CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 24

BVictor1 · #**461** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 9:28 AM**

I don't know if it's been reported, but Opus 110/Superior 110 is "OFICIALLY" UNDER-CONSTRUCTION. They started last Thursday.

BVictor1 · #**462** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 9:48 AM**

Plan would gut large part of old post office

REDEVELOPMENT | Reconfigured building to hold residences, offices, hotel, parking

April 20, 2007

BY DAVID ROEDER [email protected]

Described by a member of the Chicago Plan Commission as an "old elephant of a site," the former Chicago Post Office at 401 W. Van Buren is due to slim down for a better chance of survival in the jungle of commercial real estate.
Just don't expect anything to happen soon on the hulking old building, which spans the Eisenhower Expy.

The commission Thursday approved a redevelopment plan advanced by Walton Street Capital. It would reconfigure the building into four main uses: 300 residences, a 240-room hotel, 455,000 square feet of offices and parking for 400 cars.

To achieve that, more than one-third of the 2.5-million-square-foot building would be removed. The section to be taken out involves a large part of the building's midsection, although three or four floors still would cross the expressway.

The span would be for the hotel, while the building's north and south towers would be designated for office and residences, respectively.

Walton Street has had a long-term contract to purchase the building from the federal government. The post office moved out of what used to be the largest mailing center in the country in 1996, and it has been vacant since.

Raphael Dawson, a partner at Walton Street, said the building's vast space and poor floor alignments between its additions make it unsuitable for most users without a downsizing. He said he and his partners over the last eight years have considered more than 50 potential uses, from a water park and auto dealer mall to a mausoleum.

But he said it could be a couple of years before Chicagoans, especially commuters on the Eisenhower, see anything different in the building. The initial work, expected to start soon after city approvals are final, involves asbestos removal and other safety-related issues.

Dawson said that in a few months, he expects internal demolition to start. Progress beyond that will be dictated by market demand, as Walton Street has no customers lined up for the space.

"This is not pie in the sky," Dawson said. "We've come too far. The residential works. The hotel works. The exact timing will change."

Still to be negotiated with the city is a subsidy deal under the tax-increment financing program. Dawson would not issue cost estimates for the project.

LoyolaBeachView · #**463** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 12:17 PM**

Hey guys, this is the pic I was talking about; sorry it took so long to figure out how to convert it

This was taken from where Renzo Piano's bridge will meet the new wing of the Art Institute, looking northeast. I'll send one looking north after work.

Nowhereman1280 · #**464** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComandanteCero

also, are there any renderings/diagrams of what the post office project might look like? Are they just going to coop out a hole down the center of the building, or will there be visible changes from the outside?

Yes, I have posted it several times, its awful:

Here is what the post office looks like now:

Here is what it will look like after they slaughter it:

museumparktom · #**465** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyolaBeachView

Hey guys, this is the pic I was talking about; sorry it took so long to figure out how to convert it

This was taken from where Renzo Piano's bridge will meet the new wing of the Art Institute, looking northeast. I'll send one looking north after work.

This is a pic of the top floor of the new modern wing; however I don't believe that it's the actual location of the bridge. My understanding is that the bridge will start to the west of the Lurrie Gardens, flyover what is now a maintenance area surrounded by tall evergreens and connect with the Art Institute western wall at the top floor. It should give phenomenal site lines in all directions. This looks like it’s taken from the midpoint of the building.

Sir Isaac Newton · #**466** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 4:21 PM**

I am guessing that one of the reasons they are gutting almost the entire middle area of the post office is because they feel that they would have a hard time finding commercial tentants, condo-owners, and hotel guests willing to be in the middle of this massive building where they would not even have any windows? Or perhaps it might not even be legal to have windowless condos/hotel rooms? (I know that some of CMK's buildings, the 2-bedroom condos have a partial height wall for one of their bedrooms - I think this might have to do with the fact that the bedroom has no windows and that they are required to have some natural light come in?)

If this is the case (although it may not be) could they possibly only gut out the very center ninth of the building? And still keep the west-center and east-center ninths of the building in tact? Would this be economically feasible? Is this something that is even structurally possible? If so, it could be a good compromise between the developer, who is trying to come up with a design that is practical and economically feasible, and the preservationists, who don't want the grand facade messed with. If this was done, no one would be able to even noticed the changes, if they were leaving or entering the Eisenhower.

honte · #**467** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 4:50 PM**

^ Yes, yes, yes. That's why we're so pissed. Gutting the center to create courtyards has been done many times in this city (the old Wards warehouse on the river is the foremost example). The city should have pressed for a better solution, that's all there is to it.

Marcu · #**468** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

What a joke. I'd almost rather have them get rid of the middle portion all together.

Sir Isaac Newton · #**469** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

^ Yes, yes, yes. That's why we're so pissed. Gutting the center to create courtyards has been done many times in this city (the old Wards warehouse on the river is the foremost example). The city should have pressed for a better solution, that's all there is to it.

Not only would doing that preserve the facade, you'd think that creating a courtyard would be a MAJOR draw to condo buyers, hotel guests, and commercial tenants. The courtyard would be ENORMOUS and could be filled with outdoor restaurants, shops, and bars.

Sir Isaac Newton · #**470** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 5:21 PM**

...is already working on the 4th floor. They literally started the site-prep work just a few months ago....I think that this one is going to rise pretty quickly!

museumparktom · #**471** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 5:30 PM**

Found this on the General Development Thread orginally posted by lukecj.

Give a great view of the enormity of the roof top deck that would be available.

SamInTheLoop · #**472** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Anybody who made it to the Plan Commission meeting today - how did this one go? Yay or Nay, any new info, renderings, etc??

One thing I just realized is that 155 has remarkably similar shaped floorplates (although a couple thousand sf larger) to 300 N LaSalle, with the rectangular indentation on the narrower faces...

Crain's reported today that 155 N Wacker was approved by the Plan Commission yesterday......not that there was any real opposition or anything, was just wondering because it seems that there have been many instances recently in which items have been deferred on the day of the meeting...

honte · #**473** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 6:51 PM**

^ Good to know.

Eventually...Chicago · #**474** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 7:01 PM**

I don't know if it is just me or what, but for some reason, i don't think that the new post office proposal is all that bad. I like the idea of residential moving in here, because that area of the west loop is pretty empty.

Architecturally, i don't think it is that stunning. There are certainly better examples of art deco elsewhere in the city. I think that we often do run the risk of considering any "old" building being a good building or at least assume it is worth keeping on its merits of simply being of a previous period. (This is also my argument for Soldier Field, but that is a whole other bag of marbles)

Functionally, these huge "block" buildings are so specific and difficult to adapt that I don't know what else could realistically go here. It couldn't become a convention hall without rebuilding most of the interior anyways to get taller ceilings and more open spaces. It couldn't become offices because there are not enough windows. I think we area actually kind of lucky with what is being proposed.

Even if a tenant or use for this building "as is" could be found, i don't know if they would be willing to invest in the surrounding green space and street life that this area so terribly needs. It is very much a gray jungle right now.

Ok, i guess that is my case. If everyone disagrees with me, i'll just go take a walk in the awesome weather today.

comoneymaker · #**475** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 7:12 PM**

From cnn.com

150-story skyscraper could become tallest in U.S.
POSTED: 2:35 p.m. EDT, April 20, 2007

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- The city's planning board has endorsed a proposal for a twisting lakefront tower that would become the nation's tallest building.

With Thursday's approval from the Chicago Plan Commission, the design and site plan for the 2,000-foot Chicago Spire goes to the city zoning committee next week.

"This is a wonderful project, and everyone is very enthused," said Constance Buscemi, spokeswoman for the city's planning department.

The 150-story tower, which would feature 1,200 residences, would unseat Chicago's 1,451-foot Sears Tower as the tallest U.S. building. It would also top New York's 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, under construction at the former World Trade Center site.

The Chicago Spire was designed by Santiago Calatrava, the Spanish-born architect known for designing the Milwaukee Art Museum addition and the Athens Olympic sports complex.

If the zoning panel approves the plan, the City Council will consider it May 9. If it is approved, construction would begin this spring, said Thomas Murphy, general counsel to developer Shelbourne Development Ltd.

Shelbourne executives have declined to estimate the building's total development cost. Real estate experts put it at well over $1 billion, the Chicago Tribune and Crain's Chicago Business reported on their Web sites Thursday.

The tallest building in the world is the Taipei 101 tower in Taiwan, which measures 1,671 feet and 101 floors. A tower in Dubai now under construction is expected to rise beyond 2,300 feet and more than 160 floors .

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

LoyolaBeachView · #**476** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by museumparktom

This is a pic of the top floor of the new modern wing; however I don't believe that it's the actual location of the bridge. My understanding is that the bridge will start to the west of the Lurrie Gardens, flyover what is now a maintenance area surrounded by tall evergreens and connect with the Art Institute western wall at the top floor. It should give phenomenal site lines in all directions. This looks like it’s taken from the midpoint of the building.

Thanks Tom. I stand corrected. I hope you still enjoyed the pic

firstcranialnerve · #**477** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 8:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Yeah, it is.

And quick knocking 'burbanites.

Umm, thanks, I didn't realise how fast I was

Yeah, I'm not against them, just the parking lots that their cars they occupy.
Anyway...

museumparktom · #**478** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyolaBeachView

Thanks Tom. I stand corrected. I hope you still enjoyed the pic

LBV - Great pic! Did you have a chance to convert the northerly exposure? Do you work on the building?

Norsider · #**479** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 9:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte

^ Yes, yes, yes. That's why we're so pissed. Gutting the center to create courtyards has been done many times in this city (the old Wards warehouse on the river is the foremost example). The city should have pressed for a better solution, that's all there is to it.

It's easy to be pissed when it isn't your money on the line.

I'm not sure what you'd have them do. They've got to convert it to something, it can't just stand there costing $2,000,000 a year in OpEx just so a few people can feel good about the fact that it still exists. The trouble is, when it actually comes down to doing the conversion, the sheer obsolesence of the building hits home. It's basically a good for nothing, asbestos filled money pit. It's easy to sit there in the cheap seats and demand that they keep them intact like the dang pyramids, but unforturnately, they didn't use solid brick to build this thing. We should be thankful they're keeping ANY of the structure. Why do you think this has taken so long. Geez, it's just like listening to the callers on sports talk demand that we trade Izturis and Eyre for Alex Rodriguez. This thing is such an albatross that's it's debatable if the land isn't more valuable as a blank slate. And before we go hemming and hawing about how unjust that is, again, it's real easy to feel indignant when it ain't your cash on the line. Plus, this ENTIRE city was built from this exact same motive. Money. What is the best economic decision at that moment in time. Multiply by 10000, fast forward 150 years to 2007 et voila, you have the Chicago skyline.

Preservation has it's place for sure. Tearing down the Garrick theatre to stick a parking garage, tearing down little Italy to plop down a fugly UIC, now those are outrages. But this? Please.

honte · #**480** Posted **Apr 20, 2007, 9:56 PM**

^
Uh, um, did you read my post? I'm not suggesting it stay as-is. I am suggesting, as several other people on this forum have also done, that they find a more sensible compromise between new use and old. I am not suggesting mothballing the thing indefinitely; I am not suggesting that they use it exactly as it is now. What I am suggesting is that courtyards be carved out of the center of the building, rather than tearing out 800000 square feet of space and sending it to the landfill, mucking up the design of the structure, and greatly diminishing the impact of the Burnham plan's Loop "gateway" building (as different as it is from his vision). Sound more realistic?

And yes, my money is on the line. So is yours. There is going to be TONS of TIF money thrown at this project. Also, it's a federal building, so the public has a right to demand a certain quality of outcome.