CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Looks like they splitting it up into two towers to build and finance separately. From Crain's:

Which is funny and interesting because they're actually adding more density and creating a taller tower. It's more of a 3-phase project.

The previous plan was for 665 apartments total, 486 units south of Lake and 179 units in the building north of Lake.

This plan now has 667 units south of Lake and...

The developer is staying the course for a 20-story, 179-unit apartment building it has in the pipeline along the north side of Lake Street between May and Racine

The total would be 846 apartments.

[Randomguy34]

Another infill for South Loop

2328 S Michigan Ave | 170 ft | 256 units | 10 parking!


https://chicityclerkelms.chicago.gov...E-001DD809669D

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Another infill for South Loop

2328 S Michigan Ave | 170 ft | 256 units | 10 parking!


https://chicityclerkelms.chicago.gov...E-001DD809669D

Beautiful. That's how you do downtown development.

Replacing a Burger King on a prime stretch of Motor Row, so making what could be the next Randolph Street less auto-oriented, rather than more (looking at you, LG).

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Another infill for South Loop

2328 S Michigan Ave | 170 ft | 256 units | 10 parking!


https://chicityclerkelms.chicago.gov...E-001DD809669D

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...lace-area-site

Commercial Real Estate
Developers plan 256-unit apartment complex on Motor RowBy Rachel Herzog

Fern Hill and joint venture partners Decennial Group and Rebel Hospitality have proposed a two-building, 256-unit apartment development at 2328 S. Michigan Ave., according to a zoning application filed with the city.

The new plans make use of Chicago’s Connected Communities Ordinance, a measure the City Council adopted in 2022 that allows developers to construct denser buildings near public transit stations. The ordinance also has a “parking swap” provision that allows developers to trade square footage that would have been used for parking to build more residential units, provided that those units are marketed as affordable housing.

[mh777]

That rendering can’t be right? No way that’s 170 feet?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by mh777

That rendering can’t be right? No way that’s 170 feet?

That portion is behind this, on the west half/elevation of the site, along the alley.

And I noticed an error on their land map.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...lace-area-site

Commercial Real Estate
Developers plan 256-unit apartment complex on Motor RowBy Rachel Herzog

Fingers crossed they can execute that facade with decent materials and avoid value engineering out the depth.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...lace-area-site

Commercial Real Estate
Developers plan 256-unit apartment complex on Motor RowBy Rachel Herzog

I'm over the illusory multi-building thing (was never into it, actually). It's so hokey. I'm assuming that they have to adhere to the standards of the Landmark District here (Motor Row). I would much rather see a single facade design with a materials palette and similar fenestration proportions/patterns that are harmonious with the surrounding buildings. Just make a modern building that uses comparable materials and the same design language; not an attempt at a recreation of something from the past that ends up only having a weird semblance to such.

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by Jibba

I'm over the illusory multi-building thing (was never into it, actually). It's so hokey. I'm assuming that they have to adhere to the standards of the Landmark District here (Motor Row). I would much rather see a single facade design with a materials palette and similar fenestration proportions/patterns that are harmonious with the surrounding buildings. Just make a modern building that uses comparable materials and the same design language; not an attempt at a recreation of something from the past that ends up only having a weird semblance to such.

Same but this one is as inoffensive as they get. At least all the major horizontal lines are continued between "buildings"

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Fingers crossed they can execute that facade with decent materials and avoid value engineering out the depth.

It's likely a Type I concrete building, they can always value-engineer it but it's not like the typical wood-framed 5-over-1 apartment where the walls need to be perfectly 2-dimensional like a paper model. We've seen articulation like this in lots of new buildings of this type.

[Toasty Joe]

Doesn't seem like we use a lot (any?) type 5 here. Is that because of fire codes?

[ardecila]

Yes. Chicago Building Code does not allow you to stack one construction type on top of another the way IBC does in other cities, the entire structure must be classified as one type, this is the hack that makes 5-over-1s possible. There are also just stricter limitations on the height/area of wood framed / Type V structures as well.

Practically speaking these apartments in the Cabrini area are the biggest that you can do with wood in Chicago:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9075...8192?entry=ttu
Note that the ground floor is residential (no mixed use) which means all parking is in surface lots outdoors.