CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT - Page 148

BVictor1 · #**2941** Posted **Nov 5, 2009, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loopy

Well, I can't reveal my source or any of the details. But it involves a local developer, Arab money and a national architecture firm.

The design sounds cool, but it will be a big disappointment to scraper fans because of the limited height.

Loopy, tell you source to tell his source that all of the skyscraper geeks on this forum want a tall tower. If the design is changed, well... it beller be good is all.

I know that a lot of people just want to see "something" done with what's there, but it can't just be "something", not because of what we've been anticipating, hoping for and wanting for a long time, but because that site deserves something good.

And goddamn it, I want it

ChicagoChicago · #**2942** Posted **Nov 5, 2009, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

11-02

Comeon George, just a few feet further back and you could have had this shot!

chi-arch · #**2943** Posted **Nov 5, 2009, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loopy

Heard some buzz today. 111 West Wacker. Mixed-Use, Office/Hotel. 55 floors.

55 floors. What a waste of concrete foundation work; and watch it'll be a LEED Gold for adaptive reuse....

Lexy · #**2944** Posted **Nov 5, 2009, 11:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

Comeon George, just a few feet further back and you could have had this shot!

Good night that damn thing is THIN!!!! WOW!!! I do like the crown on the roof though. Pretty detailed!

Cro Burnham · #**2945** Posted **Nov 6, 2009, 12:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

. . . . I'm just curious who is thinking anything about this site while $80mm in liens sit on it.

I'm sure the lienholders have no expectation that they will get back anywhere close to 100 cents on the dollar. Presumably they expect to be bought out at a very steep discount before anyone invests another dime in the project.

JDRCRASH · #**2946** Posted **Nov 6, 2009, 1:08 AM**

That picture George provided is spectacular. I like the plants in the foreground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yep. at this point design is all that matters with this project. i'm sick and tired of staring at that poor old concrete hulk across the river from my balcony.

It's screaming "please finish me!".

nomarandlee · #**2947** Posted **Nov 6, 2009, 1:15 AM**

I love the original design. If Shanghai or Bangkok can wait a few years to complete buildings as planned I would be willing to wait.

harryc · #**2948** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 3:13 PM**

Nov 11 - less activity than at the Spire site.

Nicer patterns than the old surface lot.

george · #**2949** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 5:29 PM**

11-20-09

takascar · #**2950** Posted **Dec 2, 2009, 4:20 PM**

Hey - from my vantage point at 161 N. Clark, I see 4 pickup trucks inside the gate and 3 or 4 guys on the top level, looking at plans and spraypainting orange marks on the top level. Are they getting ready to take apart the crain?

What is the status of the city's request that they do this? Also, has BoA finished their foreclosure proceedings yet?

Loopy · #**2951** Posted **Dec 2, 2009, 8:53 PM**

.

Pizzuti · #**2952** Posted **Dec 3, 2009, 11:44 PM**

This may be unrealistic, but what if they just clad and finished what is currently there, with the interior as finished, rentable space, with some sort of temporary covering on top and sold the tower (at a loss) under the premise that the buyer could eventually continue building?

Then at least you have some use for the building/level of income in the mean time.

I'm just not sure how obnoxious it would be to continue construction on a tower that is already occupied, or how obnoxious it would be to kick everybody out to continue construction. Or if it would be extremely expensive to break the interior/electrical work into two segments, one for what is already there and the second for when you extend the tower.

Has anybody ever heard of something like this happening? I'm sure that somewhere in the world you can find an example.

scalziand · #**2953** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

This may be unrealistic, but what if they just clad and finished what is currently there, with the interior as finished, rentable space, with some sort of temporary covering on top and sold the tower (at a loss) under the premise that the buyer could eventually continue building?

Then at least you have some use for the building/level of income in the mean time.

I'm just not sure how obnoxious it would be to continue construction on a tower that is already occupied, or how obnoxious it would be to kick everybody out to continue construction. Or if it would be extremely expensive to break the interior/electrical work into two segments, one for what is already there and the second for when you extend the tower.

Has anybody ever heard of something like this happening? I'm sure that somewhere in the world you can find an example.

You need to merely look across town to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower, which was designed for phased completion. The bottom half was built about a decade ago, and the top half just completed this year.

Tom In Chicago · #**2954** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 12:27 AM**

^No. . . BCBS was "designed" with a second phase plan. . . this building wasn't. . .

. . .

skybuilder · #**2955** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 4:17 AM**

there is only parking space and large atrium for a hotel lobby finished. there is really no open area for a liveable space other than a really over the top parking garage. it was kindof weird the last day i worked on it, i went to the job site and it was all chained up and i had to get the superintend to unlock the door. no skip, but the smelly plumbers were at least gone! I remember the safety cooridnator coming over to me and talking about procedure and such then making a joke of the poor guy who fell to his death on the job.

Busy Bee · #**2956** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 5:04 AM**

^Charming fellow

Pizzuti · #**2957** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 7:29 AM**

If the existing floors are just parking garage, that means that at least there is no need to furnish it to put it to use.

Could there at least be some profit to be made from using it as a parking garage then, or is there just not enough need for parking right now in Downtown Chicago?

denizen467 · #**2958** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 7:31 AM**

^ not so charming avatar

---------------------------------------

If that Arab funding doesn't work out:

You all know about the Chicago Spire project trying to get investment by builder unions' pension funds -- well, since a 1000-unit 2000-foot building is too "aggressive", maybe we can get the unions to look at Waterview for their investment-for-jobs idea...

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...eder02.article

UNIONS AND THE SPIRE: Garrett Kelleher, owner of the Chicago Spire site that's a hole in the ground at 400 N. Lake Shore Drive, has been presenting local unions with an enticing proposition: Invest in the project and it can provide thousands of union jobs. The idea is attractive to Tom Villanova, president of the Chicago & Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council. He had talks with Kelleher as recently as Monday about a $170 million investment. Villanova said the unions are in "due diligence" on the project.

Trouble is, Villanova would not be providing the money. It would come from two trusts of the AFL-CIO and the Union Labor Life Insurance Co. A source close to the process said it's unlikely they will make the investment. "The jobs are attractive to everybody, but this is one hell of an aggressive project," the source said.

harryc · #**2959** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 3:03 PM**

Not all the existing floors are parking. (parking ends at the big square sections 1/2 way up)

There have been crews from Adjustable Forms on site for the last 3 days - lots of plywood and hammering - winterizing ? They also took out the big dumpster like bin.

chi-arch · #**2960** Posted **Dec 4, 2009, 4:00 PM**

Harry is correct and it is not all parking. The two phased approach has been discussed many times here and it would take a complete re-design of all of the mechanicals to pull that off. Not impossible. The issue with building the tower at a later date has always revolved around elevator access and the very very tight site and staging problems with an occupied building. You can bet that by now there is no scenario that has not been looked into by the current developer and all comers.