SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   CHICAGO | 435 N Park | 569 ft | 49 FLOORS | COM (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198244)

BraveNewWorld May 12, 2012 8:21 PM

Quote:

He would also like to go taller, but the economics just aren't there at the moment.
Interesting. So he might add some height at the end of construction ?

denizen467 May 12, 2012 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn (Post 5699111)
Well, we dodged a bullet on this site in the past. It was supposed to be an Adam's Mark Hotel, which I'm told was going to be a really fugley POS.

I vaguely remember that and just threw up a little in my mouth when you mentioned it.

Especially now that Illinois and Grand are so much more built up in Streeterville compared to fifteen years ago, a design standard has kind of emerged in the public's mind so that it's a bit less probable someone will design total crap for a new tower. The good is crowding out the bad, hope it continues.

ChiPhi May 13, 2012 5:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld (Post 5699136)
Interesting. So he might add some height at the end of construction ?

It sounds like more height was desired by the developer, but economically it doesn't work. A building cannot have a vertical expansion after it is built without being engineered for it during the original construction (a la Blus Cross Blue Shield)... I doubt the developer will do that though. While the site is in a great location, I doubt land will be valuable enough anytime in the near future that he can justify the extra upfront cost to pay for the added engineering to make a vertical expansion feasible. Think of all the empty lots to be developed first... While he doesn't have control of any of those other lots (to my knowledge) the cost to a developer of building a 20 story building more inexpensively than he can build an extra 20 stories onto this will make other buildings cheaper and more profitable to investors in my opinion.

ChiPhi May 14, 2012 7:07 PM

The Chicago Architecture Blog has a piece on 435 N Park. Apart from some errors (like an outdated picture of the building) and some points upon which I disagree (like classifying SOAR as a NIMBY group and calling it SORE - Seniors overlords of real estate - with the blogger's perennial sass), it had some interesting statements.

On Streeterville coming to terms with having towers built:

Quote:

...a recent public meeting on the building [435 N Park Dr.] was actually moved to a smaller space than originally planned, and there was still room to spare.
and

Quote:

As one woman put it at a recent community meeting, “For the most part, a lot of people around here don’t care about the height of a building anymore. A lot of people care about how it looks — the design. How it fits into the area.”
On the designs coming from SCB:

Quote:

When I interviewed [SCB CEO John] Lahey a couple of weeks ago, I asked him if he agreed with me that most SCB buildings look the same. He strongly disagreed when we were talking in private, and when I repeated the assertion in the open in front of some of his staffers, there was at least one audible snort of disapproval.
On our criticisms of these towers:

Quote:

Skyscrapers get more expensive as they get taller, and maybe DRW can’t afford to put up a statement building. “Go big or go home” doesn’t necessarily apply. It’s easy for the Chicago Architecture Blog and SORE and the rest of Chicago to throw stones at the design, but we’re not paying for it. At least not in terms of money.
Also, more proof from Crain's that we are seeing a rental bubble right now. We'll see if developers are restrained or we will see a crash in 2013...

emathias May 15, 2012 7:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPhi (Post 5700628)
...
Also, more proof from Crain's that we are seeing a rental bubble right now. We'll see if developers are restrained or we will see a crash in 2013...

Rentals don't bubble to the same extent that condos do. I wouldn't worry about it. Plus, an apartment bubble only hurts big players and actually helps the average person, unlike a condo or SFH bubble, which hurts a broad spectrum of people. This economy has a lot of things to worry about, but an apartment bubble isn't one of them. Lower rent may stave off the day when condo prices increase rapidly again, but having more people downtown makes it more vibrant, which makes it more attractive, which still helps it overall.

jcchii May 15, 2012 9:58 PM

^ well said

ChiPhi May 15, 2012 11:10 PM

I believe rents could bubble, as the 90's in Chicago's commercial business spaces did. Though, as emathias said, low rents "help" the majority of people, it still hurts real estate investment (especially the condo market) as we would see little to no new construction as an overbuilt inventory is absorbed. It doesn't seem like we will see anything beyond stabilized rental prices, but it could easily become a bubble if investors get overzealous. I was probably being a bit hyperbolic in my last post. Also, I just realized how offpost my last post got. sorry. Lets try to continue this over in the Gen. Dev. thread if anyone wants to.

BraveNewWorld May 16, 2012 4:46 PM

Neighbors Want TALLER Skyscrapers In Streeterville

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...5/435npark.jpg
435 N. Park Dr. C.A.I.

Zapatan May 16, 2012 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld (Post 5702866)


Only in Chicago do you have YIMBYS :D

Perfect city for America's next tallest I say :yes:

Let's hope this thing breaks 800'

BraveNewWorld May 16, 2012 5:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 5702897)
Only in Chicago do you have YIMBYS :D

Perfect city for America's next tallest I say :yes:

Let's hope this thing breaks 800'

Haha true, if the developer manages to get extra funding the height of this will definitely rise, but that's a big "if"

For now though, we should be happy that we will have 2 200m buildings under construction at the end of this year. Chicago needs some buildings in the 600-700 foot range anyways.

Buckman821 May 16, 2012 5:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld (Post 5702936)
Haha true, if the developer manages to get extra funding the height of this will definitely rise

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that such a plan is being considered. These are just random musings of development observers. Let's reel it back just a little bit. As has been mentioned before, your enthusiasm is commendable but try to use SSP as an educational resource as much as possible. You can learn a lot about the development process by just sitting back and soaking up the knowledge that is available on these boards.

Swicago Swi Sox May 16, 2012 6:23 PM

Ogden Plaza
 
Interesting/Sad article on CAB today regarding the ugly clock plaza near 435 N Park. Some of the older renderings of this project showed the park totally renovated, but more recent images show it remaining the same. At one of the SOAR meetings the developers intimated that they hoped to renovate the plaza, but that it was more complicated. CAB has more back story:

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...r-ogden-plaza/

Quote:

There had been hope that new development bordering Ogden Plaza (429 North Columbus Drive) would result in the urban park being renovated. But according to alderman Brendan Reilly, that’s not going to happen.

Reilly planned to press DRW Investments, the developers of the new hotel and apartment tower next door at 435 North Park Drive, to include rebuilding the park as part of the deal to get city approval for the project. But the world is more complicated than that.
...

BraveNewWorld May 16, 2012 6:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckman821 (Post 5702962)
There's absolutely nothing to suggest that such a plan is being considered. These are just random musings of development observers. Let's reel it back just a little bit. As has been mentioned before, your enthusiasm is commendable but try to use SSP as an educational resource as much as possible. You can learn a lot about the development process by just sitting back and soaking up the knowledge that is available on these boards.

There was another article where the developer said that he wanted it to be taller, but didn't have the money.

That's why I said it's a big "if"

Neuman May 16, 2012 11:38 PM

What's up with the Star Trek symbol at the top of the building in that render?

untitledreality May 16, 2012 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neuman (Post 5703420)
What's up with the Star Trek symbol at the top of the building in that render?

It appears to be SCB's new shtick with its early renderings. And yes, that is an old rendering.

ardecila May 17, 2012 4:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swicago Swi Sox (Post 5703003)
Interesting/Sad article on CAB today regarding the ugly clock plaza near 435 N Park. Some of the older renderings of this project showed the park totally renovated, but more recent images show it remaining the same. At one of the SOAR meetings the developers intimated that they hoped to renovate the plaza, but that it was more complicated. CAB has more back story:

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...r-ogden-plaza/

This whole parking garage thing seems like a poorly structured deal. The Park District has little incentive to maintain a desolate plaza in the middle of nowhere, and when there's little incentive, it just doesn't get done. If some private company wanted to lease the parking, the Park District should have insisted that they also assume responsibility for the plaza maintenance.

People seem to think that above ground and underground are two separate and unlinked worlds, but water that hits the surface will eventually percolate down to anything beneath, and in a poorly-maintained environment, this is just asking for trouble.

Ch.G, Ch.G May 17, 2012 4:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 5703732)
People seem to think that above ground and underground are two separate and unlinked worlds, but water that hits the surface will eventually percolate down to anything beneath, and in a poorly-maintained environment, this is just asking for trouble.

This is surprisingly poignant and—dare I say?—deep.

SamInTheLoop May 25, 2012 1:32 PM

Construction Start This Year?
 
I understand there was a recent media report stating the developer claimed financing was already in-place for this development and construction would start this year. I'm quite skeptical. For large projects, a developer's deep track record in similarly large and/or complex developments and longer-term strong lender relationships are pretty vital right now to get them off the ground, and in my opinion thus far I'm frankly afraid I don't see it here - at least for a start this year (unless this developer were to bring in a strong development partner on this project).......

i_am_hydrogen May 27, 2012 12:03 AM

^DRW has teamed up with John Buck. And the project was approved by the Plan Commission yesterday.

Quote:

• A proposal by real estate investor Donald Wilson to build to build a high-rise at 454 N. Park Drive in the Streeterville neighborhood, with 398 residences, a 400-room hotel and 230 parking slots.
Read more: http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.co...#ixzz1w1Z5AUAl

SamInTheLoop May 30, 2012 1:55 PM

^ Ahh....I do vaguely recall something about John Buck being involved in some capacity. I wonder, though, exactly what capacity....it seems to me they're recently taking a role in some projects in which they probably just earn a fee by performing a development (construction?) management function of some sort (they also of course still have other projects in which they are the primary developer and partial equity source. Regardless of specific role, Buck's participation will be a positive factor in terms of financing prospects....


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.