CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified....story?coll=chi-classifiedrealestate-hed

43-story, mixed-use building set for Loop

By Jeanette Almada
Special to the Tribune
Published June 3, 2007

A decades-old surface parking garage will be replaced with a mixed-use building with 329 apartments.

Hinsdale-based Midwest Property Group Ltd. will develop the project at 200-218 W. Lake St., through an entity called 210-218 W. Lake LLC, according to Lorie Bush, a Department of Planning and Development project manager who spoke to the Chicago Plan Commission.

The developer will demolish the garage to make way for a 43-story building that will include 549 parking spaces and 9,340 square feet of ground-floor retail space, Bush told commissioners.

Roughly 181 of those spaces will be for residents, with the others for non-residential traffic.

Of the apartments, 151 will be efficiency units.

As he approved the project at his last commission meeting, Natarus predicted that the building would go condo seven years down the road. "It's interesting that they are going for the rental market, which I think is sound thinking, and that the rents will probably be quite high," Natarus said.

In negotiations for additional density for the project, the developer agreed to contribute $1.4 million to the Chicago Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund and $329,869 to the city's Public Schools Capital Improvement Program, Bush told commissioners.

Multiple tenants will likely operate from the ground floor, according to Jim Curtain, who spoke to commissioners. Curtain is an architect with Chicago-based Solomon Cordwell Buenz, which designed the building.

E-mail this story
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

[pilsenarch]

oops...yes, I of course meant 600 N Fairbanks.....so, does any one know how the operables were integrated? are they only located in the balcony setbacks?...or are they somehow integrated into a seemingly seemless curtain wall?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

You're probably correct. The scale model on the table shows the skyscraper cluster around John Hancock, but he mentions in the video that it was a block away from the cities' financial center... which threw me off. Maybe he meant a financial center in an economic hub sort of way, with some of the priciest real estate and the retail industry being in the immediate area.

The 4th Pres Tower is shown in the model and in Conlon's meeting with Lucien Lagrange, but it is seperate from the "two-tower, business district" plan. Even if you stretch the meaning of "business district", 4th Pres is still not two towers. Also, one of those two projects will be mixed-use, with a Walgreens at the base, 10 stories of office, and then 38 stories of condos.

The video showed an elevation of one of those projects. I do not know if this is a new shorter design for 4th Pres, or one of the twin towers. If Lagrange is designing both projects, then it would make sense to discuss them both in the same meeting, which is probably why we're all getting confused.

The unattributed elevation:


In the upper right, you can see a plan view showing the project's place on the block. 4th Pres' block is not rectangular (Rush makes a diagonal edge at the west side) so this must have a different location.

[Alliance]

Thats a pretty thin tower though...thats a good sign.

[honte]

Well, I have to admit, I didn't watch the video. It was just a guess, as I mentioned.

Anyway, this 10-story retail thing is confusing. It's clearly not 4th Pres. Still, I can't imagine anyone doing this vertical mall layout anywhere but north Michigan Avenue. Perhaps somewhere in the South Loop or near Clybourn corridor?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

^ It's an old proposal for a roughly 740' tower behind the 4th Presbyterian Church, as you guessed. It met considerable NIMBY, Community Group, and Preservationist challenges, and never left the drawing board.

I personally think the proposed tower was very mediocre, and of course was not in favor due to the demolitions / impact on the historic church.

There was no real impact on the church. An uninspired 1950 add-on was going to be torn down. Waht was there to be preserved? The church wasn't itself being touched, and it was something they wanted.

[honte]

^ Not exactly. I don't want to beat a (hopefully) dead horse, but since you ask, here's what I know:

1. The project's proponents called the building an "uninspired add-on." Actually, it's a great late-Deco building that wasn't a part of the church at all. It's the American College of Chest Physicians building. I could never get an exact date on the building, but this photo is from 1955.



2. The Howard Van Doren Shaw annex (very much a part of the church complex) was going to be taken down as well. This is a building fronting on Delaware Place. They may have made a concession later on about this that I am unaware of, but I do not think so.

3. It's really silly to say that the church was going to be unchanged. The courtyard, which is an incredible experience, would have been forever altered by having that large tower directly behind. It might have ended up cool in a sense, but I don't think it's worth the risk. Just my opinion; a large number of people agreed with me, though.

[Mr Downtown]

Thanks for the ACCP picture. I've admired that building for years, but never knew much about it. ACCP purchased it in 1951 from Arthur Swanson & Associates, architects. The bas-relief suggests it might have housed some technical organization originally, perhaps a union headquarters or engineering society.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Not exactly. I don't want to beat a (hopefully) dead horse, but since you ask, here's what I know:

1. The project's proponents called the building an "uninspired add-on." Actually, it's a great late-Deco building that wasn't a part of the church at all. It's the American College of Chest Physicians building. I could never get an exact date on the building, but this photo is from 1955.



2. The Howard Van Doren Shaw annex (very much a part of the church complex) was going to be taken down as well. This is a building fronting on Delaware Place. They may have made a concession later on about this that I am unaware of, but I do not think so.

3. It's really silly to say that the church was going to be unchanged. The courtyard, which is an incredible experience, would have been forever altered by having that large tower directly behind. It might have ended up cool in a sense, but I don't think it's worth the risk. Just my opinion; a large number of people agreed with me, though.

1. The art deco building is nothing all that special.

2. The coulryard space belongs to the church, and the public has the privilage of enjoying it because the church sees fit to let them. They could easily put a fence up there. More positives than negatives would have come from the tower. The altering of that space obviously wasn't as important to them as it is to you.

3. I'm glad the previous proposal wasn't built, because it wasn't worthy of what's already there, but if something more striking were to be designed there, then we'd have to see.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by honte

Well, I have to admit, I didn't watch the video. It was just a guess, as I mentioned.

Anyway, this 10-story retail thing is confusing. It's clearly not 4th Pres. Still, I can't imagine anyone doing this vertical mall layout anywhere but north Michigan Avenue. Perhaps somewhere in the South Loop or near Clybourn corridor?

It's 10 stories of OFFICE, not retail. I hate vertical malls anyway.

[honte]

Landmarking in Chicago reflects all parts of a building visible from the public right of way. This would include the courtyard, regardless of its accessibility to the public. Unfortunately, churches are the only type of structure not eligible for landmarking in Chicago without owner consent, thanks to Natarus.

Originally Posted by BVictor1

3. I'm glad the previous proposal wasn't built, because it wasn't worthy of what's already there, but if something more striking were to be designed there, then we'd have to see.

I can agree with you on this point. I think the buildings there presently are very nice, but I would be willing to let them go if we had a really outstanding proposal.

[honte]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It's 10 stories of OFFICE, not retail. I hate vertical malls anyway.

Oh, ok. Thanks for the correction. I see you edited your earlier post too.

[Dr. Taco]

nothing new to report, but I went biking in the city tonight and stopped by LSE for the first time. I have to say that it was much better than I had imagined it. the park in the middle is very nice, and the whole place just seems so secluded for being right in the middle of downtown. However, when everything is finished, I can imagine it being a pretty crowded place. but that's good, right?

[Alliance]

Not if it overpowers the rest of the city.

[Dr. Taco]

sorry, but, what do you mean by "overpower"? visually? because unless the buildings and architecture are too in-your-face, I don't see how LSE could be overpowering except by popular decision

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

oops...yes, I of course meant 600 N Fairbanks.....so, does any one know how the operables were integrated? are they only located in the balcony setbacks?...or are they somehow integrated into a seemingly seemless curtain wall?

I got a shot of them last time I was downtown. They're a pretty slick integration into the curtain wall.

[wrab]

^^^The fit & finish on this one are superb.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I got a shot of them last time I was downtown. They're a pretty slick integration into the curtain wall.

Thanks...I can see now why I missed them!

[Mr Downtown]

Too bad Helmut never gets to actually use curved glass. The little curved-mullions trick he used at Citigroup Center fools you from some angles, but I wish someone would let him build a curved wall that actually curves.

[honte]

^ I had the same complaint. I almost wish the lights were narrower, so that the faceted curve were a closer match.