This would also be fine. Its an empty freaking lot for pete's sake.

That street wall composition was the best thing about the original design of 1000M, that and it was unique.

I doubt we'll see any changes to the design.

The developers probably want to hold onto as many condo buyers as possible, although I'm sure they will have to buy out some contracts to create a usable block of apartments amid the condos.

Yeah good question. Maybe 1980s-era Adrian Smith for NBC Tower? Or early 2000s SBC for their good awful precast pomo condos? :haha:

How would that work in an all-rental building?

At any rate,

“The exterior of the building would remain substantially as previously approved,” Francis Greenburger, chairman and CEO of New York-based Time Equities, added.

I had this precise thought as I was thinking about this article and specifically that quote a bit more! That doesn't compute. I'm actually going to go ahead and predict changes to the design are likely if they can pull an all rental version together. Think about 111 W Wacker changes in terms of the very broad strokes way in which changes might occur - project density/unit count, floor plans, floor plate, massing, height, etc etc. I would expect from a pure project economics standpoint. None of this is to say that an all rental design by necessity is precluded from being very strong in its own right....in terms of bold design, for height obsessives even (just look to NEMA for inspiration)

Again, the article struck me as reflecting an aspiration.....my read is that the expressed desire to not have substantial changes to the exterior design may be part of that - eg would rather not go back thru the entitlement process/amendments, so hopefully we can just switch to rental within the existing approved envelope......all very hopeful.

Something about this developer team.....I just.....don't know.....never has inspired confidence. As ever would love my skepticism to be proven overdone in the end.

i'm not fully in the "height exclusively for the sake of height" camp, but in this particular spot, having something really tall to bust through the "south loop lull" and help tie the new cluster down at central station back into the rest of the skyline would be really nice to see, IMO.

https://i.postimg.cc/x8NNBnCF/south-loop.png

here's to hoping!

The article doesn't say all-rental, just "primarily" rental. Which could be anything from 100% rental to 60% rental (and 40% condo).

Adrian Smith certainly has done this work in the past (NBC Tower, AT&T, Rowes Wharf in Boston, etc) but it would be VERY off-brand for AS+GG today. Not to mention they have effectively specialized in supertall structures, which makes them irrelevant for most Chicago developers. We did get some subtle historic nods on Trib Tower though.

From another thread, this picture really demonstrates the gap exactly where 1000M will some day rise.

I'm imagining this image panned out with Lincoln Yards and Michael Reese.

^ protip: if you add an h to the part before .jpg in imgur, it will be autoresized to a reasonably-sized width.


Also, thanks for sharing this!

So a negligible haircut on the height from 832'/76 floors down to 805'/73 floors, but a big increase on the unit count.

It will be interesting to see where this goes, and how big the impact to the overall design might be.

Thanks for posting! :tup:

Smaller, cheaper apartments I'm guessing? That would make sense.

Good news though :cheers:

Nice to see some movement on this one. The slight height reduction sucks but I'm not mad about more units.

was prepared for a height cut based on everything you guys have been saying, super nice to know that it'll only be 30 feet. Will be a massive beast nonetheless

Yeah, I was expecting a much more drastic height reduction, comparable to Waterview/OneEleven's ~40% cut. At 1000M's location, even a 700-footer would have a major impact on the skyline, let alone 803 ft.

I wonder if the units will now be a mix of condos and apartments.

Is the proposed height 803 feet or the 805 feet listed on the Akerman letter?

The 803' figure was a typo on my part. My bad.

Will be very interesting to see what happens to the design here, and also what the mix is as far as rental units/condos.

This developer made some very odd and unfortunate choices with respect to that mix - also potentially with size/pricing - from the start. I believe there was a formula that would have worked (including with some minority condo component if desired) and resulted in a completed building by now.

Here's to hoping they've finally figured it out (maybe they've hired some good consultants to work out their market strategy?) this time!

Yeah I think they assumed what works for them in Manhattan would work in the South Loop. :haha:

^ Yeah - seriously, could be. I mean, I was certainly left with the impression at least that they didn't do all their homework.

So should we have faith in the restructuring of the condo to rental ratio or is this basically a last second Hail Mary?

With the rental component people can just sign leases and move in while brokers focus on selling the condo component. The money would be flowing for the rentals, making the entire project less of a risk.

Slight modifications
https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/02/rev...kyscraper.html

Revised Plans Filed For South Loop’s Stalled 1000M Skyscraper

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/...elevations.png

The proposal was submitted by Time Equities, who has co-planned the project alongside JK Equities and Oak Capitals. The application requested an amendment to allow for 738 units, an increase from the initially planned 421 condominiums. Current zoning, according to The Real Deal, would only allow for a maximum of 506 units. It is unclear what types of units will occupy the new version of the tower, although a Chicago Tribune article from December 2020 suggests a potential shift to apartments. Despite the unit count increase, the height of the new structure would reduce slightly from 832 feet and 76 floors to 802 feet and 73 floors. Additionally, the tower’s total floor area would now stretch 903,455 square feet. The incorporated renovation of an adjacent 102-foot-tall office building would remain as is.

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/...2666216688.png

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/...-1536x1466.png

Link: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/02/rev...kyscraper.html

what an awesome plan. can't wait to check out that roof deck one day!!!

Amendment for Zoning change.

https://chicago.legistar.com/View.as...E-D2F6A4CF9C3C

Excited this has come back to life.

Aside from Regis, this will have the biggest impact on the skyline (even more than OneChicago). I will fill the gap between the NEMA cluster and Essex very well when viewed from Alder (which is of course a super popular viewing point).

looks like all the detailing for the crown fell by the wayside... too bad

I think that's an improvement. The uninterrupted façade will help promote the sculptural aspect of the design, given the dimensionality of its curvy shape.

Renderings Reveal Updated Design For 1000M At 1000 S Michigan Avenue In South Loop
 

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/...HN-777x518.jpg

Renderings have been revealed of the updated design for 1000M, a residential tower located at 1000 S Michigan Avenue in South Loop. Located on an empty lot, the site fronts S Michigan Avenue midblock between E 9th Street and E 11th Street. Time Equities and JK Equities are the developers behind the project.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/02/ren...outh-loop.html

Here is the key quote from that article:
So as we suspected, COVID was just a fig leaf for the pause in construction last year. And they still have not secured financing to actually finish it.

So according to article, all rentals, now 738 units. Big boost in density. I wish them all the luck in the world in pulling this off.

I haven't researched, but I wonder if these developers have any relevant experience (let alone a strong established track record) with very large rental development? If not, that will certainly not make things easier to pull off financing here. It's a heavy lift, and I hope they can get it done. If they run into real difficulty in the months ahead, would appear to be a good opportunity to JV with an established player in the market, or potentially sell to one that can hit the ground running.

We just better not end up with a half built skeleton to look at for years and years from Grant Park and the Lake.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...ark-skyscraper



Y’all seen this dumbass sh*#

"This extremely dense concentration of dwelling units could create safety problems and potentially lower the property values of the existing community”

What a joke.

Yes.... transients. :haha: On Boul Mich, overlooking the park and the lake. By the sounds of it you would think they are building a highrise SRO here. Give me a break with these fatalistic/doomsday whines.

The residents and adjoining property owners along Michigan Ave. need to non-politely go fuck themselves. This has got to be the most insipidly ridiculous logic I've ever read! Transients, in an expensive rental tower on Michigan Ave.? Wow, what a bunch of bovine excrement!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Right. Because Nema is not all rental and a block away.

Give me a break

^And Essex a block in the other direction... both completed within a few months of one another... SMH

That's some "level 11" NIMBY dip-shittery right there.

Just when you think they can't possibly ratchet up the stupid any higher.....

Exactly

I'm giving them a huge benefit of the doubt when I say that, in this case, I think they're using the word "transients" to refer to people who live in the building for one year and then bounce somewhere else, and not nomads or the dispossessed.

Still, I agree with everyone that their logic is hugely flawed.

I don't this this has as much to do with fatalism or doomsday-cultism as much as good ol' fashioned "for many of us, this will block our view." Many units have a south-east facing view that this will obviously impede. You can get why they'd be sad about that, but there's a difference between being sad and being indignant.
Personally, I find the tower boring as hell (enough of a widening towards the top to be mildly noticeable but too subtle to make an architectural statement). Not that the neighbors care...

^ For the "this will block our view" theory to make sense it means that this must have slipped under the radar of the 910 condo board when the tower was originally up for entitlements as it has essentially the same envelope/massing as the approved PD version. (or they did press the issue and it was either not reported on or I just missed it.......or I suppose it's a much different board or residents weirdly had some sort of recent change of heart).

I haven't read the article but if their gripes are mostly about it changing to all rental, that should be a non-starter in terms of the Alderman entertaining them. That's just ridiculous and doesn't deserve a serious response. I don't know what they mean by a transient population, but to be clear the probability of a substantial number of very short-term rentals is probably greater with having a tower of 500+ individually-owned units - you would have a high percentage of investor-owned units rented out according to whatever/whenever length of lease individual owners decide, possibly with many being used as vacation rentals (I realize there would be board with some rules but might end up being very investor owner friendly) - particularly with that larger number of quite small units that were added by the developer while still a condo project, but with the 'standard' units to some extent certainly as well.

With an all rental tower comes professional, institutional management. This is an expensive, high end project and would be not just at the top of the market in the South Loop but would be in the top tier among all Class A buildings downtown. The developer would very likely hire one of the larger very established apartment leasing and management firms to run it - or they would sell to a (likely) institutional or REIT owner that would do the same (either in-house or also third party).

If the gripes are about just overall density of the project, that should clearly be a non-starter of an argument at this location. This is a walk and transit to everything type of location and is obviously supportive of very high density. I wonder what Ald King does here. Her ward just picks up this portion of downtown but primarily covers completely different neighborhoods (granted it's in relative terms a very fast growing section of her ward/gaining market share in terms of constituents represented). She might not be too terribly concerned by the complaints as to move to pander to the NIMBYs here, particularly if she's presented with arguments that this change/densification of the project is necessary to keep it alive given changing market conditions (the developer's previous programmatic/pricing misfire).


On the other hand, perhaps this is the classic kabuki theater between developer and alderman. They could have a unit count in mind, say 625-675, that still might pencil out well for them and that the alderman can get behind amending to once any tussle with the 910 board plays out, and a choreographed compromise is reached.

What would be really sad would be a situation in which the developer didn't make any such approach, they took a chance on this solid boost in density here representing what will truly pencil out for them with not a ton of room for error, and King ends up being persuaded by the NIMBY board on this one and rebuffs the amendment. If that were to happen - following the poor judgement/lack of homework with their initial program......they should probably consider an altogether different line of work.

Would be very curious as to how Mr Downtown sees this one and thinks it's likely to play out and what Ald King is likely to do.

The NIMBYism here is obviously stupid. But it will be a moot point if this project can't secure new financing.

https://cityobservatory.org/wp-conte...redict_now.jpg

I recently had a lengthy conversation with Ald. King on this, but I didn’t end with a good sense of what she intends to do.

I was quite surprised at how little resistance the 910 building put up back in 2016, but I think their board at the time had been focused on lot-line issues, and once the design pulled back 10 feet from the lot line, they acquiesced. But board leadership, and even residents, change over time. I only heard concerns expressed in the Feb. 22 meeting. A lot of it is Boomers who just can’t comprehend why respectable people would ever rent rather than buy condos; some is Boomers who frequently drive on various errands and therefore just assume more units will mean proportionally more trip generation. They also often feel streets are already saturated, a point of view that puzzles me since it’s pretty rare for me to even have to wait 10 seconds before crossing most South Loop streets.

Ald. King didn’t seem all that receptive to the “but they’re rental units” argument; in fact, her main issue is affordable housing (which the new proposal includes 23 units of). But she’s more receptive to the drive-everywhere crowd and had already made them put more parking stalls in this revised PD. The big question for me is whether the mayor’s office and Commissioner Cox will pressure her to harvest the golden eggs (those affordable units, millions for the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund; more millions in property tax, etc.) right away, or let the site wait a few years for a better design and a more realistic pro forma.

Join us for a 1000M Public Meeting

Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 5 PM CST.

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...Qt-zUrG-LpY6fw

Let me guess, they shortened it and cut down the units in order to limit the number of filthy vagrant renters bothering the honest, hard-working residents of 910 S. Michigan Avenue...