CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5 - Page 32

spyguy · #**621** Posted **Apr 25, 2007, 9:56 PM**

Just a tidbit of info.

Lennar's website has some info on the 469 West Huron project, now called Parc Huron. The building is still 21 floors with 221 units.

Siriusly · #**622** Posted **Apr 25, 2007, 11:45 PM**

I have a cousin who lives in the New York Building, I think it's on Addison, she was telling me that when she bought her condo they told her evntually her view would be blocked because they were planning on adding a second tower, has anybody heard of this?

SolarWind · #**623** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 12:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusly

I have a cousin who lives in the New York Building, I think it's on Addison, she was telling me that when she bought her condo they told her evntually her view would be blocked because they were planning on adding a second tower, has anybody heard of this?

Yes, it's listed on the first page.

3660 North LSD - 330 ft, 29 floors

rascacielos · #**624** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 12:41 AM**

Delete.

Alliance · #**625** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarWind

Yes, it's listed on the first page.

3660 North LSD - 330 ft, 29 floors

It could use a bit more height to be "proportional"

BVictor1 · #**626** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 2:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

It could use a bit more height to be "proportional"

I agree, but many of the twats in the New York complained about development on that site. Originally, there was supposed to be a twin to the New Youk on the site.

Marcu · #**627** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 2:18 AM**

Better then nothing. Right now, the New Yorker has a bigger setback then any other north lsd building.

honte · #**628** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 2:32 AM**

^ The new one is a much better design than The New York. I am glad that we didn't get two of those.

I haven't heard anything about this tower for a long time... Invsco seems to have moved on to other projects, such as their primary business of condo conversions.

BayRidgeFever · #**629** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 2:32 AM**

LOL I thought I was the only one who used the word twat regularly, often to describe nimbys.

observer · #**630** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 3:32 AM**

WTF?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Is that image posted in the spire thread an image containing the new architectonica building at LSE? If that's the case...are there other renderings that have been released?

Nowhereman1280 · #**631** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 3:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by observer

WTF?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Is that image posted in the spire thread an image containing the new architectonica building at LSE? If that's the case...are there other renderings that have been released?

No, that's just a filler that Alliance decided to stick in there. Its a very good filler at that, I hope it looks that way in real life, looks like something Foster would design...

Chi_Coruscant · #**632** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 3:53 AM**

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?post_date=2007-04-25&id=24725

I don't want to bother to post an entire article here but here is the kicker: Ernst & Young, the largest tenant in Sears Tower, is considering leaving the tower when the lease expires in five years. If they choose to leave, they may "anchor a new tower". However, E&Y could change its mind if they get some incentives in staying longer.

TowerGuy37 · #**633** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 4:42 AM**

Does anyone out there have any more or new information on this building???? i've been trying to find out about it and keep running into dead ends with it! Is this still even an active proposal? It seems to have disappeared off of American Invsco website. I would imagine more NIMBY bs than anything, cause its a hot looking building and can't imagine there would be a lack fo sales since this stretch of lake shore gets a new building every 15-20 years anymore. If anyone knows anything please post, would love to know more about it!!!!!!

denizen467 · #**634** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 5:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by observer

WTF?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Is that image posted in the spire thread an image containing the new architectonica building at LSE? If that's the case...are there other renderings that have been released?

another rare appearance by observer, who pops up at the most curious times...

Alliance · #**635** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 5:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by observer

WTF?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Is that image posted in the spire thread an image containing the new architectonica building at LSE? If that's the case...are there other renderings that have been released?

THE IMAGE I POSTED IN THE CHICAGO SPIRE FORUM IS COMPLETELY MY OWN CREATION AND IS LIKELY NOT, IN ANY WAY, EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL ARQUITECTONICA PROPOSAL

..unless I have more talent than I think I do

I have not seen any design for that tower.

SamInTheLoop · #**636** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 1:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TowerGuy37

Does anyone out there have any more or new information on this building???? i've been trying to find out about it and keep running into dead ends with it! Is this still even an active proposal? It seems to have disappeared off of American Invsco website. I would imagine more NIMBY bs than anything, cause its a hot looking building and can't imagine there would be a lack fo sales since this stretch of lake shore gets a new building every 15-20 years anymore. If anyone knows anything please post, would love to know more about it!!!!!!

I wouldn't be surprised if American Invsco tries to sell this project to another developer - with a more successful track record in new development...

twomutts · #**637** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 2:11 PM**

As one of the "twats" who owns a unit in the building, let me give you a bit of history...

The property was downzoned when the original building was put up back in the 80s due to the complete clusterfuck that ensued during building. The building itself took longer to erect than promised, caused tremendous noise and traffic issues for the existing neighbors, and generally was a nightmare. Any thoughts of a "twin tower" were almost immediately scrapped. My understanding is that the original developers of the building were so sick of all the problems (self-created, BTW, so don't start shouting "NIMBY"), that they were happy to pawn the site off to American Invsco when it was time to convert to condos.

When Invsco took over the property, the zoning change had been in place for over 10 years, and they promised all of the existing unit owners that they would honor that zoning. The plan was to put up a series of four story townhomes in the lot in front which obviously would not block anyone's views. I personally spoke to no less than two Invsco representatives prior to buying my home, and was assured that they had no plans to erect anything other than the townhomes. Obviously, that was a complete line of bullshit, as within a year of buying the place, they sued the city to get the zoning regulations changed.

The tower, as you see it in the render, is still very much alive, at least as far as any of the New York owners know. It is significantly higher than they originally promised us (only 30 stories (I think?), but height wise is the equivalent of 38 stories in the New York). I haven't heard anything about when groundbreaking will take place.

Sorry if I sound a bit pissed off about this project, but this is not an instance of NIMBYs preventing a legitimate project from taking off. This is an instance where the developer sold properties to people and promised them unblocked views, knowing full well this was not the truth. Personally, I'll be thrilled if this one never takes off.

twomutts · #**638** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 2:15 PM**

I should add that what you see is actually a pretty decent compromise. They moved the tower north a bit so that it would have minimal impact on the existing tower's views. From my unit, which is on the 33rd floor, you will only see a sliver of the new tower. My lake view and downtown view will still be clear. Unfortunately, I have been trying to sell the unit because I'm going to be going back to grad school soon, and trying to convince anyone that they will have an unblocked view is pretty much impossible.

So, if any of you guys want a beautiful condo with a great view of downtown, the lake, and eventually this new tower...

VivaLFuego · #**639** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 2:27 PM**

I rather like the 3660 LSD design; it has decent height, and is relatively slender so it gives the surrounding buildings (like the NY) some breathing room. It's a very Vancouver-style development. And that prime parcel absolutely should be developed.

twomutts, I can appreciate what you say about the crappiness of the developer being at times misleading, and at times, outright deceitful, but really, how long can you expect a lakefront parcel to remained undeveloped with a reasonably high land use? Unless of you live near 1350 Lake Shore Drive, which will never be developed because anything other than a surface parking lot would be out of character with the neighborhood.

Also, this tower looks quite slender....depending on the accuracy of the rendererings, one can make the reasonable argument that it won't exactly be "blocking" anyone's view at the NY, but that's a semantical discussion. I hope you see what I'm getting at; overall I think it's a good development for that piece of land.

honte · #**640** Posted **Apr 26, 2007, 3:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

twomutts, I can appreciate what you say about the crappiness of the developer being at times misleading, and at times, outright deceitful, but really, how long can you expect a lakefront parcel to remained undeveloped with a reasonably high land use?

Well, on the other hand, if the owner of a site is making promises (should have been in writing, but I guess it wasn't), and if zoning is in place that limits what can be built... and you still don't know what's going to happen on a site within a reasonable variance, what can you ever believe?

I am ultimately glad they will build something on this site. But you see my point. Zoning can be so fluid these days in Chicago, especially with developers getting the cahones to file lawsuits against the City. If they're going to constantly make exceptions and piss everyone off, leading to distrust and lawsuits, then I say scrap the whole thing in high-rise districts and look at everything on a case-by-case basis. I guess that's kind of what the DX thing has accomplished?