CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS

[SamInTheLoop]

The one thing about this tower, programmattically, that continues to surprise me is the mix of rentals to condos. I still firmly believe the condo market is coming back over the next 12-18 months, however I'd think the ratio would be more similar to that of maybe One Bennett Park or Aqua, as opposed to the (~70%?) condos that they are going with here.......I wonder if they'll tweak it this year, prior to launching condo pre-sales?

[Mr Downtown]

I'm not sure if rental units are still in the mix. From the JK website:



The PD allows 506 units, but why wouldn't the website mention the rental units if they're still planned?

But two other bits of info: Ald. King said last Wed. at South Loop Neighbors that she'd jawboned JK into including affordable units in this project (rather than just paying into the fund). Separately, I learned that JK had purchased the parking lot west of 910 S. Michigan, SEC Wabash & 9th, solving an access and easement problem they had. So will there be a smaller rental building that's a separate phase? Or will JK just take a hit on a dozen of the lower-floor condos in the Michigan Avenue tower?

[SamInTheLoop]

^ All interesting.


The affordable component needs to be prescribed in ordinance. In other words, if developers technically have a choice whether to include onsite or pay a fee in lieu of, then aldermen shouldn't be jawboning for one of those routes (I'm not saying whether I think they should have a choice, but whether they do or not should be written into law and then the law should be followed and respected by aldermen.....as it stands, they do have a choice). Putting that aside for the moment, the time to jawbone obviously would have been prior to PD approval, not afterward....fully realize that we had a change of alderman and I suppose Burns gave this a thumbs-up as he was leaving office (or it was formally approved with no replacement selected.....I forget which is the case, but I know Mr D, you will).

I'm actually surprised that the developer yielded and let the aldermen jawbone them into on-site affordable. If it is one all-condo building, the fact of the matter is that the affordable component will undoubtedly turn-off a lot of buyers (I personally like mixed incomes and affordable housing units in all city neighborhoods and parts of neighborhoods, but I am not the market). Will they have one of those 'poor doors' for the affordable component - as they call them in New York? Those are always socially lovely, and a great reflection of our current society. Question - were there separate entrances planned for the condo vs rental portions of the tower (when - or if still - it was planned as ~70/30 condos-to-rentals?

Or, to your questions, Mr D, will they now amend the PD to put up a smaller building 'out the back' where they can concentrate the poors? Maybe a little tenement district off-Michigan hidden behind the parkfront and Michigan Ave wall - away from the postcard views, and pretty people and tourists, etc?

Fascinated by this, and what's going on behind the scenes here....

[archibri]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

To be fair to Jahn (and I say this as someone who hates most of his work) his original design for the lot was amazing, but this design was the fallback after they couldn't get approval for the 1000 footer

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Haha, like I said, I'm no fan of Jahn. I'm still referring to this as 600 N Fairbanks 2.0 since the design(including the weak attempt at a cantilevered edge) is almost identical. Jahn went full lazy mode

As someone who has professional colleagues whom have worked on the project, Jahn went through many concept designs before the one that was submitted to the city for PD approval. In my opinion, since I had seen some of the concepts, the most striking was one that was quite similar to what he has proposed for the redevelopment of the Thompson Center (exposed exterior structural diagrid, almost like John Hancock).

As I have been told, the current design is highly client influenced, playing off the desire to match the character of Jahn's design of 50W Street in NYC. Remember 1000S is a joint venture between JK and Time Equities (50W). The sloping cantilever was incorporated to capture the available air rights of the adjacent building to the south (JK owned) so as to increase the available floor plate area.

Could there be a better design? Yes, probably. Are we involved in the process? No, and we really don't know how Jahn's design choices for the building have been influenced (client, alderman, money, etc). Let's just hope that it continues and gets built. Should be better than any of the SCB stuff.

[archibri]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ All interesting.


The affordable component needs to be prescribed in ordinance. In other words, if developers technically have a choice whether to include onsite or pay a fee in lieu of, then aldermen shouldn't be jawboning for one of those routes (I'm not saying whether I think they should have a choice, but whether they do or not should be written into law and then the law should be followed and respected by aldermen.....as it stands, they do have a choice). Putting that aside for the moment, the time to jawbone obviously would have been prior to PD approval, not afterward....fully realize that we had a change of alderman and I suppose Burns gave this a thumbs-up as he was leaving office (or it was formally approved with no replacement selected.....I forget which is the case, but I know Mr D, you will).

I'm actually surprised that the developer yielded and let the aldermen jawbone them into on-site affordable. If it is one all-condo building, the fact of the matter is that the affordable component will undoubtedly turn-off a lot of buyers (I personally like mixed incomes and affordable housing units in all city neighborhoods and parts of neighborhoods, but I am not the market). Will they have one of those 'poor doors' for the affordable component - as they call them in New York? Those are always socially lovely, and a great reflection of our current society. Question - were there separate entrances planned for the condo vs rental portions of the tower (when - or if still - it was planned as ~70/30 condos-to-rentals?

Or, to your questions, Mr D, will they now amend the PD to put up a smaller building 'out the back' where they can concentrate the poors? Maybe a little tenement district off-Michigan hidden behind the parkfront and Michigan Ave wall - away from the postcard views, and pretty people and tourists, etc?

Fascinated by this, and what's going on behind the scenes here....

From what I have heard, the affordable units were included as a way to boost the total project area and number of units as they were a way to award bonuses to the project. Maybe only 2-5% of the total units.

If JK has purchased the parking lot directly west of 910 S., that would be good news as it would alleviate the easement law suit. They already owned the smaller strip of parking lot just south of that, behind 1006 S., as that was included in the PD. Maybe that will lead to a different future development or lead to the revision of 1000S as a whole?

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Did you hear this from someone at Jahn?

Yeah, a good friend works there.

[SteelMonkey]

Symposium on 3 South Loop towers

https://www.architecture.org/experie...s-on-the-park/

[TimeAgain]

Originally Posted by SteelMonkey

Symposium on 3 South Loop towers

https://www.architecture.org/experie...s-on-the-park/

I still have my doubts that this will be built (just my cynical self), but I would love to attend this. What's going on in the south loop is historic.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by TimeAgain

I still have my doubts that this will be built (just my cynical self), but I would love to attend this. What's going on in the south loop is historic.

It's my understanding that they want to launch sales this spring.

Remember that it's now just condo and a different market. Rentals may be slowing, but it's been a long time since a "high quality" tower has been marketed as condo in the South Loop.

We'll see.

[go go white sox]

Originally Posted by SteelMonkey

Symposium on 3 South Loop towers

https://www.architecture.org/experie...s-on-the-park/

Any chance we see a revised version in jahns tower?

[sox102]

FYI - Facade development package drawings just hit the street this morning for pricing.

[roosegoose]

I attended the presentation tonight at the CAF for the 3 South Loop towers. The branding of this project was "1000M". Not sure if that's the official name but it was on the title slide of their presentation. They stated they are shooting to open a sales center in May and if all goes well they hope to break ground in late 2018. Looked like no design changes have been made but they did show some renderings from different angles that I haven't seen before(Sorry, I didn't get any pictures was way in the back).

[Steely Dan]

^ excellent. Thanks for the report, and welcome to the forum!

[TimeAgain]

Originally Posted by roosegoose

I attended the presentation tonight at the CAF for the 3 South Loop towers. The branding of this project was "1000M". Not sure if that's the official name but it was on the title slide of their presentation. They stated they are shooting to open a sales center in May and if all goes well they hope to break ground in late 2018. Looked like no design changes have been made but they did show some renderings from different angles that I haven't seen before(Sorry, I didn't get any pictures was way in the back).

At this point, I don't care about a redesign, so long as it gets built. Having some dates thrown out at least gives me some hope.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by roosegoose

I attended the presentation tonight at the CAF for the 3 South Loop towers. The branding of this project was "1000M". Not sure if that's the official name but it was on the title slide of their presentation. They stated they are shooting to open a sales center in May and if all goes well they hope to break ground in late 2018. Looked like no design changes have been made but they did show some renderings from different angles that I haven't seen before(Sorry, I didn't get any pictures was way in the back).

Welcome to the forum.

I was able to get a wee bit closer...



Models


How the design changed after the city and landmarks... The architects/developers went back to the city with a design for a tower of about 960', apparently that was okey for a moment, but that got chopped again (by the city) to 832'. The developers no longer liked the design and asked for a do-over.










Facade treatment studies...







This tower will also have a liquid sloshing dampening system. Two dampeners.

The sales center should open late spring or early summer.

[KWILLSKYLINE]

Let me start by saying I know close to nothing about how sales work for towers like this. Hypothetically speaking if sales go like crazy, earlier than suspected, could they move the construction process up earlier from late 2018? I realize they have contracts with a bunch of contruction companies and what not who have their own schedule and deadlines on other projects, but i was just wondering if it's possible to get a head start?

[Rocket49]

Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE

Let me start by saying I know close to nothing about how sales work for towers like this. Hypothetically speaking if sales go like crazy, earlier than suspected, could they move the construction process up earlier from late 2018? I realize they have contracts with a bunch of contruction companies and what not who have their own schedule and deadlines on other projects, but i was just wondering if it's possible to get a head start?

I would imagine if pre-sales were good they would want to start the project as early as possible.

Back in 2008 when the financial crisis hit, the Trump Tower was already pretty far along in its construction and they managed to forge ahead and complete the building. But Waterview Tower and the Spire had later starts and when the crisis hit and financing for the projects collapsed, and the projects ground to a halt.

I would think "strike while the iron is hot" makes sense in a cyclical market like real estate.

[sox102]

Originally Posted by roosegoose

I attended the presentation tonight at the CAF for the 3 South Loop towers. The branding of this project was "1000M". Not sure if that's the official name but it was on the title slide of their presentation. They stated they are shooting to open a sales center in May and if all goes well they hope to break ground in late 2018. Looked like no design changes have been made but they did show some renderings from different angles that I haven't seen before(Sorry, I didn't get any pictures was way in the back).

I've got the pdf version sent from Lend Lease......

[Jibba]

Seeing those study models is saddening. And I think the square version at 832' is just fine.

The E elevation on this thing is not going to be pretty. The N edge of it staggers out and up as the S edge of the W elevation tapers out and up. It's going to look like it's swelling.

I don't understand Landmarks' rationale on this. They should have limited the height to the historical period of the block or not had a limit at all. Now we're stuck with a design that is trying to squeeze the maximum SF from the height, and it's going to look terribly awkward doing it (the prior design did so as well but had the breathing room to do it elegantly).

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by sox102

I've got the pdf version sent from Lend Lease......

Dropbox that shizzz