherman and Orrington avenues between Church and Davis streets. The design for the triangular block tapers from the glass-and-steel tower to the landmark Hahn Building, which would not be modified, and then to a re-landscaped public plaza in place of the Fountain Square building that now stands at the block's south end.

Developers and architects held closed-door meetings with the City Council and with a handful of influential business leaders and preservationists before submitting their first formal request, for rezoning, last Thursday, Aiello said. She said those who saw the models will be key in the approval process, and the meetings were typical for projects of this size.

"We indicated that there was a need for people to see it, particularly if they were going to go to the press," she said. "The last thing you want to do is throw out a project to citizens, committees or neighbors without them having as much information as they possibly can."

Multiple people who saw the project in private said the building's height was justified as it would be the center of "the wedding cake" of downtown.

One architect who criticized Sherman Plaza had praise for the new building.

"The proposed building is an elegant, magnificent building," said John Macsai, a retired architect who viewed the models last week. "I would have to write a dissertation to tell you how much I dislike Sherman Plaza."

Even several who have opposed tall buildings in the past, such as Ald. Edmund Moran (6th), have responded positively to the project.

"Given that this proposal is for the epicenter of Evanston, this is probably a logical area to discuss the construction of a large building, especially since it will be between two already large buildings," Moran said.

Moran said his enthusiasm stemmed in part from the idea that the new development could provide funds for the beginning of a "significant public space" at the south end of the block.

The new space is contingent upon the destruction of the Fountain Square building just north of the current plaza. Ted Mavrakis, the owner of the Fountain Square building, said he would sell it to the city for $10 million. The city could generate that amount through increased real estate taxes created by the Tax Increment Financing district that exists in that area of downtown, city economic development planner Morris Robinson said.

When a TIF district is created, the property tax revenue in the district going to the city's general funds is capped for 23 years. The capped amount still goes to the city and other taxing bodies, but any excess tax revenue - presumably from new development - would go directly back to public works and capital improvements within the district.

To generate enough to buy the Fountain Square building through TIF revenue, the development itself would have to be worth at least $100 million, Robinson said.

Tim Anderson, president of Focus Development, said it was too early to put a price tag on the project, but said the tower could be the "financial engine" that would support the square's renovation.

"It's a short window of opportunity," Anderson said, noting that the TIF expires in 2018.

Still, developers said they expect the skyscraper to go through with or without the Fountain Square plaza renovation.

"We expect that the city wants to do it," Anderson said. "This project doesn't need Fountain Square to go ahead."

The site of the proposed tower, and the entire Fountain Square block, has foiled other developers in the past.

In January 2005, developer John Mangel of HSA Commercial Real Estate was on the brink of submitting plans for a development covering the entire block, he said. But he could not secure the northernmost site, which would house the proposed tower, something he labeled "ironic."

Multiple calls to Jim Nash, owner of the leasing company that runs the existing building at 708 Church St., were not returned.

Developer Thomas Roszak unveiled plans for a 38-story condo and hotel complex on the block last June. He could not secure all three properties either.

Other developers were surprised by the favorable reaction of city officials to the proposed development.

"I'm surprised, given their past history about tall buildings and our experience with much more modest proposals, that they should be so supportive of a building that's twice as tall as anything that's ever been built in Evanston," said Bob Horner, a developer at Winthrop Properties working on a 15-story building at 1567 Maple St.

Still, all involved anticipate that despite their preparations, public debate on the proposed building may be acrimonious.

"This is Evanston," Carroll said. "We don't know what the outcry will be."

Reach Peter Jackson at peterjackson@northwestern.edu.

Loopy
Apr 30, 2007, 2:49 PM
http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2007/04/28/so_high_i_can_touch_the_sky.php#comments

Chicagoist has a story up about the Fountain Square proposal. It is commented with the usual mewling NIMBY bleatings. Comments are open without registering. Just pick a name and give a valid email addy (not posted). Go give'em hell. I did.

April 28, 2007

So High I can Touch the Sky

Blurring the line between city and suburb, a proposal has been sent to Evanston officials for what would be the largest building in the suburbs. The building, a 49-story condo building, would be situated at Church Street, Orrington Avenue and Sherman Avenue. The triangular shaped lot currently has a two story retail building which would be torn down for the project.

The project will no doubt have its opponents, when asked by the Tribune if she thought there would be a backlash, Ald. Cheryl Wollin responded: "Nothing in Evanston is non-controversial. I expect it to be thoroughly debated." Zoning officials should have a recommendation in about two weeks, which will be followed by public meetings, hearings, and a vote by the city council.

The current title holder for the largest suburban building surrounding Chicago is the Oakbrook Terrace Tower, which stands has 31 floors and stands at 418 feet. The proposed building in Evanston would house 49 stories at 523 feet.

We sympathize with the residents and business owners in the area at their impending reaction to the proposal. At the same time, economically and geographically a taller building in Evanston makes sense. It will definitely increase congestion, but it will also add to the walkability of the area. As the Tribune points out, the glass and metal structure will add to the natural light that reaches downtown Evanston as well.

The development company hopes to complete construction of the building by 2010.

Comments

[1] Posted by: aldfj | April 29, 2007 1:05 PM
"It will definitely increase congestion, but it will also add to the walkability of the area."
How in the world would this "add to the walkability of the area"? It's quite "walkable" now--adding a 50 story condo building will certainly make it more congested and less "walkable."

To really increase the walkability, they should restore the land back to its original use as a park.

[2] Posted by: john | April 30, 2007 8:22 AM
Yeah, what the hell? What is walkability supposed to mean? Have you ever been to Evanston? This building will do nothing but add congestion and chain stores which no one will really be interested in walking to anyways. The Evanston city council is out of control with respect to the condo builders. All of the discussion so far with this building has and is scheduled to be in closed door sessions. Of course it will be controversial if the council makes a decision on this one without any form of input from the residents of Evanston.

[3] Posted by: Donna | April 30, 2007 9:18 AM
Yeah, what used to be a quaint "little" town is turning into a bunch of ugly, oversized, boxes, with lego like colors, and add that there is no "decent" parking for neighbors (oh, yeah sure, they provide indoor parking for the upper crust, but street parking for the rest of us is usually timed and strictly adhered to by the rolling jeeps, sheesh...\also, rental fees for apartments have started to skyrocket. I mean damn, we only have one McDonalds now (used to have two, one was by the university), every other restaurant is catered to the condo owners who can afford to eat at these establishments. Can I just get a char polish and fries!

[4] Posted by: Chuffy | April 30, 2007 9:38 AM
Evanston is a city as well as a suburb. It need a dense, vibrant urban core to remain cosmopolitan and desirable.

Increasing "walkability" means many things. For one, the building will house 500 or so people who will not need to get into their cars to get around downtown Evanston. It is exactly the kind of project the city should be trying to attract.

Steely Dan
Apr 30, 2007, 7:22 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0704270846apr29,1,3943355.story?coll=chi-entertainment-utl

ARCHITECTURE

High hopes, and a call for a smart debate

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published April 29, 2007



a pretty good preliminary analysis from kamin. the point about a development being judged by all of its characteristics and not solely by its height cannot be stressed enough to the evanston crowd. the one promising thing about all of this is that many people, including some city alderman appear to agree that IF a tall building is to be built in downtown evanston, this would be the block, so the debate becomes one of "should evanston have a tall skyline-defining building?", not "let's do everything within our power to knock height off this project to spite those evil greedy developers." if it is agreed that evanston should have a tall skyline-defining building, then the issue of whether it should be 49 floors, or 39 floors or 59 floors or whatever becomes less significant.

alex1
Apr 30, 2007, 9:21 PM
^true. Seems that the early PR battle is being won by the developer which can go a long way. The door is being left open for NIMBYs to come in deride this building but the issue has already been framed quite well from a pro-tower stance.

Steely Dan
Apr 30, 2007, 10:23 PM
evanstonnow.com has posted several more articles about this development, dealing specifically with zoning issues and with the expansion of fountain square plaza. there's also a poll to vote on what you think of the height of the tower proposal.

click the link to read the articles: http://www.evanstonnow.com/

BVictor1
May 2, 2007, 11:59 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/366101,CST-FIN-roeder02.article

David Roeder ::

AIMING HIGH: In Evanston, where the city officials have been known to debate developments endlessly, they have something big to gnaw on. It's a proposed 49-story condo tower that would be the tallest in the suburbs. James Klutznick of Klutznick Fisher Development Co. and Tim Anderson of Focus Development Inc. have proposed it for the block bounded by Church, Orrington and Sherman in Evanston's downtown.

The site is near the developers' successful Sherman Plaza project. Hearings are expected to start in June, and some residents and public officials are already criticizing the height. Klutznick's response: "Evanston all by itself has become the downtown of the north lakefront,'' he said, adding that his location in the city center is appropriate for a signature building.

The slim design is the work of Laurence Booth at Booth Hansen Associates. He said he hopes Evanston will pick up on Chicago's cues about "tall and thin" being in.

Steely Dan
May 4, 2007, 8:00 PM
evanstonnow.com has posted a new article about this project. there are some very positive-sounding quotes from 3 members of the evanston planning board. just about everyone seems to agree that if evanston is to have a very tall building, this is the right location for it. there's also a good quote from one of the planners about how he is not sympathetic to complaints coming from highrise condo dwellers about how this new tower might block their view. this project keeps getting good press.

read the article: http://www.evanstonnow.com/node/2295

trvlr70
May 4, 2007, 8:08 PM
If this tower gets built, it's official: HELL HAS FROZEN OVER!

Steely Dan
May 4, 2007, 8:10 PM
^ LOL! funny & true


i'm starting the liklihood odds at 25%. i know that sounds high to start with, but it really seems like there is a whole lot of enlightenment going on in the city of evanston right now. people, the right people, actually ARE judging this project for more than just its height figure, and that's something i previously thought evanston was entirely incapable of doing.

Segun
May 4, 2007, 8:19 PM
well it does look nice in the rendering, including the Florida Keys in the background.

ardecila
May 4, 2007, 8:31 PM
people, the right people, actually ARE judging this project for more than just its height figure, and that's something i previously thought evanston was entirely incapable of doing.

It's one thing when someone speaks in favor of a project at a meeting. It's quite another when the most prominent architecture critic in the region writes an article in its favor.

Alliance
May 4, 2007, 11:10 PM
well it does look nice in the rendering, including the Florida Keys in the background.

Thats part of the new "Evanston Keys" developments. They're trying to tap into the market for the balmy Lake Michigan waters.;)

denizen467
May 5, 2007, 7:11 PM
well it does look nice in the rendering, including the Florida Keys in the background.
Yep, another b.s. rendering by a developer/architect. However, seeing as it truly would look like there is a huge body of water in the background if the vantage point were rotated slightly to the west, I'll let this one pass. The rendering is basically just trying to combine the key features of what would have been 2 renderings - the slimness of the building and unique triangular shape of the block (from S) and the proximity of Lake Michigan (from W) - into a single rendering. It's more fudging than fabricating, since they'll likely get only 1 image displayed in most newspaper articles or website stories. Besides, feisty Evanstonians will know what's going on, so this rendering slight-of-hand is basically harmless.

Dan in Chicago
May 5, 2007, 10:52 PM
It's not all that misleading. The shoreline bends to the west as it goes north, and if you drew a line up Sherman Avenue you'd hit water around the Wilmette border. In the watercolor the land just fades away gradually, but the view would not be all that different.

denizen467
May 6, 2007, 8:04 AM
I guess, if it's ok to compress about 2 miles into one block's worth after you get past Emerson Street..

kalmia
May 6, 2007, 5:45 PM
must be a north shore thing.... nice news and all but... its own thread?

It's over 500 feet and in a non-usual place.

ardecila
May 6, 2007, 8:39 PM
It has nothing to do with the North Shore. If a 500-footer is proposed in Tinley Park or downtown Gary, it'll get it's own thread too.

Steely Dan
May 7, 2007, 1:38 PM
must be a north shore thing.... nice news and all but... its own thread?

"a north shore thing"? what the hell are you talking about? if another 500 foot building is proposed anywhere in suburban chicago, it's going to be getting it's own thread as well. if you can't understand how a 500 foot building in a little old suburban town center is MAJOR news, well, i can't help you. just go with it.

alex1
May 7, 2007, 3:40 PM
^^^
well, I guess we've been spoiled to the point where 49 story buildings don't deserve their own threads in the Chicagoland area.

it's quite the statement. There are cities 9-10 times larger than Evanston which are having 25-40 story buildings published and one city over 100 times bigger with a 50 story proposal in this forum.

Sir Isaac Newton
May 7, 2007, 3:50 PM
If this building were to go up in its current form and height, it would be HUGE! True, there are 10 proposed skyscrapers in Chicago that would be taller than this one, but outside of the Chicago Spire, and perhaps the Park Michigan, no other currently proposed skyscraper in the Chicagoland area would have as big of an impact as the one in Evanston.

Steely Dan
May 11, 2007, 1:50 AM
here's a quick paint job i threw together of what the new tower's massing could look like in the evasnton skyline. the source image is from the roof deck of marina city, zoomed in a bit of course.

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/4486/evanstonnewtowerhm4.jpg

VivaLFuego
May 11, 2007, 3:10 AM
^ nice. I bet the south views from the upper floors of the new building would be rather incredible.

Xing
May 11, 2007, 3:11 AM
i wouldn't be surprised if it gets nixed altogether, afterall evanston's official city motto is "progress without change". ;)

What'?

honte
May 11, 2007, 3:21 AM
^ Wow, I didn't know there was such a "compaction" from up there. Iteresting how small the whole place looks.

Steely Dan
May 11, 2007, 3:24 AM
^ that "compaction" effect is mostly from the 10x optical zoom on my camera. with the naked eye, evanston looks a great deal further away.


here's an unzoomed pic from my roof deck:

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/278/northside2yc5.jpg

Arch City
May 11, 2007, 5:09 PM
This is true. I've actually heard locals describe Clayton as St. Louis' "white downtown" as terrible as that is. It directly competes with downtown St. Louis and as far as corporate presence is concerned, well, it's winning.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but I've never in my life heard Clayton referred to as St. Louis' "white downtown". St. Louis' "Second Downtown", yes, but "white downtown" - no. I think you are making that up. On any given day Clayton is just as "colorful" as downtown St. Louis - in an elite sort of way. I have many pictures to prove it, so please don't spread garbage like that.

Also, downtown Clayton is not winning as far as large corporate presence either. Large corporate offices are spread almost evenly in the largest local office markets. Overall, in total corporate offices, downtown St. Louis trounces Clayton.

For the record, downtown St. Louis has three of the region's F500 corporations, while Clayton only has one. Downtown St. Louis and Clayton each has four F1000 firms.

On the other hand, the Chesterfield Valley/West County submarket has four F500 firms and three F1000.

Clayton has grown into a major financial center in the region, but most of the large accounting, law, architectural, food, energy, banking, and PR firms - amongst others - are still downtown.

Steely Dan
May 15, 2007, 3:23 PM
thanks for those clarifications arch city.

there are similarities between clayton and evanston, but there are also differences, the largest being that clayton is a major office market within its metropolitan region whereas evanston is not. i think that was the only thing people were trying to say by bringing up clayton so let's please have this be the last post about clayton in this thread.

back to fountain square tower.

Steely Dan
May 17, 2007, 2:20 PM
now things are just getting silly. a second development team is now proposing a 35 story mixed-use tower for the south end of the fountain square block overlooking the square itself, and there is talk that they may be talking with focus/klutznick about coordination of the two projects. this will be interesting to watch.

read all about it at evanstonnow.com: http://www.evanstonnow.com/node/2348

forumly_chgoman
May 17, 2007, 2:49 PM
^^^^Wow that is unbelievable......a major concern of mine is that could be construed as "too much too soon" and actually act to catalyse resistance

The article mentioned a 100 mill $ short fall in pension for police & fire...did not realize this

This should be played up by the developers as I am sure it will

Steely Dan
May 17, 2007, 2:56 PM
a major concern of mine is that could be construed as "too much too soon" and actually act to catalyse resistance

absolutely. i can already hear the NIMBY cries of "overkill". and they may be right, a 49 story tower and a 35 story tower all on this relatively small triangular block may be too much denisty. more specifics are needed before i can begin to form an opinion. my biggest concern is the hahn building. the evanstonnow article said that it would be preserved, but i'm not understanding exactly how that will work. it sounds suspiciously like a facedectomy.

VivaLFuego
May 18, 2007, 4:03 PM
One thing that irked me, the results of a survey posted at Evanstonnow.com......less than 5% of residents of the new condo developments in downtown Evanston are car-free. Over 20% of households of these new 'urban', high-density developments with great transit access have 2 cars or more.

I mean obviously it's their choice, but it means we shouldn't kid ourselves about Evanston's newfound urbanity and rennaisance of pedestrian and transit culture...

Steely Dan
May 18, 2007, 4:19 PM
^ you have to remember that car ownership is a mental neccessity for so many people in this country, even if they only use it once a month. car-culture has been so ingrained into our larger culture that being without a car is a frightening prospect for many americans.

as for the top 20% with two or more cars, well, a lot of these people buying condos in evanston are wealthy north shore empty nesters, and if they buy a unit that comes with two deeded spots down in the garage, well, they got fill 'em up with something. i wouldn't be surprised if 20% of the condo purchasers in new downtown chicago highrises didn't own two or more cars as well. rich people love to accumulate shit, even when that shit doesn't make any practical sense.

as for the second part of your assesment, downtown evasnton is becoming more urban and is seeing more ped activity whether or not you choose to believe it because of some car ownership stats. i've worked in downtown e-town everyday for the past 11 years, and i grew up in neighboring wilmette so downtown evanston has always been a place i've been very familair with. and during my days i've seen the place transformed from a sick dog limping on its last leg to a healthy, vibrant suburban downtown, quite possibly the best in all of chicagoland.

nergie
May 18, 2007, 4:26 PM
One thing that irked me, the results of a survey posted at Evanstonnow.com......less than 5% of residents of the new condo developments in downtown Evanston are car-free. Over 20% of households of these new 'urban', high-density developments with great transit access have 2 cars or more.

I mean obviously it's their choice, but it means we shouldn't kid ourselves about Evanston's newfound urbanity and rennaisance of pedestrian and transit culture...

Unfortunately, the options to get out from Evanston to the other areas of the metro are limited and its just a fact that most people that live in these buildings are going to snub their noses at the bus. But the EL or Metra are not options to travel to the NW suburbs. Heck driving to O'Hare is probably better than having to hope on the Red/Purple line and transfer. Chicagoland really needs to improve the rail connections between certain regions of the metro if there is any hope of reducing car traffic. Even then, as Steely suggests there still needs to be a drastic change in mindset.

VivaLFuego
May 18, 2007, 5:40 PM
as for the second part of your assesment, downtown evasnton is becoming more urban and is seeing more ped activity whether or not you choose to believe it because of some car ownership stats.

True, and fair enough: I think the same is true of many downtowns throughout the country; there is more activity, more vibrancy; hard to quantify, but its definitely there, and its definitely true in Evanston with some of the new retail and entertainment developments like the downtown theatre. More people seem to be spending more of their money at downtown stores nationwide. This is good, and its a necessary first step.

But I guess my broader point is, in terms of actual sustainaible development, if people are still driving/parking through all of this, the actual benefit is minor (perhaps a few less strip malls on greenfields, but no significant reduction in oil consumption or relative improvement in air quality); that is, the progress is illusory. So we probably don't really disagree; I definitely agree that alot of peope have this mental block wherein they take for granted that they need to own a car even if it would be much more economic for them to simply joing carsharing or rent when they need one. Let's hope that more downtown living and more downtown shopping will glean people to the notion that hey, you can actually survive for weeks/months/years at a time without needing to own a car.

Steely Dan
May 18, 2007, 5:52 PM
But I guess my broader point is, in terms of actual sustainaible development, if people are still driving/parking through all of this, the actual benefit is minor (perhaps a few less strip malls on greenfields, but no significant reduction in oil consumption or relative improvement in air quality); that is, the progress is illusory. So we probably don't really disagree;
actually, we really do disagree. the progress may not be total, but it is hardly illusory. convincing people to live in a dense urban fashion does not have the elimination of all automobile use as its lone goal. the fact is that people buying condos in downtown evanston may indeed own cars, but they are most certainly not using them to access things within downtown evanston. they might use their car to get to their job up on lake cook road. they might use their car to visit their friends up in highland park. they might use their car to visit their relatives in bloomingdale and geneva. they might use their car to make a run out to ikea. etc. what they are not doing though is using their car on an everday basis within downtown evanston itself, so the benefits to a more vibrant, more urban, more pedestrian-oriented town center are very tangible and real.

BUT, we're way off topic of fountain square tower. if there is anything further to discuss about this topic, let's start a new thread.

Steely Dan
May 24, 2007, 12:22 AM
here's are first look at the proposed 2nd tower on the fountian square block. it would stand 36 stories tall.

read the evanstonnow.com story for details: http://www.evanstonnow.com/node/2377

would someone from emporis please add this one to the database so that i can add it to page 1 of the rundown?

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7663/fountainsquaretoweriipw5.jpg

Marcu
May 24, 2007, 12:59 AM
here's are first look at the proposed 2nd tower on the fountian square block. it would stand 36 stories tall.

read the evanstonnow.com story for details: http://www.evanstonnow.com/node/2377

would someone from emporis please add this one to the database so that i can add it to page 1 of the rundown?

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7663/fountainsquaretoweriipw5.jpg

So is the first proposal going right behind that? I'm a bit confused.

Steely Dan
May 24, 2007, 1:03 AM
I'm a bit confused.
you're not the only one. as of right now, i guess we could consider this second proposal as a competing proposal, as in, if this get approved, the other one won't. BUT, the developers of this 2nd tower have stated that they've talked with focus/klutznik about a collaboration. this is all very up in the air kinda stuff right now, we'll have to wait and see how everything pans out.

but to answer your question, yes, this 2nd tower is south of, or in front of, the focus/klutznik 49 story proposal on the same fountain sqaure block.

Nowhereman1280
May 24, 2007, 1:04 AM
Oh wow, now that is a solid proposal! I really like the design! Its like a Flatiron building for the 21st century. The pillars at the bottom and the crown are both just phenominal. I hope these both get built, but I would rather have this second one than the first proposal.

I dunno Steely, the Evanston skyline might actually catch up with Milwaukee at this rate. ;)

forumly_chgoman
May 24, 2007, 6:03 AM
* moderator edit *

do not copy and paste anything from the evanstonnow.com website. you can link to items there, but we've been asked by the site owner not to post their content on this forum.

- steely
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





Yeah it weird.....I wonder if this is competing or complimentart

also I wonder what the height would be......I am guessing somewhee around 380 -- 400 ft

Chicago3rd
May 24, 2007, 1:07 PM
My guess is the first proposal is a red herring and this is what they really want to build on that property.

Steely Dan
May 24, 2007, 2:03 PM
My guess is the first proposal is a red herring and this is what they really want to build on that property.

who is "they"? the two proposals come from competing development interests with different ownership options for different parcels of land on the block in question.

aaron38
May 24, 2007, 2:18 PM
Regarding the second proposal, if you look at the elevation drawing in the evanstonnow.com article, the support columns for the tower go right through the Hahn building.
Which would mean the Hahn building would be completely 'facademized', right?
Whereas in the first proposal it's left intact?