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

[chi-arch]

I said back in January that they had to build up 3 more floors(essentially, get to and complete the transfer floor) to get the crain down off of there. I still think this is the only way, but what the hell do I know.

[Mojava]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...oker-says.html

"Halted after work began, standing like a broken tooth in the smile of Chicago's Wacker Drive cityscape, the forlorn Waterview Tower is attracting "a lot" of interest, Greene said in an interview. Groups of potential buyers are all over the 26 stories of bare concrete at 111 W. Wacker, he said, many taking his advice to dress in workout gear, since there's no vertical transportation.

Some hope to complete the 90-floor project, once intended to be a Shangri-La Hotel with luxury condos. Some want to cut it off at 40 floors and put in rental units. Student housing is a possibility, or offices at the top, Greene said. "It will depend on who's imagination is best and who can close."

[Lecom]

Light at the end of the tunnel? Nice...

Even if it's cut off at 40 stories, perhaps one day they could pull a BCBS-style expansion; the foundations are suited to hold 90 stories, after all.

[The Pimp]

We'll see....

[DonMendigo]

Student housing on wacker overlooking the river?? Seriously?

[ChicagoChicago]

Originally Posted by DonMendigo

Student housing on wacker overlooking the river?? Seriously?

I was thinking the same thing... And then I remembered they are building student housing overlooking Grant Park...

[andydie]

I guess the positive news is that at least there is still interest for the site and project and if we are very lucky we might get the full thing. If not 40 stories arent too bad either and a lot better than what we got now

[ltsmotorsport]

Would be cool too if they could build it to the original height and have faculty housing on the upper floors.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Lecom

Light at the end of the tunnel? Nice...

Even if it's cut off at 40 stories, perhaps one day they could pull a BCBS-style expansion; the foundations are suited to hold 90 stories, after all.

I'd rather it not get built if that were to happen if it were reduced by 40 stories. The difference with Blue Cross is that the phased construction was planned.

It would also be a logistical nightmare to try and reinstall a crane 10 years from now to add 40 floors.

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I'd rather it not get built if that were to happen if it were reduced by 40 stories. The difference with Blue Cross is that the phased construction was planned.

It would also be a logistical nightmare to try and reinstall a crane 10 years from now to add 40 floors.

Why couldn't the redesign also include a phasing option, just like BCBS? Though I'd also rather see the full buildout right away, the phasing option makes sense in our economy - build whatever's feasible in current conditions, then allow the building to grow when things pick up. And why would reinstalling the crane be much more difficult than on BCBS? Because of the constrained site?

[FlashingLights]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I'd rather it not get built if that were to happen if it were reduced by 40 stories. The difference with Blue Cross is that the phased construction was planned.

It would also be a logistical nightmare to try and reinstall a crane 10 years from now to add 40 floors.

Why do you care if it's a logistical nightmare let someone else worry about it, as long the building gets built as originally planned.

I highly doubt the phase construction is realistic though and I doubt it will get built to the full height.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by Lecom

Why couldn't the redesign also include a phasing option, just like BCBS? Though I'd also rather see the full buildout right away, the phasing option makes sense in our economy - build whatever's feasible in current conditions, then allow the building to grow when things pick up. And why would reinstalling the crane be much more difficult than on BCBS? Because of the constrained site?

I think what BVic is getting at is it would be impossible to phase because the cost of setting up cranes etc on that small a site with an operating building underneath would be so astronomical it simply would never happen.

[chi-arch]

So how do you develop the pitched parking floors for occupancy now and then convert those floors back to parking when the tower is stacked above the initial 40 floors of development?

[denizen467]

^ That's why it'd be student housing I guess. Some sort of endless upward stair-stepped square-spiral corridor would have to be installed (wooden planks on top of the sloped concrete?) and then removed later. Only students would put up with that.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Lecom

Why couldn't the redesign also include a phasing option, just like BCBS? Though I'd also rather see the full buildout right away, the phasing option makes sense in our economy - build whatever's feasible in current conditions, then allow the building to grow when things pick up. And why would reinstalling the crane be much more difficult than on BCBS? Because of the constrained site?

BCBS has a substantial plaza and it is surrounded by huge, empty streets (Upper Columbus/Randolph). Waterview has no such advantages.

[Northwest]

Originally Posted by chi-arch

So how do you develop the pitched parking floors for occupancy now and then convert those floors back to parking when the tower is stacked above the initial 40 floors of development?

This is a huge problem with the structure as it stands... its mostly parking, and the rest is hotel... not easily converted to other uses. Much of the curtain wall is already manufactured to enclose parking, not living space. This structure is screaming out to be completed as designed.
I would wait out the recession to see this one completed as intended, but we'll soon see if economics dictate otherwise.
I wonder how many buyers still have pending contracts?

[chi-arch]

Yes, good point about the curtain wall which several floors are already fabbed and sitting in a warehouse.
I bailed out last spring when it looked like there was no chance at a restart. I cannot imagine that there are a lot of buyers still hanging on at this point and unfortunately we are in for a very long hall to get the real estate values back to where they were when the project went dormant 18 months ago. It could easily take 3-5 years to get back to that value structure with this economic malaise. Any new developer would need to be very cautious about the product if they try to ramp it back up quickly. It may be better to wait for the market to come to the project at this point, but I am sure the city is livid about those prospects.

This is a very difficult development to get righted and I hope someone has a good imagination, a lot of cash, and can get it going soon.

[ethereal_reality]

But isn't true, the construction cost will be MUCH lower after the economic collapse.
Wouldn't the residences be priced accordingly?

[simcityaustin]

Originally Posted by ethereal_reality

But isn't true, the construction cost will be MUCH lower after the economic collapse.
Wouldn't the residences be priced accordingly?

Weren't the residences already by far one of the best bargains in Chicago when they first started selling?

[bnk]

Originally Posted by simcityaustin

Weren't the residences already by far one of the best bargains in Chicago when they first started selling?

No not at all.

Waterview was top notch and top dollar all the way...

They were after a very top clientele, trust me.