Maybe :cool:

I mean, if you connect the dots here…

let's please stay on topic.

I mean, the cantilever isn't even on the park side (essentially). So either the design/orientation changed, there was some liberty taken in the rumor, or it's different altogether.

Nope - these are two New York developers - JK Equities and Time Equities. If you're thinking of Crescent Heights and 113 E Roosevelt, wrong thread....

Yes, 1326 S Michigan would be visible....

Fine. But lock your doors.

This rapidfire wave of enormous residential project announcements tells me that we are likely entering (or already in) the bubble phase of the economic cycle that has been the rule since, well, ever. Some of these big projects may get off the ground but probably not all.

Rest assured though, even after the inevitable bubble inevitably busts, fiveish years later, a recovery is inevitable and we'll be back into boomland again.

this thing blows me away gorgeous

This rapid-fire wave of enormous projects tells me that developers want to get their shit into the city before the affordable housing ordinance goes into effect in mid October.

1326 S. Michigan would go inbetween the 2 "short" (30 story) beige towers to right of the ghost tower (phase 2 Michigan and Roosevelt Vinoly tower) and it'll be 2 stories taller than the orange tower in the rendering.)

Yep. Which sucks, actually, because some of these proposals may end up being years away.

Will these projects really be approved by the city council before that ordinance takes effect. I doubt that. They will have to comply just like all the rest.

It doesn't suck for people applying for affordable housing.

They don't have to be approved before the ordinance takes affect, just filed to the city.

Chicago really seems to be on Fire :cheers: awesome proposal and with Jahn you cant go wrong. Lets hope it won´t get too VEd ;)

WOW! i really underestimated the caliber of that building

Do you know what happens after that? For example, does construction need to be begin/finish by a certain point in order to maintain the exemption?

No, construction start has nothing to do with it. Projects/rezoning requests must be introduced to City Council by October 15th and approved within 9 months of that date.

Likely most of these applications will be deferred while developers hash out the specifics of the project with aldermen and community groups. Assuming they can reach agreements with the community within 9 months, the rezoning will be approved and developers can proceed with the project under the old rules.

The difference between the new and old rules is $6000 per unit, so on this project, the developer stands to save just over $3 million by filing early. Not chump change...

Thanks mods.

Please stay on topics and follow the rules. You don't want to get a trouble. You must be more respectful to others member. Be nice to each others.

^ Right, but construction has to start eventually or the PD expires, right? Isn't there a certain number of years?

6 years and then an alderman can sunset the PD, but that doesn't always happen. Remember that CMK is building south of River City under the existing PD that was established in 1980.

The main thing that's changed is that PDs now include an automatic sunset provision within them, which they didn't have prior to the late 1990s. There was some big downtown project—it may have been Illinois Center—that made this a sore point.

If the facade is anything like these...

http://www.re-thinkingthefuture.org/...phyjahn_02.jpg
source


http://www.re-thinkingthefuture.org/...phyjahn_02.jpg
source

Hopefully they can get away with that level of glass clarity if they employ thin films and native roller shades to meet the code requirements.

River City was built though. As long as 1 part of the PD is constructed as planned, the remainder remains active and is not subject the automatic sunset. This is what Riverbend tried to argue against with Wolf Point, and was obviously unsuccessful.

Has anyone else noticed that there is a giant five story statue with an arm reaching out over Michigan ave proposed as a part of this project?

Big Jahn (the tower) and Little Jahn (the statue)?

The description says proposed public art - does that mean the piece is undecided as of now, or that they are specifically proposing said statue? The little drawing could just be a placeholder

Who knows, maybe it will be like Denver's blue bear:
http://travel-babel.com/wp-content/u...igBlueBear.jpg
source:travel-babel.com

It's Corbu's Modulor Man hailing a taxi.

I've seen a lot of schematics with public art that uses some weird placeholder that doesn't have anything to do with what actually gets commissioned.

Whatever it ends up as, Michigan Ave is a good place for tourist checklist public art. Would be nice if it was something notable enough to pull people further down the road. Visitors love the lions in front of the art museum but there's not really anything for them to the south. GP is kinda boring from Monroe to like 8th.

No love for Agora?
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en...cartagora.html

Reminds me of New Orleans' evacuation gathering points.

https://res.cloudinary.com/indiegogo...obrnyofj36.jpg

Agora is nice. I call it "the legs." It's south of 8th, though. Combined with the new skate park it's a nice little cluster of things to see down there at the south, without much to pull someone over there right now.

The Fountain of the Great Lakes.

Bowman and Spearman.

Eagle Fountains.

The Spirit of Music.

The Logan Monument.

I would love to see this built to add some much needed height to the southern skyline.....!!:tup:

I have to say I am a little perplexed by this tower. I love almost all of Jahn's work and I am sure the façade will be stunning as all of his recent projects I can think of end up being. However the overall form seems a bit chunky. The cantilevered volumes are interesting but I'm not sure I understand the point. They seem a bit half-hearted as well like they were the start of an idea that wasn't finished. Without the cantilevers the building would be pretty bland... kind of a contemporary version of Aon. I'm sure the façade detailing and quality would be superb but a tower of this stature and this location needs to make a significant skyline impact in overall form and massing when viewed from a distance not just have nice details when viewed up close. The other thing I don't understand is why the tower portion wasn't set back from Michigan Ave. It would seem to make more sense to have the lower portion with the outside terrace and greenspace be on the eastern portion of the building and the tower shifted to the west of the site. This would better relate to the scale of the Michigan Ave street wall making it appear the tower is rising behind it similar to the Legacy, Heritage, Roosevelt University Tower, CNA, etc. I would think it would also be a more desirable amenity to have the outdoor terrace overlooking Michigan Ave. with views of the Lake and Grant Park rather than have a view that would currently overlook a parking lot on Wabash and almost certainly eventually be blocked by whatever tower is eventually built in that parking lot. If the desire was to take advantage of the afternoon sun then I think that is rather short sited as a tower will likely block it out in the future. Even if a future tower is somehow never built in that parking lot I think views of the park and Lake would trump afternoon sun. I want to like this but it just really puzzles me.

there is zero chance they would set a building back from the street on Michigan. wall or nothing.

^I'm with you completely.

Landmark issues aside, Jahn has always been such a surehanded formgiver. This just seems so incredibly clunky.

The cantilevers are so small and tentative that it's tempting to say it's not properly worked out yet. But we have our sources suggesting he's been working on this for a couple of years already, and Jahn's forms are always in his first pen sketch, and pretty well worked out by the third.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying in my post. I was suggesting the lower portion that currently buttress out to the back (west side of the site) with the outdoor space on top of it be moved to the Michgan Ave. side to better continue the street wall scale and move the tower portion to the western portion of the site. This would also allow users of the outdoor rooftop space to have forever protected views of Grant Park and the Lake instead of the tower that will eventually be built in the parking lot on Wabash. What I am suggesting would actually preserve the continuity and scale of the street wall while also offering a better amenity to the users IMO.

I took this photo a while back and call it "Big John, Little John" because the guy standing there is named John.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7134/...887123ed_b.jpgDSC_2527
by Eric Mathiasen, on Flickr

Tribune included a bottom up view of 1000 S. Michigan showing its cantilever in the article Steely Dan posted in the highrise thread.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-560eaade/t...02/600/338x600
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...002-story.html

i don't know how i'm going to explain this to my wife.

my heart has just been stolen from me! :love:

BUILD! IT! NOW!

^LOL. I don't quite understand your infatuation. The height is great and I like the street presence, but this design just doesn't make much sense to me. The first, angled cantilever feels too clunky. In my opinion, it's just not worth losing your wife over. :shrug:

This is absurd....

Absurdly good. Damn. An improved Nordstrom like Cantilever. :cool:

The chopped and flanging nature of it is evident. Pretty unique.

How do the air rights work here? If the owner next door wants to demolish and build taller does this proposal not interfere?

I don't think the building next door can be demolished. Landmark district, no?

The developers owns the building next door.

fuck yeah :cheers::yes:

Is Columbia's little building on the corner landmarked as well?